_2_Questions_Govt_Response_Jan_19_2018.pdf

Future Embedded Rotorcraft Sustainment Technologies – Phase 1 Program Questions# 2

1. Unlike many recent ADD-AATD solicitations, the subject FERST-1 solicitation does not provide a TIA template nor does it request a markup of a TIA template for those organizations proposing a TIA contract vehicle. Please confirm that no TIA markup is desired; otherwise, please provide the most current TIA template to be used.

Government’s Response: A TIA template will not be provided at this time. Proposals recommended for award that propose use of a TIA shall be provided an ADD-AATD TIA template for markup as a part of the negotiation process before award.

2. Can you please provide guidance on desired funding level to be dedicated to Phase I?

Government’s Response: Estimated funding levels for Phase 1 were intentionally not identified in the Call, however, the anticipated Government funding by Government Fiscal Year (GFY) for the total FERST program were identified. FERST Phase 1 is planned not to exceed 12 months beginning in GFY18 and completing in GFY19. FERST Phase 2 is planned to begin in GFY19. Offerors should scope efforts that are affordable within the defined GFY funding constraints. Up to two awards are anticipated for the FERST Phase 1 effort.

3. Will the Phase 1 business-case analysis be based on assumptions to be developed by the Contractor or Government Furnished Information (GFI) to be provided by ADD-AATD relative to FVL platform design/mission/performance, fleet size, life cycle, etc. requirements?

Government’s Response: A business-case analysis will be delivered at the conclusion of FERST Phase 1 and based on mutually agreed upon assumptions developed through the execution of Phase 1.

4. The solicitation states that the following are required in the Technical Proposal Volume 1:

a. “The Offeror shall detail and substantiate the proposed solution including its benefits thereof relative to the FERST objective and the plan to execute FERST-1. …”

b. “Offerors shall clearly and thoroughly describe the proposed technology solution and the technical approach, including tasks and schedule, to mature and verify the integrated solution to TRL 6.”

Please confirm that ADD-AATD does want a substantiated baseline solution and detailed Phase 2 plan within the proposal for Phase 1, despite the objective of FERST-1 being to conduct trade studies to develop an optimized solution. Please clarify expectations for the level of quantitative substantiation of proposed solution benefits within the technical proposal.

Government’s Response: Sufficient detail should be provided to enable Government evaluation of the proposed FERST Phase 1 technical solution and approach per the identified evaluation criteria. A notional Phase 2 plan is desired to be included in the Phase 1 proposal; however, the Government understands that integrated technology solution and demonstration approach will likely evolve through the execution of Phase I.

5. Please confirm that the Cost Proposal is only for the 12-month Phase 1 trade study, despite the requirement to lay out a detailed Phase 2 plan in the FERST-1 technical proposal.

Government’s Response: Under this call, the Cost Proposal is only required to cover the not to exceed 12 month FERST Phase 1 effort.

6. The original FERST solicitation W911W6-17-R-0009 required an integrated aircraft solution flight test. The revised solicitation for FERST-1 makes no mention of a flight-test requirement. Please clarify whether ADD- AATD views a Phase 2 flight test to be required for achieving TRL-6 for some enabling technologies being considered.

Government’s Response: The requirements for FERST Phase 1 are identified in the call, W911W6-18- R-0002. The FERST requirement is for TRL 6 demonstration. Flight test is not specifically required;

however, each offeror’s unique proposed approached to achieve TRL 6 will be evaluated.

7. Please clarify the aircraft reliability metric definition contained in the Sustainment Strategic Plan document.

Definition of design service life appears to be at the aircraft level, whereas obsolescence life appears to be defined at a component or subsystem level. Is the aircraft reliability to be calculated using the lowest component set or completed at a weighted aircraft level?

Government’s Response: The Government acknowledges that the Sustainment Strategic Plan was released with the inconsistency cited above between the two definitions and regrets this error. The Government’s intent is to improve the overall aircraft reliability, which is driven by individual system/component reliabilities. However, the desire is to balance the design life and obsolesce life so as to avoid excessive weight and cost.