Amendment_0002_-_Consolidated_Questions_and_Answers_20180110.pdf

1. Reference – Yuma Industry Day – Q&A - Answer 6

Question: 1a. The information provided for power and video connections is not clear. With respect to the statement: “A.6 The (AV) J10 connector is a Panel Mount multi-pin connector P/N 805-003-02M23-200BA. The mating connector P/N is 805-001-16M23-200AA.” Is this connector pictured in any of the provided photos? We have found a datasheet on this part number and it looks like the image below. This does not match any connectors seen during the inspection.

Answer: No, the connector was not available or photographed during Industry Day; the image provided is accurate.

1b. With respect to this statement about the HD encoder: “HD Encoder (AV) J1 P/N 805- 00302M9-1BB is located adjacent to J10 for HD video input. The mating connector is P/N 805- 002-16M9-1AB.” Is this statement for bidders? Do we need do anything with the encoder other than provide it video in HD-SDI format in a BNC connector?

Answer: Yes this statement is for Offerors. No, only video in HD-SDI format in a BNC connector is required. J1 P/N has been updated to 805-003-02M9-1SB and is located adjacent to J10 for HD video input. The mating connector is P/N 805-002-16M9-1PB.

1c.This picture was provided in the data pack. Can some details be clarified: Is 110V AC power available at all the indicted outlet connectors? Are they all available for bidder’s use (apart from the monitor power cable already in use)?

Answer: Yes, all available (apart from the monitor power cable already in use).

1d. Connectors A and B were labelled as ‘Aircraft power’. Is power being provided from any of these sources?

Answer: Connectors A and B will NOT be available to bidders.

1e.Is connector C a source of power?

Answer: Connector C is for power and will be for Offerors use, see response to 1f below.

1f. Is an ICD, with signals/power allocated to specific pins, available?

Answer:

Connectors A (J1) and B (J2) on the Power Distribution Box (PDB) for both operator racks are primary power from the aircraft (Caution Aircraft Power picture) to system instrumentation and are not available for Offeror use. Each Offeror’s payload will be receiving power via the J10 Connector of the Shadow payload mount (external to the aircraft), which in turn will be connected to Connector C (J3) of the PDB (inside the aircraft) via a YPG-provided adapter cable. The aircraft side of J10 is PN 805-003-02M23- 200BA, which mates to PN 805-001-16M23-200AA. Offerors are required to provide connectivity between their payload and J10. If the Offeror requires an additional connector for power to their equipment, Connectors C (J4 and J5) will be available for their use. Mating Connector (vendor) P/N is MS3476W12-10P, pins A and C are 28 VDC, pins B and D are 28 VDC Return.

The 28V power out is on pins # 8, 10, 2, 4, & 6 and the returns are pins# 9, 11, 3, 5, &7.

2. Reference: Yuma Industry Day – Q&A – Answer 30 and Attachment 0006 Test Plan.

Please provide manufacturer name and model number for each of the three GPS Antennas mentioned in Table F-1 of the test plan.

ENET_A+

ENET_A-

ENET_B+

ENET_B-

Quadrax Pin

28V_PYLD_PWR

RTN28V_PYLD_PWR

28V_AUX_PWR

RTN28V_AUX_PWR

PYLD_ENA

ACE_TX+

ACE_TX-

ACE_RX+

ACE_RX-

GPS_TX+

GPS_TX-

GPS_RX+

GPS_RX-

AVID 30Coax Pin

TP

TP

TP

TP

RG179

Airborne Computer Equipment (ACE)

Power Distribution Unit (PDU)

SD Video Encoder

Ethernet Switch

U

V

C

J2

P15

Y

AA

P17

J4

P4

J2

P36

J5

TP

TP

+28VDC BUSS

15A

P14/J1-6

P1/J1-77

AV

J10

Quadrax Cable, Manuf: PIC

PN: E51424

Shield of PinShield of Pin

HD Video Encoder Coax

HD Encoder J1

Answer: Rear GPS antenna; manufacturer: Antcom; P/N: 4G15A-XT-1 LH & RH GPS antennas; manufacturer: AeroAntenna Technology Inc.; Standard model number: AT575-

32W-TNCF-000-RG-26-NM

3. Attachment 6 requires FAA Approved Class 3 Flight Physicals to ride in Yuma Cessna during demo's starting on 24 Jan. Will Foreign equivalent flight physicals be okay since this is a "recommended" requirement in attach 6?

Answer: Yes a foreign equivalent will be accepted. A flight physical is highly recommended as personnel will be preforming crew-like tasks on these flights.

4. Visitors are to provide JPAS Social Security Numbers for Demo attendance at Yuma. Will Foreigner's National ID # or Passport # suffice in place of Social Security #?

Answer: Yes, Passport number is preferred.

5. PHC will not release our Laser Safety Report for inclusion in the Demo Package due to the KO on 22 Dec, without the KO first directing PHC to release the Safety Report to us. Will the Government please direct PHC to release said report?

Answer: Please contact the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist for the release of the Safety Report and we will ensure to notify PHC.

6. Attach 6 requires a Foreign National Visit Request be sent to the Intel and Security Office 1-month before demo and that the KO will provide instructions. Where are we to send (address/email, etc) the Foreign National Visit Request to receive the proper clearance for Israel National visitors?

Answer: US Army Yuma Proving Ground

ATTN: Visitor Control Center 301 C Street Yuma, AZ 85365-9498

* Fax: (928) 328-7373 or DSN 899-7373

* E-mail: usarmy.ypg.atec.mbx.visitor-control@mail.mil Verification: (928) 328-7335/7337 or DSN 899-7335/7337.

* All visit requests must be signed for acceptance.

** NOTE: If visit includes a non-US citizen please utilize the following address:

US Army Yuma Proving Ground

ATTN: TEDT-YP-PLI

301 C Street Yuma, AZ 85365-9498 ** E-mail: usarmy.ypg.atec.mbx.intelligence-and-security-office@mail.mil ** Fax to the Intelligence & Security Office (928) 328-2459 or DSN 899-2459.

Verification (928) 328-4004 or DSN 899-4004

7. Will the Government allow for second tier subcontractors/suppliers to fulfill the offeror's SBPP subcontracting goals? RFP 68 of 77, Section L-15, Volume VI Small Business Participation Plan. Given the 5% SBP Goal and the Government's estimated program value of

$454M, offeror's should subcontract roughly $22.7M (based upon TEP) to Small Business.

Furthermore, a Major Subcontractor includes any team member performing critical hardware/services and/or 20% TEP. Critical hardware/services is further defined as any supplier of spare parts listed in Attachment 0008, FSR or training support. Given the PWS/PBS and scope of requirement, virtually any entity performing work, service, or support on the program that would total roughly $22.7M will be a major subcontractor. Is this the Government's intent?

Will the Government allow for second tier subcontractors/suppliers to fulfill the offeror's SBPP subcontracting goals?

Answer: Second tier and below subcontractors cannot be used to fulfill the stated small business goals. Further, per the evaluation criteria, “to receive a rating of Acceptable, an Offerors Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) must demonstrate a feasible approach in meeting the aforementioned small business goals or provide a detailed explanation as to why any of the specific goals cannot be achieved”.

The definition of a Major Subcontractor is not related to the Small Business Participation Plan evaluation factor but rather the Past Performance Factor. The definition is for purpose of defining which subcontractors are required to provide past performance information. These are two independent evaluation factors.

8. PWS, page 9, Program Management Support. “3.1.7.1 Contract Work Breakdown Structure.

The contractor shall utilize the data in Appendix A, of this PWS, CWBS shown on the Contract Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Plan.” There is no Appendix A within the PWS to proceed the Appendix B that is included. Will the Government please provide the missing Appendix A to the PWS?

Answer: The Government has revised PWS Paragraph 3.1.7.1 Contract Work Breakdown Structure to read as follows, “The Contractor shall prepare and deliver a Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) IAW CDRL B008. The Contractor shall systematically collect and report actual contract costs to provide Government cost analysts with data needed to estimate future costs.” In addition, the Government has revised CDRL B008 Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) Block 16 to read “Contractor is required to be in compliance with the structure defined in the PWS.” See amendment 0002.

9. PWS, page 15-16, 3.4 Integration. “3.4.2 Platform Integration Support - Contractor shall provide support to meetings with platform integrator, to include Program Kickoff, Systems Requirements Review (SRR), Systems Functional Review (SFR), Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Review (CDR). ...The Government anticipates these meetings collectively require 15 business days, to include travel.” The contractor assumes the intent is for each meeting, to include travel, to be 3 business days in duration, which would confict with program meeting durations identified in Attachment 0007. Will the Government please clarify the collective 15 business day requirement and deconflict this with the duration/activities noted in Attachment 0007? Does the Government's intent include one day of travel to the meeting venue, one day meeting and one day of travel to return?

Answer: The contractor’s assumption for the allocated 15 business days is correct. Each meeting will be one day in length with a travel day before and after the meeting. The purpose of Attachment 0007 is to allow the Government to assess an Offeror’s degree of compatibility between the proposed payload and the Shadow TUAV platform to the extent that this compatibility promotes accelerated fielding by reducing or eliminating integration events. The tasks referenced in Attachment 0007are separate and distinct from the meetings referenced in PWS section 3.4.2, Platform Integration Support, therefore there is no conflict between the two requirements.

10. RFP 2, 3, 4, 7, & 11 of 77, Executive Summary, Section A and Schedule B CLINs.

Executive Summary, Paragraph 6 (Page 2), Section A, paragraph 5 (Page 3) & Schedule B CLIN 0001 (Page 4), 0007 (Page 7), and 0020 (Page 11). “At the time of contract award, the Government will issue Delivery Order 0001 for the purchase of 11 First Article Test Units (FAT) and associated FAT and Qualification tests (CLIN 0001, CLIN 0007, CLIN 0020). This amount will satisfy the Government's contractual guaranteed minimum order requirement under this contract.” Will the Government please clarify what "qualification tests" are to be priced as Schedule B CLIN 0001 (payload), CLIN 0007 (post award meeting), and CLIN 0020 (integrated product support) do not align to any test requirements? Will the Government also please re-synchronize and align Schedule B to match Attachment 0008 (and vice versa) as multiple CLINs do not align between these files, starting at CLIN 0011. In some cases CLINs do not exist on both files (Attachment 0008 identifies CLINs thru 0038 while Schedule B stops at CLIN 0035).

Answer: The Government has synchronized the CLIN structure in Section B of the RFP to match the CLIN structure within Attachment 0008. See amendment 0002.

11. RFP 11 of 77, Schedule B CLINs and Attach 0008. Schedule B, CLIN 0020 (integrated product support) & Attachment 0008, Year 1-10 Tabs, CLIN 0020 (First Article Test) and CLIN 0022 (Integrated Product Support). According to Schedule B, CLIN 0020 aligns to Integrated Product Support) while Attachment 0008, Pricing Model aligns CLIN 0020 to First Article Test) and CLIN 0022 as Integrated Product Support). Will the Government please clarify and align Schedule B CLINs lines to Attachment 0008 CLIN Lines and revise Paragraph 6 of Section A to the RFP if needed?

Answer: The Government has synchronized the CLIN structure in Section B of the RFP to match the CLIN structure within Attachment 0008. See Amendment 0002

12. RFP 3 of 77, Section A. Executive Summary, Paragraph 9. “9. Any questions regarding the solicitation shall be provided to the Contracting Officer Ms. Patricia Davis at jean.p.davis2.civ@mail.mil with a carbon copy to Ms. Tamara Jenkins at tamara.n.jenkins.civ@mail.mil no later than 22 December 2017. All questions will be answered prior to the closing date of 8 January 2018.” Will the Government please clarify that the closing date is 18 Jan vice 8 Jan?

Answer: Paragraph 9 to the executive summary is corrected in Amendment 0002 to the RFP to read: “9. Any questions regarding the solicitation shall be provided to the Contracting Officer Ms. Patricia Davis at jean.p.davis2.civ@mail.mil with a carbon copy to Ms. Tamara Jenkins at tamara.n.jenkins.civ@mail.mil no later than 22 December 2017. All questions will be answered prior to the closing date of 31 January 2018.”

13. Attachment 0008, Pricing Model, Yearly TABs 2, 3, 4 & 10, Zero quantities noted under Yearly TABs for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 1001. Please verify that Offerors should NOT provide any unit pricing for payloads CLIN 0001 under Years 2, 3, 4 & CLIN 1001 under Year 10 TABs in Attachment 0008?

Answer: Offeror’s are required to provide unit pricing for payloads for each of the contract years to include CLIN 0001 Years 2, 3, 4 and CLIN 1001 Year 10 TABs in Attachment 0008.

14. RFP 36 of 77, Section F, Section F-8, Paragraph (d). “(d) Data syntax and standards. The Contractor shall encode an approved RFID tag using the instructions provided in the EPC\TM\ Tag Data Standards in effect at the time of contract award. The EPC\TM\ Tag Data Standards are available at.” Will the Government please clarify where the contractor is to find the EPC/TM/Tag Data Standards as the information is missing from the end of the sentence?

Answer: DFARS Clause 52.211-7006, Passive Radio Frequency Identification is corrected in Amendment 0002 to the RFP.

15. RFP 36 of 77, Section F. Section F-8, last sentence. (e) Advance shipment notice. “The Contractor shall use Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF), as required by DFARS 252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests, to electronically submit advance shipment notice(s) with the RFID tag ID(s) (specified in paragraph (d) of this clause) in advance of the shipment in accordance with the procedures at.” Will the Government please clarify where the contractor is to find the procedures identified by this paragraph as the information is missing from the end of the sentence?

Answer: DFARS Clause 52.211-7006, Passive Radio Frequency Identification is corrected in Amendment 0002 to the RFP.

16. RFP 37 of 77, Section G. Section G-1, paragraph (d). “(d) WAWF training. The Contractor should follow the training instructions of the WAWF Web-Based Training Course and use the Practice Training Site before submitting payment requests through WAWF. Both can be accessed by selecting the "Web Based Training" link on the WAWF home page at.” Will the Government please identify the link for Web Based Training on the WAWF home page as the information is missing from the end of the sentence?

Answer: Paragraphs (c) and (d) of DFARS Clause 252.232-7006 are corrected in Amendment 0002 to the RFP.

17. RFP 66 of 77, Section L-15, Volume III Price “The Offeror must price all travel costs using the standard CONUS per diem rate as identified in .“ Will the Government please identify which standard CONUS per diem rates should be used, e.g. GSA. DOS, etc?

Answer: The statement “The Offeror must price all travel costs using the standard CONUS per diem rate as identified in .” is clarified to read: “The Offeror must price all travel costs using the standard CONUS per diem rate as identified in https://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/142071” in Amendment 0002 to the RFP.

18. RFP 68 of 77, Section L-15, Volume VI - Small Business Participation Plan. “d) Offerors are reminded that proposed small business participation percentages will become enforceable, contractual requirements and will require periodic progress reporting to facilitate Government monitoring in the event of an award. Offerors are to propose monthly reporting for the requirements in Section L, subparagraphs a-c above (contractor format acceptable) in accordance with Section J, Exhibit B, CDRL B001, Small Business Participation.” Will the Government please clarify this requirements as Section J, Exhibit B and CDRL B001, Small Business Participation does not exist in this solicitation?

Answer: The statement: “Offerors are to propose monthly reporting for the requirements in Section L, subparagraphs a-c above (contractor format acceptable) in accordance with https://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/142071

Section J, Exhibit B, CDRL B001, Small Business Participation” is a carryover from a previous version. The statement has been deleted from Section L as part of Amendment 0002.

19. Attachment 0005 DD Form 254, Section 13. DD Form 254 refers to a DD Form 254 Block 13 Continuation Page. Will the Government please provide the missing continuation page?

Answer: Corrected DD254 to include continuation page and Appendix is provided with Amendment 0002 to the RFP.

20. Attachment 0004 Price Model, CLIN 0001, Payload lots. Section B CLIN 0001 (5-year base) identifies Payload requirements in terms of lots delivered in increments of 1-5, 6-10, 11- 20 and 21-100 which aligns with Attachment 0008 Pricing Model. The range of 21-100 payloads is a very large swing from the smaller lots. Consequently, the price build-up for 100 payloads could drive the distribution of costs so that a Task Order for only 22 payloads would be substantially lower per unit cost than say a Task Order for only 13 payloads based upon the distribution of costs over 100 unit vice 20 units. The risk to bidders would dictate pricing to account for a 22 unit bid within the 21-100 lot. Will the Government further slice lots so that the 21-100 quantities could be divided into small incremental lots of 21-40, 41-70, and 71-100, thus reducing the FFP risk and cost to the Government in the long-term economies of scale for a 10-year contract life?

Answer: The Price Model is Attachment 0008. To permit equitable distribution of payload cost, the Government has revised Section B CLIN 0001 (5-year base) and Attachment 0008, Price Model CLIN 0001, Payload Quantity. The 21-100 Payload Quantity grouping is revised as follows: 21-42, 43-70, and 71-100 quantities. No other changes applies.

21. Attachment 0004 Price Model, CLIN 0001, Payload Lots and Delivery Order Pricing. There is a lack of specificity in the solicitation with regard to the Government's intent for processing Delivery Orders (DO). For example, if delivery orders are individual and discrete, an order of 16 Payload units cannot be combined by an amendment to the DO to add 5 more units for a total of 21 so offerors are obligated to price them under the 21-100 Lot at what could be assumed more favorable terms/pricing than the 11-20 or 1-5 lots. If DOs are to be "stacked" in this manner, offerors should understand the Governments intent up front. Will the Government please describe the delivery order and delivery order amending process with regard to unit quantities and whether orders are to be discrete requirements or does the Government intend to "stack" DOs to obtain more favorable pricing that is locked in for 10 years?

Answer: The Price Model is Attachment 0008. It is the intent of the Army to purchase payload quantities through distinct delivery orders. New requirements will thus be awarded through additional delivery orders and not modifications to existing orders.

22. General Question. Although this is a new procurement without associated historical procurement information for payloads, will the Government provide their procurement history of shadow payloads, e.g. the # of replacement units historically per year due to crashes or loss of the Shadow Platforms during training/mission events?

Answer: No, this is a new procurement for a new Shadow Payload and the historical data on previously procured payloads is not available.

23. Attachment 6 requires FAA Approved Class 3 Flight Physicals to ride in Yuma Cessna during demo's starting on 24 Jan. Will foreign equivalent flight physicals be okay since this is a "recommended" requirement in attach 6?"

Answer: Yes a foreign equivalent will be accepted. A flight physical is highly recommended as personnel will be preforming crew-like tasks on these flights.

24. Solicitation SF33 Block 9, Section L (4) Volume IV Past Performance, c) Section 3 Subcontracts, Section M – 4.e. Small Business Participation Plan. Section L (4) Volume IV Past Performance, c) Section 3 Subcontracts: The additional classification of “Critical Hardware” creates a high potential requirement for all offerors to now solicit past performance data from more suppliers who were not previously categorized as a “subcontractor”. These companies may be on vacation for up to two weeks over the seasonal holidays (due to geography and religious demographics). Unlike existing subcontractors who have been able to work past performance data calls since the issuance of the draft RFP on 29 September.

Section M – 4.e. Small Business Participation Plan, Specific Goal assignment for the various types of small business is new evaluation metric since the draft solicitation. To allow for Offerors to be competitive and maximize SB percentages, additional time is required source SB suppliers in the specific categories being evaluated and establish enforceable commitments. Significant changes have been made to the instructions and evaluation criteria of the solicitation’s final release. These changes greatly affect the offeror’s ability to shape the proposal response to maximize its competitive position and provide its best value solution to the Government. We seek an extension of the due date from January 18 to March 2.

Answer: The submission date has been extended to 31 January 2018. See Amendment 0002.

25. Reference PBS Paragraph 3.6.2

PBS Paragraph 3.6.2, (R.B.196) requires that the total height of the payload shall not exceed

16.9 inches. PBS Paragraph 3.6.1, (R.B.192) requires mechanical interface compliance to ICD R70436-01231. Paragraph 3.1.3 of the latter document states that the height of the payload shall not exceed 15.0 inches.

Using Figure 4.0-1 of the ICD, please confirm our understanding of how the 15” values and 16.9” values are consistent. Our belief is that the 16.9” value allows for mechanical adaptors or other features that may be above the 15” max planar surface.

Answer: Response will be provide by close of business on 12 January 2018.

26. Reference: Response to Attachment 0007 question “The draft solicitation A-11 has been revised to reference Attachment 0006. It is currently anticipated that Demonstrations will be scheduled starting 24 January 2018. Each contractor will be scheduled for a specific week.

Demonstration weeks will be randomly assigned.”

Wednesday Jan 24th 2018 was given as the start of bid sample demonstrations. The Final solicitation states that demonstration slots start on the Monday of each calendar week and will be announced after the proposals are received. When is the earliest possible demonstration slot?

Answer: The earliest demonstration slots will begin no earlier than 12 February 2018.

27. Reference: CDRL D004 Inventory Reports, PWS 0022 (3.6.2.2) Inventory Reports and Cost Model Attachment 0008

CDRL and associated DiD indicates the frequency is quantity one, PWS implies consistent effort will be required where the costing model indicates D004 will be negotiated at the task order level.

Answer: The Government has revised CDRL D004, Block 10 to read “Annual” versus “ONE.” See Amendment 0002.

28. Reference: PWS 0018 (3.5.2) Test Readiness Review (TRR) and Cost Model Attachment

Given the pre-requisite reports (TRR being one such report) to be completed prior to the delivery of First Article Test units, it does not make sense to have this effort priced as a one-time event in every year of the program.

Answer: Payload upgrades and/or Engineering Change Proposals may require a supplemental FAT. Therefore, the TRR, should be priced yearly as required in the Price Model.

29. Reference: CDRL D008 and Attachment 0008 Cost Model

CDRL D008 states one delivery (with a review/approval and update cycle) based on first submission 120DADO. The Cost Model (Attachment 0008) identifies a quarterly submission, priced per year. Which is correct?

Answer: The Government has revised the Price Model, Attachment 0008 to require delivery of CDRL D008, Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) Implementation Plan to one submission in Year 1. The Price Model was also updated to remove requirement in Years 2-10.

30. Reference: PBS 3.11, PWS 3.6.7, AR-700-127

Will the performance outcomes/criteria (operational availability, MTBF, MTTR, RTAT) identified in the PWS and PBS be developed into a Performance Based Agreement as described by AR700-127? Is there a timetable for implementation?

Answer: Currently, the Government anticipates developing a Performance Based Agreement (PBA) IAW AR 700-127. The PBA timeframe is To Be Determined..

31. Reference: PWS 3.6.1.1

Can the draft RFP details be used to register with LOGSA for access to COMPASS (and PowerLOGJ) software?

Answer: No. Upon contract award, the Contractor shall use the Government approved model, Customized Optimization Model for Predicting and Analyzing Support Structure (COMPASS) and submit a Level of Repair Analysis (LORA) Input Data IAW CDRL D001.

32. Reference: PWS 3.6.7.1.2.1, 3.6.7.2.2, CDRL D019, Attachment 0008

CDRL D019 (linked to PWS 3.6.7.1.2.1) requires one delivery (with revisions) of Technical Manuals 180 DADO (330 DADO final), which is aligned with Attachment 0008 showing delivery of qty 1 in Year 1.

Attachment 8 also shows Validation/Verification (3.6.7.2.2) none in Year 1 but annual events Years 2 thru 10.

Please confirm if the validation/verification of TM referenced by 3.6.7.1.2.1 is the same event described at 3.6.7.2.2? Is the intent to hold TM validation after delivery of the final TM, and repeat annually from Year 2 thru Year 10?

Should the quantities for 3.6.7.2.2 be aligned to CDRL D019?

Answer: No, PWS 3.6.7.1.2.1, Technical Manual, and PWS 3.6.7.2.2, Validation/Verification are not the same. The PWS 3.6.7.1.2.1, Technical Manual, requires the contractor support at the Government’s verification of the Shadow EO/IR/LD Payload manuals. Paragraph

3.6.7.2.2 is the requirements for contractor performed validation. Therefore, the title for PWS 3.6.7.2.2 has been corrected to Validation in Amendment 0002. PWS 3.6.7.2.2, Validation is a contractor led event. During this event, the contractor is required to perform operation and maintenance procedures, including but not limited to operation, checkout, troubleshooting, calibration, alignment, disassemble and re-assembly instructions for unscheduled removal and replacement shall be validated by the actual performance on the Shadow EO/IR/LD Payload.

Paragraph 3.6.7.1.2.1 has been updated in Amendment 0002 to state that the Contractor shall prepare and develop an Operator and Field Maintenance manual, to include a Maintenance Allocation Chart (MAC) IAW CDRL D019, Technical Manuals, for the EO/IR/LD Payload. The TM shall include all required operator, troubleshooting, Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services (PMCS), and maintenance tasks associated with the Payload as installed in the RQ-7Bv2 platforms. The contractor shall use MIL- STD 40051-2C and MIL-HDBK 122F for content, style, and format. The Contractor shall support the Government Technical Manual Verification event at a Government Facility.

The Government Verification plan will outline the schedule, rules IAW AR 700-127 and DA PAM 25-40. The Contractor shall make the items and resources available necessary to support the Verification event. Paragraph 3.6.7.2.2 has been updated to say it is anticipated that the Technical Manuals Validation will be ordered in the first contract year. The contractor shall go through a formal Validation process consisting of the physical performance method of demonstration of set-up, alignment, operating, troubleshooting and maintenance procedures witnessed by the Government. The Government will witness up to 100% performance of the Contractor’s Validation. The Government will attend and approve the contractor’s Validation plan, IAW CDRL D019, Technical Manual. At the Validation event, the contractor shall go through 100% of the Technical Manuals to ensure that it is technically accurate and that it meets the requirements of MIL STD 40051-2C and MIL HDBK 1222F. In addition, the contractor shall incorporate all comments from this event and re-submit the manual to the Government. The Government will then conduct its Technical Manual Verification."

33. Reference: Attachment 1, PWS Section 3.6.7.1.2.1, CDRL D019

CDRL D019 states "Files shall be in Microsoft Office Suite of products", referencing MIL-STD- 40051-2 and MIL-HDBK-1222F.

MIL-STD-40051-2 para 4.4 states that "Data prepared and delivered digitally in accordance with this standard shall be extensible markup language (XML) tagged using the Army document type definition (DTD)".

Please confirm file format required.

Answer: The Contractor is required to comply MIL-STD-40051-2C and provide TMs in Extensible Markup Language (XML) based, Electronic Technical Manual (ETM). The Government has updated CDRL D019 to remove the remark stating that “Files shall be in Microsoft Office Suite of products” (See Amendment 0002).

34. Reference: Attachment 1, PWS Section 3.6.7.1.2.1, CDRL D019

If delivery is required as XML data modules, will PM EOIR also require a Payload Interactive Electronic Technical Manual (IETM), or a page-based manual published as an Adobe PDF?

Answer: The Contractor is required to comply MIL-STD-40051-2C and provide Technical Manuals (TM)s in Extensible Markup Language (XML) based, Electronic Technical Manual

(ETM).

35. Reference: PWS Section 3.6.7.2.6

Our existing property accounting system is regularly audited by DCMA, who have acknowledged that our systems and processes are appropriate for managing US Government property and compliant to FAR 52.245-1. Is this acknowledgement from DCMA acceptable to PM EOIR in satisfaction of PWS 3.6.7.2.6

Answer: The contractor is required to comply with FAR 52.245-1 and utilize Government approved Accountable Property Systems of Record such as Defense Property Accountability System, Catalog Ordering Logistics Tracking System (COLTS), and Logistics Modernization Program (LMP).

36. Reference: Attachment 0001 and 0002

Observation:

There are some inconsistencies in section/paragraph numbering in the PWS and PBS.

Attachment 1(PWS): Paragraph numbering jumps from 3.6.7.1.2.1 to 3.6.7.2.2

Attachment 2 (PBS):

3.14.1.1 is followed by 3.14.1.3

3.16 is followed by 3.16.1.1.

4.2 is followed by 4.9.3.4.1

4.9.3.3.1 is followed by 4.9.3.4.4

4.9.3.4.4 is followed by 4.11.1

Answer: Amendment 0002 revised the PBS and PWS to reflect that PWS paragraphs

3.6.7.2 and 3.6.7.2.1 and PBS paragraphs 3.14.1.2 and 3.16.1 were “intentionally left blank”. Section 4 of the PBS has not been amended. PBS Section 4 paragraphs are numbered to correspond with the associated Section 3 requirements. Therefore, no changes were made to these PBS paragraphs. .

37. Reference: CDRL A006 – Environmental Stress Screening Report

Block 10, 11, 12 and 13 are blank. Please advise dates and frequency of submission for efforts.

Answer: The Government has revised CDRL A006, Environmental Stress Screening Report, to correct dates and frequency of submission. See Amendment 0002.

38. Reference: Solicitation Section L - Proposal Submission and Industry Day Verbal Responses to Questions.

It was advised that only FBO.Gov would be the only allowed method for the submission of files.

Offeror requests it be allowed to submit a test file in advance to verify there is no interference with Offeror’s IT security systems or FBO.Gov permissions.

Answer: The Government recommends that Offerors access https://www.fbo.gov and familiarize themselves with FBO Demonstration Training Videos prior to proposal submission. Draft submissions are allowable but must be marked as draft documents (i.e Offeror Name-Draft Submission).

39. Reference: Solicitation – Section L – Table 8 – Assigned File Names

Table refers to a File Name “EXPER.XLS” related to Volume IV – Past Performance Summary of Relevant Contract Experience.

• Please provide instructions regarding the responses to be contained within this file.

• Will a template of this document be issued for Offerers to complete?

Answer: The three file names provided in Table 8 for Volume IV correspond with the three sections set forth in the submission instructions for the Past Performance volume.

Under File Name “EXPER.XLS, Volume IV, Offerors are required to provide Past Performance Summary of Relevant Contract Experience, with assigned file name

EXPER.XLS.

Past Performance Summary of Relevant Contract Experience (EXPER.XLS) should include the information requested in Section 1, Contract Descriptions. Past Performance Subcontracts (SUBCONT.PDF) should include the information requested in Section 3, Subcontracts. Past Performance (PERF.PDF) should include the information requested in Section 2, Performance and any requested information not included in the other two requested past performance files.

40. Reference: Section L, c, 2, a, (3) – Proposal File Instructions - “Company logos are prohibited with the exception of the Title Page.”

Documents to be provided as supporting evidence (in Volume V Technical Support Data) are from company archives which have company logos applied for proprietary purposes per standard practice when the document was created. As these documents are not easily editable and a change would create a version different from its original state, is it permissible to submit these documents in their original state with company logos shown?

Answer: This statement has been changed in Amendment 0002 to state: “Company logos are prohibited with the exception of the Title Page and information provided in Volume V- Technical Support Data”.

41. Reference: Solicitation – Section L – Table 8 – Assigned File Names

Volume V – Test Data and Volume V – Reliability Test Data, Instructions request all supporting data be supplied in these two files. Due to the volume of data and the file sizes of the originating documents, please advise if test data can be submitted over multiple files and named sequentially. E.g. TEST0001.PDF, TEST0002.PDF, etc. A file name cross reference can be included in the cross reference table.

Answer: Yes. Section L of the solicitation has been updated to allow for submission of multiple files as requested.

42. Reference: Solicitation – Section L – Table 7 – Page counts. And Section L - (4) VOLUME

IV PAST PERFORMANCE

Table 7 advises no page limit for Past Performance, but 3 pages allowed per program and 3 pages per subcontractor. In Section L (4) Volume 4 Past Performance, it indicates 20 page limitation with 5 pages allowed per subcontractor. Please advise the correct page limit.

Answer: The note at the bottom of Section L, Table 7 (page 64) has been updated to state: “*Each instance identified for relevant past performance for the prime and subcontractors shall be limited to no more than three pages”. In addition, the Government has revised Section L-15.2.c(4), Volume IV Past Performance. The statement reading: “This volume must not exceed 20 pages plus five (5) pages for each major subcontractor, excluding Past Performance Questionnaire Forms” is changed to read: “Each instance identified for relevant past performance for the prime and subcontractors shall be limited to no more than three pages”.

43. Reference: Solicitation – Section L – Table 7 – Page counts. And Section L - (4) VOLUME IV PAST PERFORMANCE – Section 3 – Subcontracts

Solicitation – Section M – 3d – under Small business

“Section 3 Subcontracts” requests Past Performance information from the subcontractor.

Further Section M 3 d) indicates “Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime Offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years.” As subcontractors are required to provide the same past performance information and data as the prime, the page limitation noted in Section L Table 7 should be the same. Request subcontractors be allowed the 3 pages per contract as like the primes. This will allow sufficient space to capture the information requested in Sections a), b) 2 as well as information requested in d), e), f) and g) of the Past Performance requests (page 67 of 77 of the solicitation) on a per contract basis.

Answer: The note at the bottom of Section L, Table 7 (page 64) has been updated to state: “*Each instance identified for relevant past performance for the prime and subcontractors shall be limited to no more than three pages”. In addition, the Government has revised Section L-15.2.c(4), Volume IV Past Performance. The statement reading: “This volume must not exceed 20 pages plus five (5) pages for each major subcontractor, excluding Past Performance Questionnaire Forms” is changed to read: “Each instance identified for relevant past performance for the prime and subcontractors shall be limited to no more than three pages”.

44. Reference: Exhibit A, CDRL C001

C001 block 4 references 'OT-18-10002', which is not available on the ASSIST website. Can PdM EOIR provide a copy? The sites / repositories referenced in the solicitation were searched.

Answer: The Government will provide the DID.

45. When will required mechanical drawings, including isolation cage mounts, for side arm be provided?

Answer: Drawings, including isolation cage mounts, for side arm are provided in this Amendment.

46. What is the Mil-spec number for the 28V aircraft connectors and when will the Government provide electrical drawings for the Cessna 208 platform?

Answer: 28V power is provided by the air vehicle (AV) J-10 connector, part number 805- 003-02M23-200BA. The mating connector part number is 805-001-16M23-200AA.

47. Reference: Shadow Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System Test and Evaluation Management Plan

We cannot find the document in the solicitation files referenced by the PWS; will the Government please provide a copy?

Answer: The Shadow Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System Test and Evaluation Management Plan is not available for public release.

48. Reference: Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) for the Shadow RQ-7B Operations and Support Phase

We cannot find the document in the solicitation files referenced by the PWS; will the Government please provide a copy?

Answer: The System Engineering Plan (SEP) is not available for public release.

49. Reference: The Contractor shall conduct Environmental Stress Screening and Acceptance Testing on EO/IR/LD Payloads IAW paragraph 3.2.4

"Paragraph 3.2.4 is titled: "Engineering Change Proposal (ECP)". Paragraph 3.2.5 is titled:

""Environmental Stress Screening and Acceptance Testing" Should the right paragraph number be 3.2.5?

Answer: Yes, the reference should be 3.2.5. The Government has revised this reference in Amendment 0002, accordingly.

50. Reference: The Payload state, for the purpose of these induced vibration conditions, is the non-operational state while mounted in the aircraft.

The vibrations defined are of the platform. However, the Shadow is transported in a package.

Can the government provide the vibration levels expected for the Shadow in the transportation case transported in each cargo platform?

Answer: PBS paragraphs 3.16.1.1, Vibration and 3.16.1.2, Payload transit Container, provided the requirements for payload transit container while carried on various cargo platforms.

51. Reference: The LRF shall have an Off state and an On state. (R.B.102)

"For Non Eye-Safe lasers an Arm state is included as one of the three "On" states: Standby, Arm, and Fire, as required for the LD (Section 3.4.1.5.1) and LTM (Section 3.4.1.3.1), both non eye-safe lasers. Since the LRF requirement, R.B. 162, "NOHD for LRF shall be not greater than 500m"" makes it non eye-safe, we request that an Arm state be added to the On states, as for the LD and LTM."

Answer: An arm state is not required for the Laser Range Finder (LRF). If the LRF is in compliance with R.B.162 then the Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance (NOHD) of the LRF will be greater than the operational altitude of the Shadow platform, rendering the LRF eye-safe to an observer on the ground.

52. Reference: The general instructions in Table 7 remove the overall page count from Volume IV Past Performance completely, and change the “5 pages per major subcontractor” to “each instance identified for relevant past performance shall be limited to no more than three pages”.

But the detailed instructions for Volume IV on page 66 of 77 still contain the old language referring to the 20/5 page limit for prime and major subs.

Will the Government please clarify what the page count limits are for Volume IV (Past Performance)?

Answer: The Government has revised Section L – Table 7, Volume IV, Past Performance Proposal, to remove the “20 pages plus five (5) pages for each subcontractor” limitation and state: “Each instance identified for relevant past performance shall be limited to no more than three pages.” See Amendment 0002.

53. Reference: 52.215-10 and 52.215-11 Price Reduction for Defective Cost or Pricing Data should not be included in the solicitation since the effort is not subject to certified cost and pricing data.

Will the Government please clarify and/or remove I-25 and I-26?

Answer: Per FAR 15.402, Pricing Policy, clauses 52.215-10 and 52.215-11 have been included in the event that adequate price competition is not received and additional cost data is necessary to determine a fair and reasonable price. The clauses will be removed from the contract prior to award if it is determined that they are no longer applicable.

54. Reference: CLIN 0001 identifies the weighting described by the Government in evaluating proposal pricing. It would appear that Delivery Orders for payloads being delivered in quantities of 11-20 are 40%. Understanding the Government's rationale for such weighting is important to understanding how the program will be managed to achieve pricing that is the most economical.

Furthermore, start-up in year 1 and shut-down in year 2, 3, and 4 of payload production lines appears to be a requirement for this program.

Does this weighting mean that the Government anticipates 40% of all delivery orders to fall within the 11-20 quantity lot? If not, would the Government please describe their rationale in weighting the four lots incrementally larger, except the largest lot being 20% lower? Because no weighted factors or quantities are required for Years 2, 3, 4, and 10, does this imply that unit prices are not required and/or that the production lines do not need to be available for those periods, or is that the anticipated period for "early fielding" described by the Government?

Answer: The Government has revised Attachment 8, Price Model to reflect the new ranges and quantities. The Price Model is Attachment 0008. To permit equitable distribution of payload cost, the Government has revised Section B CLIN 0001 (5-year base) and Attachment 0008, Price Model CLIN 0001, Payload Quantity. The 21-100 Payload Quantity grouping is revised as follows: 21-42, 43-70, and 71-100 quantities. No other changes applies. Range pricing shall be provided for all years.

55. Reference: Specific Periods of Performance (POP) in terms of Calendar Years or Fiscal Years are not provided in the solicitation. This information is important to establishing pricing cost estimates for future year activities based upon future year escalations or cost adjustments.

Would the Government please describe their anticipated alignment of each year for the Attachment 0008 tabulated data, e.g. year 1 = FY2020, year 2 = CY2021, etc?

Answer: Year 1 refers to the one year period starting at date of contract award. Contract award is currently planned for 4QFY18.

56. Reference: We understand a POA&M project to implement multi-factor authentication as well as other 252.204-7012 compliant requirements is in progress.

Will the Government IA Officer please validate that the Army's Golden Master Image for use on Laptops in the Test Environment, has all the protections of the 252.204-7012 (NIST 800-171) requirements?

Answer: The Army's Golden Master Image to be used on Laptops in the Test Environment has all the protections of the 252.204-7012 (NIST 800-171).

57. Will the Government please extended the proposal due date by two weeks to February 1, 2018?

Answer: Proposal due date has been extended to 31 January 2018 in accordance with Amendment 0002.

58. Will the Government please provide corrected Section B to match the Attachment 0008 Pricing Model?

Answer: Yes, see Amendment 0002.

59. Will the Government please provide the missing notes and instructions in Attachment 0008 Pricing Model per Section L, Page 66 of the Solicitation?

Answer: The “notes and instructions” for Attachment 0008 referenced in Section L are within the key on the top right hand corner of the Price Model. Please see Amendment 0002.

60. Will the Government please provide directions on whether unit costs are required by the Government for zero quantity lots in Year 2, 3, 4, and 10 of Attachment 0008?

Answer: Offeror’s are required to provide unit pricing for payloads for each of the contract years to include CLIN 0001 Years 2, 3, 4 and CLIN 1001 Year 10 TABs in Attachment 0008.

61. Will the Government please provide the FY or CY Period of Performance Dates anticipated for each of the Yearly Tabs for Attachment 0008?

Answer: Year 1 refers to the one year period starting at date of contract award. Contract award is currently planned for 4QFY18.

62. Will the Government please provide a corrected DFARS 252.216-7006 Ordering period to Clause I-143?

Answer: DFARS 252.216-7006 Ordering has been revised to include additional timeframe, if the optional ordering period is exercised. Please see Amendment 0002.

63. Will the Government please remove Clause I-25 and I-26 about Defective Cost or Pricing since certified cost and pricing data is not being required by the Government?

Answer: Per FAR 15.402, Pricing Policy, clauses 52.215-10 and 52.215-1 have been included in the event that adequate price competition is not received and additional cost data is necessary to determine a fair and reasonable price. The clauses will be removed from the contract prior to award if it is determined that they are no longer applicable.

64. Will the Government please identify where to price "Early Fielding" of payload quantities?

Answer: With respect to Section L, b) Section 2 – Subfactor 1.2: Platform Elements, Offerors shall submit documentation illustrating their approach for satisfying the requirements for potential of early fielding to the Warfighter of the EO/IR/LD Payload. In addition, the Government intends to field approximately five (5) of the EO/IR/LD Payload Integration Test Assets in Base Year 5. Therefore, Offerors are not require to provide cost or pricing data to support this requirement. No additional pricing is necessary for early fielding.

65. Reference: In Section 3.4.5 Remediation of Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities of the PWS, the last line states "These actions will be negotiated at the task order level." Section 3.4.5 appears to be more linked to resolving any issues necessary to continue with and complete the accreditation process, as well as move into the continuous monitoring phase, but it is unclear.

Will the Government please clarify? Are offerors to bid this activity as part of CDRL A029 in the Attachment 0008 or after a Delivery Order is received?

Answer: The requirement of PWS 3.4.5 Remediation of Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities, will be performed after submission of CDRL A029 and will be negotiated at task order level under Engineering Support Services CLIN.

66. Reference: PWS 3.5.1 requires offerors to provide test and evaluation support on the RQ- 7Bv2 platform IAW the Shadow Tactical Unmanned Aicraft System Test and Evaluation Management Plan, dated April 11, 2014 and subsequent revisions.

Will the Government please provide the Shadow Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System Test and Evaluation Management Plan, dated April 11, 2014 and subsequent revisions?

Answer: No. The Shadow Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System Test and Evaluation Management Plan is not available for public release.

67. Reference: The Contractor shall provide operator and maintainer TMs IAW CDRL D019, for the EO/IR/LD payload that includes a list of operator and maintainer tasks to be incorporated into the RQ-7Bv2 or other platforms. The Contractor shall support a Government verification of the TMs at a Government facility.

Can existing Shadow POR Maintainer and Operator Technical Manuals (13&P & -10) be provided to the Contractor?

Answer: The payload technical manual will be stand-alone sections within the Shadow TMs, therefore there is no need to provide existing manuals.

68. Reference: The Contractor shall provide operator and maintainer TMs IAW CDRL D019, for the EO/IR/LD payload that includes a list of operator and maintainer tasks to be incorporated into the RQ-7Bv2 or other platforms. The Contractor shall support a Government verification of the TMs at a Government facility.

"In order to comply with MIL-STD-40051-2C and MIL-HDBK-1222F is the Contractor required to deliver an Interactive Electronic Technical Manual (IETM) using the US ARMY Interactive Authoring and Display System (IADS4) software?

Is the contractor required to deliver an Electronic Technical Manual (ETM) using Extensible Markup Language (XML) IAW an approved Military Standard Document Type Definition (DTD) and style guide using the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) Webcompose Extensible Markup Language (XML) editor software?"

Answer: The Contractor is required to comply MIL-STD-40051-2C and provide TMs in Extensible Markup Language (XML) based, Electronic Technical Manual (ETM).

69. Reference: The Contractor shall be responsible for the development and updating of a RPSTL for the EO/IR/LD payload IAW CDRL D020, Repair Parts and Special Tools List.

Is the RPSTL…