Final_RFP_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

Question # Reference Question Question Response

1 Solicitation W58RGZ-17-R-0043, section L-12, I-24, I-26

Can the following clauses be removed from the solicitation as they pertain to the submittal of certified cost and pricing data, which is prohibited in this competitive procurement by the FAR?

L-12 252.215-7009 Proposal Adequacy Checklist I-24 52.215-10 Price Reduction for defective cost and pricing data

I-26 52.215-12 SUBCONTRACTOR CERTIFIED COST OR

PRICING DATA

Update will be made to RFP via amendment to remove these clauses.

2 Solicitation W58RGZ-17-R-0043 SOW and Schedule B,

1) Section A-3 does not include CLIN 0001AC

2) There are discrepancies between SOW and Schedule B:

• CLIN 0006 SOW Ref is 8.5.2, 8.5.2.1 and 8.5.1.6; there is not a 8.5.2 or 8.5.2.1 listed in the SOW

• CLIN 0008 Contractor Manpower Reporting SOW ref is 12.1, 12.1.1, 12.1.2; there is not a 12.1.1 or 12.1.2 listed in the SOW

Can the government correct the discrepancies or provide clarification on the above?

Update will be made to RFP via amendment to correct discrencies to A-3 and between CLINs and SOW.

3 Solicitation W58RGZ-17-R-0043, attachment 0018

In Attachment 0018, Section (2), it states, “In addition, large business concerns shall submit information sub-stantiating the offerors’ past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-9 “Small Business Subcontracting Plan.”

What type of documentation would be acceptable to substantiate past performance compliance with FAR 52.219-9?

Examples of documentation that can be submitted is at least the last three year's eSRS information showing the offeror has met their self imposed small business socio-economic goals, at least the last three years of CPARS information that states who their subcontractor's were and how well their managed, and a list of subcontractors (CAGE Code, Contract Number, etc) who performed on like/similar work effort who may be contacted to substantiate overall performance levels, payment to the subcontractor, and how they were managed by the Offeror.

Common Helmet Mounted Display (CHMD) Final Request for Proposal (RFP)

Solicitation Number: W58RGZ‐17‐R‐0043

4 Solicitation W58RGZ-17-R- 0043,Item specification AVNS-

DTL-10868C

Section 3.1.2.2 states: “The frangible components shall not come in contact with the wearer’s forehead, eye sockets, or facial regions during separation.”

Section 4.1.2.2 states: “Verification of requirement 3.1.2.2 shall be by test in a lab environment in accordance with the procedures identified in USAARL Report 98-22.”

The USAARL Report 98-22, “Optical and Biodynamic Evaluation of the Helmet Integrated Display Sight System (HIDSS) for the RAH-66 Comanche Development and Validation Program Phase”, dated March 1998, does not address any procedures for evaluating the contact of frangible components during separation.

How does the government intend to verify compliance to this specific requirement?

The spec will be updated to ensure that paragraph 4.1.2.2 will address the "not coming in contact with wearer's forehead, eye sockets of facial region". Final verbiage hasn't been written yet, but it will be similar to:

Verification of this requirement shall be by test A non-functioning, but weight representative CHMD shall be mounted to an RWH HGU-56/P helmet and fitted to a calibrated headform/neck on the USAARL mini-sled. Witness chalk shall be applied to the CHMD. A weighted pendulum will strike the mini-sled, simulating a crash event. The headform will be orientated on the mini-sled in what is deemed the worst case condition by the USAARL technicians based on the design of the CHMD and mounting system. After impact, the headform will be examined for evidence of chalk residue in the facial region.

5 Solicitation W58RGZ-17-R-0043 Regarding evidence of compliance information structure in the RFP response. It is understood that the proposals submitted in response to this solicitation will be separated into sections for the purpose of evaluation. To maintain a clear link between a statement in a proposal volume and the substantiating data we intend to use hyperlinks in addition to the specific section reference when pointing the reviewer to the evidence of compliance.

This means the Compliance Matrix in Volume I shall have hyperlinks to this substantiating data in an appendix and each volume may have an appendix that contains the evidence of compliance that would not count as page counts in the actual volume.

Is this approach acceptable?

The offeror shall provide two complete copies of substantiating data to include test reports with raw data and analysis. The offerer shall also provide electronic copies (CD or DVD) of this information. The test reports and analysis information shall be excluded from the page count requirement for the Technical/System Performance Volume; however, the Compliance Matrix in Volume I shall link to this substantiating data. Hyperlinks within this section on electronic copies (CD or DVD) and specific section reference on hard copies is an acceptable approach for showing where substaintiating data is located.

6 Attachment_0001_CHMD_Specifi cation_AVNS-DTL-10868B, page 9, Par 3.3.4

The CHMD specification states, “The CHMD shall have a field of view, at a physical eye relief of 25mm, equal to or greater than 22.5° vertical by 30° horizontal with 37.5° diagonals [T];

30° vertical by 40° horizontal with 50° diagonals [O]. The FOV horizontal, vertical, and diagonal requirements are as seen by the pilot's eye as shown in figure 5.”

1. Will the US government give vendors credit for meeting the numerical field of view (FOV) described in the specification though in operational usage mounted on a helmet, areas of the physical display are unusable to the operator due to cropping or size reductions to accommodate the rotation of the display, or the mounting of the display? (See amended figure 5 below for the question illustration)

2. If “Yes” to the above, how can the government justify giving credit for an unusable field of view?

3. If “No” to the above, how does the government intend to measure and validate the effective operational FOV of each vendors’ display prior to award?

1. Yes, the government will give the offeror credit for meeting the numerical FOV described in the specification which is a rectangle FOV . The rectangle should be presented to the eye (as shown in the illustration) such that the vertical side of the rectangle is vertical and the horizongal side of the rectange is horizontal. The government requires a rectangular FOV to be presented to the pilots eye so as not to present a false horizon line to the pilot. In the example shown in the illustration, the governement will evaluate the dimensions of the inner green rectangle.

2. The government is not giving credit for unuseable FOV.

3. Offeror's FOV will be evaluated based on the equations identified in paragraph 4.3.4 of the specification. These equations penalize unuseable FOV, such as clipped corners or if the display is rotated which limits usueable FOV.

7 Solicitation W58RGZ-17-R-0043, page 31, 8.4 (U) Training Support

The solicitation states, “The contractor shall provide up to 2 contractor personnel, for up to 2 weeks, in Huntsville, Alabama for training of PM Air Warrior personnel for the CHMD system.”

There appears to be no CDRL for any development of training materials.

Is the training support going to be hands-on training only or will it be a combination of classroom and hands-on training?

The training will be hands on training to PM AW personnel.

The offeror may provide classroom materials or slides to assist them with the hands on training, but there is no hard requirement for it.

8 Solicitation W58RGZ-17-R-0043 1. Is it possible to not have the image rotated to 20.9 degrees (defined in A.2.3.1.2)? We can electronically "unroll" it, but it would provide for a lower latency (for anyone responding to this RFP) for the image to not be rolled in the first place.

Yes, it is possible to eliminate the 20.9 degree roll, but not before source selection. If selected as the winner, PM AW will take action to eliminate the roll. Offereors will not be penalized for increased latency during the source selection process if they have to adjust for the 20.9 degree roll.

9 Solicitation W58RGZ-17-R-0043 2. Regarding the image +/-15 degree rotation:

a. What is the purpose of the +/-15 degree rotation controlled via the FMS?

b. What are the rotation increments?

c. How is the desired rotation angle to be communicated to the

CHMD?

a. Allow pilots to make fine adjustments to the image based on how the helmet is fitted to their head (ie: in case the pilot wears his helmet tilted).

b. 1 degree increments.

c. The ASDC will rotate the image and feed it to the CHMD through the CDIU. The CHMD does not have to do the +- 15 degree rotation. That is done by the ASDC.

10 Solicitation W58RGZ-17-R-0043 3. Night Mode: Would it be acceptable to modify the NVG by moving one channel slightly forward, by providing a modification kit as part of the deliverable system?

Without seeing the design, it is difficult to say.

The offeror will still have to meet all the ANVIS compatibility requirements as defined in the spec.

11 Solicitation W58RGZ-17-R-0043 4. How do we request a large size HGU-56/P RWH for "mounting the offerors proposed product sample", in accordance with RFP 2.0 Volume I

TECHNICAL/SYSTEM

PERFORMANCE FACTOR, Subfactor 2) Systems Integration and Test, item b?

E-mail request to the KO, Chris Williams at christopher.b.williams94.civ@mail.mil

12 Solicitation W58RGZ-17-R-0043 5. Is a CAD file of the RWH available? No

13 Section L, 6.0, Section 7.0 ii. and Attachment 18 Small Business Participation Plan

Section L, 6.0 requires that the Small Business Participation Plan be provided IAW Attachment 18, Small Business Participation Plan Format. Attachment 18, Section (3) requires that the Contractor include its Small Business Subcontracting Plan in Volume V, Small Business Factor. In addition, Section L, 7.0 ii. Requires that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan be included in Volume VI, Administrative Matters.

Please confirm that the Government wants the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be included in both Volumes V and VI.

Update will be made to RFP via amendment to remove the requirement to provide the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in Volume VI, Administrative Matters. The offeror will only be required to provide the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in Volume V, Small Business Factor.