HUEY_II_FTD__Industry_Q_and_A_to_Solicitation_W900KK-18-R-0047.pdf

1. In the SOW No. 2018‐015, Page 5 of 19, the last item of the table lists "Cockpit Configuration

Pictures" and then shows those as "N/A" and I can't find any in any of the documentation provided. Are there cockpit configuration pictures somewhere to be provided to industry?

Answer: Those documents are not releasable and the SOW is being updated to delete those documents from reference. Cockpit configuration is finalized at Configuration Review (CR), as outlined in the SOW Appendix A – Event Entrance and Exit Criteria.

2. In the Sources Sought Notice W900KKFMSHUEYII ‐ Amendment 2, the Government lists the device budget as $2.5M. Does this budget account for both CLIN 0001 (Kenya) device and CLIN

006 (Uganda) optional device, or is this budget just depicting CLIN 001?

Answer: The funding profile outlined in the initial Sources Sought Notice is for the Kenya effort only (CLIN 0001). Uganda has additional identical funding profile as shown below.

Kenya: Device Spares Training CLS Huey II FTD $2.5M $100k $200k $400k

Uganda: Device Spares Training CLS Huey II FTD $2.5M $100k $200k $400k

3. Could you please provide an estimate when the Government projects releasing the answers to industry's solicitation questions for the Huey? Given the timeline, will the RFP response due date be able to slide to the right by one week?

Answer: The answers to industry solicitation questions are hereby provided. Due to the delay in providing a timely response, the proposal due date has been extended to NLT 12 July 2018, by

Noon, EST.

4. The FAR Clause 52.232‐32, Performance Based Payments, is not included in the RFP, nor is any other contract clause regarding contract financing. Since this is a Small Business Set‐Aside, may the Offeror propose milestone payments for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0006 and 0007? Alternatively, can these be negotiated after contract award?

Answer: In the event the Government determines Performance Based Payments are necessary, it will be negotiated after contract award. Offerors may propose any contract finance provisions authorized under FAR Part 32 as deem necessary in the fulfillment of their contractual obligation. All requested contract financing will be negotiated after contract award.

5. Please provide Option exercise period for all Option CLINs, 0006 through 0010.

Answer: Option has been removed from CLINs 0006 thru 0010 and Period of Performance and

Delivery dates have been added. Delivery date for the Uganda FTD is 18 months after contract award.

6. We have a number of questions regarding Inspection, Acceptance and Delivery:

CLINs 0001 and 0006 cite Inspection at Origin and FOB Origin. Yet SOW 3.7.4 calls for a Site

Acceptance Test.

a. Is the Acceptance of each CLIN to be at Contractor's facility after FAT per SOW 3.7.3 or at Destination at the training facility in Kenya (and Uganda) after SAT?

Answer: The Government will perform Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) and spare parts inventory at Contractor’s facility prior to shipping. The Government will perform Site

Acceptance Test (SAT) and spare parts inventory on Site to verify system is Ready for

Training (RFT).

b. Delivery for CLINs 0001, 0006 is 12 months after contract award per page 8 of the RFP.

Is the 12 months after FAT or SAT? If after SAT, what is the Government time frame from Delivery by Contractor to the Defense Transportation System consolidation point

(SOW 3.5) to the Installation sites (Kenya and Uganda)?

Answer: The 12 months delivery after contract award is at Factory Acceptance Test

(FAT) and the systems are deemed ready for shipping.

7. We have a number of questions regarding Training:

CLINs 0003 and 0008 as written include Pilot Training (SOW 3.8.1); Operator Training (SOW

3.8.2) and Maintainer Training (SOW 3.8.3):

a. The CLINs each call for Quantity 3. It is assumed that the Quantity refers to 1 EA of each type of training, Pilot, Operator and Maintainer. Yet the training for each is very different, and the prices for each Course is different. Suggest the three types of training be divided into separate CLINs or SubCLINs.

Answer: The Quantity is one (1) each (1 Pilot, 1 Operator, 1 Maintainer) for a total quantity of three (3). The Solicitation has been updated to include SubCLINs for each training course required.

b. In the middle of SOW 3.8.1 (Pilot Training) there are two sentences (Lines 6 to 8) which appear to more properly belong in SOW 3.8.2 for Operator Training.

Answer: Pilot training include FTD familiarization to properly exercise normal and abnormal conditions.

c. There is no minimum requirement in SOW 3.8.1 for the number of FTD hours per pilot or Classroom hours for the Training. May the Contractor propose its standard Huey II pilot training program for Huey II pilots or does the Government have a standard protocol that it wants implemented?

Answer: Contractor may propose its standard Huey II pilot training program for Huey II pilots.

d. RFP pages 7 and 8 call for CLINs 0003 and 0008 to be inspected and accepted at

Destination. Yet for the Pilot Training, the SOW Section 3.8.1 calls for the training to take place at Contractor's facility, impliedly after FAT. The Operator and Maintainer courses are to take place in Kenya and Uganda, respectively. Please clarify. Suggest, as with comment a. above, that each Course be separated into 3 CLINs or SubCLINs to resolve this issue.

Answer: Solicitation has been updated to include SubCLINs on CLINs 0003 and 0008.

Contractor will provide Operator and Maintainer courses at each country site. Pilot training will commence after the Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) and when all Deficiency

Reports (DRs) Level 1 and 2 have been corrected. Pilot training is outside the 12 month delivery requirement.

e. Regarding the Pilot Training at Contractor's facility: Is the time required for this Training included in the 12 month delivery requirement for CLINs 0001 and 0006? (Please also refer to our Question/Comment #3)

Answer: Pilot training will commence after the Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) and when all Deficiency Reports (DRs) Level 1 and 2 have been corrected. Pilot training is outside the 12 month delivery requirement.

8. We have the following questions regarding the RFP Proposal requirements and evaluation:

a. The RFP attachment states Proposals shall be submitted via email. Please confirm that no hard copy submission is required.

Answer: As stated in the RFP Attachment “All proposals must be received via email.” No hard copy submissions are required.

b. Shall the Price Volume and the Technical Evaluation Checklist be submitted as a single file; or as separate files?

Answer: The Price Volume and the Technical Evacuation Checklist shall be submitted as separate files.

c. Assume Offerors may submit additional material regarding its Proposed offering attached to the Checklist, per FAR 52.212 (b)(4). Please confirm.

Answer: It is unclear which “checklist” and “FAR 52.212(b)(4)” you are referring to.

Assuming this question is referring to the Technical Evaluation Checklist, there should be nothing added to the Technical Evaluation Checklist other than the offeror advising of their proposal reference to meet the requirement.

d. Shall the Price Volume also include the information required per Item 5) of the Proposal

Submission instructions as well as the other items {other than (b)(4)}required by Section

(b) of FAR 52.212‐1? If not, shall all these go into a third Volume which we can call

Administrative Information?

Answer: Yes, the price volume shall include the information required per RFP Item 5.

e. The Basis for Award per the RFP attachment is LPTA. Also included in the RFP is FAR

52.212‐2, which permits at (a), a Best Value approach. Since the FTD specified by the

SOW is a complex Huey II specific device, and offerors may propose Devices that far exceed the minimum technical requirements which are highly desirable to the end users, we suggest that the Evaluation be based upon a Best Value approach, as permitted by the relevant FAR clause.

Answer: As stated in the RFP Attachment under Basis of Award and the Solicitation FAR

Clause 52.212‐2, the Acquisition Strategy for this effort has been determined to be

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA). The contracting officer has ensured that all requirements of FAR 52.212‐2 have been met. This requirement is in fulfillment of the existing pseudo Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA), not based on the desires of the end user.

9. Applicable Documents: We recommend the following item be added to the applicable documents:

BHT PUB‐92‐004‐10 (OPERATOR'S MANUAL BELL MODEL UH‐1 H‐11 HELICOPTER)

We note that the simulation in the FTD must be Huey II specific per the System Specification

(Appendix B to the SOW) and therefore the contract must have a reference baseline.

ANSWER: These documents are not releasable and the SOW is being updated to delete those documents from reference. Cockpit configuration will be finalized at Configuration Review (CR), as outlined in the SOW Appendix A – Event Entrance and Exit Criteria.

10. The System Specification (SOW Appendix B) requires the contractor to provide a "flight model derived from class of helicopter…." and "validated against the class of helicopter data package".

Since it also requires:

a. "the proper effect of aerodynamic changes for the combinations of drag and thrust normally encountered in flight", including "the effect of change in helicopter attitude, thrust, drag, altitude, temperature and configuration"; and

b. "the proper effect of aerodynamic changes for changes in gross weight and center of gravity" and

c. The FTD to provide the capability for training in the (Huey II) operational procedures to support:

- Preflight Procedures

- Takeoff and Departure

- Climb

- In‐flight maneuvers

- Instrument Procedures

- Landings and Approaches (IFR and VFR)

- Normal and Abnormal Procedures

- Emergency Procedures

We therefore conclude that the definition of "class of helicopter" means the Huey II Class, as otherwise the training to accomplish all the cited requirements would be not only less relevant and specific to the baseline Kenya Huey II aircraft, but also provide negative training to the

Kenyan Air Force pilots. Please confirm.

ANSWER: Government confirms class of helicopter is the Huey II Class. Government will not provide actual flight data.

11. Are the “Cockpit Configuration Pictures” and “53rd Squadron UH‐1H Pilots Checklist” mentioned on page 5 of the SOW available?

Answer: These documents are not releasable and the SOW is being updated to delete those documents from reference. Cockpit configuration will be finalized at Configuration Review (CR), as outlined in the SOW Appendix A – Event Entrance and Exit Criteria.

12. Are there any information Assurance Requirements such as DIACAP for this project? Do the computers require Windows 10 AGM?

Answer: There are no information Assurance Requirements for this procurement. Contractor will observe ITAR guidelines.

13. Is the resolution specified as 5 arc‐minute per pixel resolution, or is it 5 arc‐minutes per Optical

Line Pair (OLP) resolution?

Answer: As stated in the Technical Evaluation Checklist, the visual system must provide for a minimum resolution of 5 arc‐minutes for both computed and displayed pixel size.

14. If no cockpit configuration images can be provided, which configuration of the UH‐1 will be acceptable?

Answer: These documents are not releasable and the SOW is being updated to delete these documents from reference. Huey II Cockpit configuration will be finalized at Configuration

Review (CR), as outlined in the SOW Appendix A – Event Entrance and Exit Criteria.