Section_L-M_Draft.pdf

Factor Subfactor Section L – What Offeror Must Address Section M – What Government Will Evaluate SOW Reference Specs Reference

Technical Approach Interoperability

Architecture

The offeror shall describe its proposed end-to-end interoperability architecture that enables the required collective mission training at Al Qassim and preserves future interoperability options for the UH-60M FTD at KKMC in support of the

SOW and SPEC requirements. The offeror shall provide sufficient supporting configuration information, such as a summary bill of material or equivalent configuration matrix, to describe the extent of common hardware, support equipment, and major configuration elements across the applicable devices and sites. The offeror shall provide up to two prior effort examples demonstrating successful execution of similar efforts involving systems with comparable military fidelity on similar aircraft.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a complete, technically credible, and executable interoperability architecture for the required delivered collective training environment at Al

Qassim and a sound common external interface baseline that preserves future interoperability options for the UH-60M FTD at KKMC, including future relocation or local federation options in support of the SOW and SPEC requirements. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the supporting configuration information substantiates the offeror’s proposed approach extent for common hardware, support equipment, and major configuration elements across the applicable devices and sites. The Government will evaluate the relevance of the up to two prior effort examples in demonstrating successful execution of similar efforts involving systems with comparable military fidelity on similar aircraft.

1; 3.1.5; 3.3.2; 3.3.3;

3.3.4

Interop 3.1.5, 3.1.6, 3.3.5–3.3.8, 3.4.1–3.4.5; CH-47F

3.1.4; UH-60M 3.1.4,

3.18.1–3.18.2

Technical Approach Meeting Fidelity

Requirements

The offeror shall describe its proposed technical approach and processes for the software models and hardware/device fidelity necessary to achieve the required individual and collective training capability, including the extent to which the proposed solution will satisfy applicable fidelity-related requirements in support of the SOW and SPEC requirements. The offeror shall provide up to two prior effort examples demonstrating successful execution of similar efforts involving systems with comparable military fidelity on similar aircraft.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a credible and technically mature approach to achieving the required individual and collective training capability and associated fidelity requirements through the proposed software models and device fidelity approach in support of the

SOW and SPEC requirements. The Government will evaluate the relevance of the up to two prior effort examples in demonstrating successful execution of similar efforts involving systems with comparable military fidelity on similar aircraft.

1; 3.3.5; 3.3.6 CH-47F 3.1.1, 3.1.3,

3.3–3.7, 3.11–3.13;

UH-60M 3.1.1, 3.1.3,

3.3–3.7, 3.11

Technical Approach Development Approach The Offeror shall describe its proposed development and execution approach for delivering the training capability, including implementation and verification of interoperability, software development methodology, integration with the

Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), alignment to key milestones, and management of required data, interfaces, dependencies, and development risk in support of the SOW and SPEC requirements. The offeror shall provide up to two prior effort examples demonstrating successful execution of similar development, integration, and delivery efforts involving systems with comparable military fidelity on similar aircraft.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a realistic, credible, and executable development approach for delivering the required training capability, including implementation and verification of interoperability, software development approach, integration with the IMS, alignment to key milestones, and management of required data, interfaces, dependencies, and execution risk in support of the SOW and SPEC requirements. The Government will evaluate the relevance of the up to two prior effort examples in demonstrating successful execution of similar development, integration, and delivery efforts involving systems with comparable military fidelity on similar aircraft.

3.1.1; 3.1.4; 3.1.8;

3.2.4–3.2.7; 3.3.2;

3.3.5; 3.3.6;

3.4.6–3.4.8

Interop 4.2, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2–4.4.4; CH-

47F 4.3.18; UH-60M

verification sections as applicable

Technical Approach Site Resilience The offeror shall describe its proposed approach for site resilience of the Flight

Training Devices (FTDs), including the features, supporting equipment, and configuration approach necessary to sustain reliable operation at the proposed sites in support of the SOW and SPEC requirements. The offeror shall provide up to two prior effort examples demonstrating successful execution of similar efforts involving systems with comparable military fidelity on similar aircraft.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a credible and integrated approach for hardware architecture and site resilience of the FTDs, including the extent of common hardware, support equipment, and major configuration elements across both devices in support of the SOW and SPEC requirements. The Government will evaluate the relevance of the up to two prior effort examples in demonstrating successful execution of similar efforts involving systems with comparable military fidelity on similar aircraft.

1; 3.3.4; 3.4.9; 3.5.1 CH-47F 3.8.2, 3.9.4,

3.9.4.1; UH-60M

3.9.4.1

Program Management &

Execution

OEM Data Access The offeror shall describe its approach for data acquisition and data concurrency in regard to the OEM technical data, interface data, licenses, and permissions required to execute, support and sustain the program, interoperability and the common external interface baseline in support of the

SOW and SPEC requirements. The offeror shall provide supporting evidence, such as agreements, licenses, letters of commitment, or similar documentation to support management of the offeror’s technical approach, as applicable. The offeror shall provide up to two prior effort examples demonstrating successful execution of similar efforts.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a credible and realistic plan for data acquisition and data concurrency in regard to the OEM technical data, interface data, licenses, and permissions required to execute and support the program, interoperability and the common external interface baseline in support of the SOW and SPEC requirements. The

Government will evaluate the relevance of the up to two prior effort examples in demonstrating successful execution of similar efforts.

3.1.4, 3.3.3 Interop Specs: 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.6, 3.2.7

Program Management &

Execution

Staffing Approach The offeror shall describe its approach for integrating OEMs, subcontractors, teaming partners, and ACA partners into execution, including tasks assigned to each major partner in support of the SOW and SPEC requirements. The offeror shall address staffing of core development and program-leadership roles, continuity, decision authority, and partner support to those roles in support of

SOW and SPEC requirements. The offeror shall provide up to two prior effort examples demonstrating successful execution of similar efforts.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a realistic approach for integrating the OEMs, subcontractors, teaming partners, and ACA partners into execution and staffing core leadership roles, including clarity of task assignments, staffing approach, continuity, decision authority and partner support roles in support of the SOW and SPEC requirements. The

Government will evaluate the relevance of the up to two prior effort examples in demonstrating successful execution of similar efforts.

3.1.1, 3.1.4, 3.1.9, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.3, 3.5.7, Appendix A

N/A

Program Management &

Execution

Intellectual Property (IP) &

Licensing Strategy

The offeror shall describe its programmatic Intellectual Property and licensing strategy that will enable the Government and customer to operate, maintain, support, modify, and upgrade the FTDs throughout the lifecycle, including the offeror’s approach to third-party and OEM-licensed software in support of the

SOW and SPEC requirements. The offeror shall provide up to two prior effort examples demonstrating successful execution of similar efforts.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed strategy for programmatic

Intellectual Property and licensing that supports lifecycle operation, maintenance, support, modification, and upgrade of the FTDs, including the intended handling of third-party and OEM-licensed software in support of the

SOW and SPEC requirements. The Government will evaluate the relevance of the up to two prior effort examples in demonstrating successful execution of similar efforts.

3.3.5 N/A

Small Business Participation

Cost/Price

Past Performance