Amendment__2_Q&A_-_FINAL.pdf

Amendment 2 (Q&A) – W911W6-19-R-0001

Question 1: Page 20 of the RFP states the below. Should all of the following information stated be included on the cover page?

“Cover Page: The use of the SF 1411 is optional. The words “Cost/Price Proposal” shall appear on the cover page in addition to the following information:”

Answer 1: No. The phrase, "in addition to following information", is an editing error and should be ignored."

Question 2: Is it correct to assume that the Development Costs under Affordability are to cover Phase 1 Concept Development, Phase 2 Prototype, Phase 3 ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING AND DEVELOPMENT (EMD), and Phase 4 LOW RATE INITIAL PRODUCTION (LRIP)?

Answer 2: Yes.

Question 3: For software that is to be developed IAW DO-178, will the US Army be the certification authority, or should the contractor plan for providing an independent certification agent?

Answer 3: U.S. Army Aviation Engineering Directorate (AED) is qualifying organization. The Performer should not plan for a third-party to act as certification agent/authority.

Question 4: The AQP and SIP mention both DO-178B and DO-178C. Is this intentional, or can the contractor apply DO-178C uniformly to all requirements specifying either DO-178B or DO-178C?

Answer 4: The inclusion of DO-178B in the document is an error. The correct reference is DO-178C.

Question 5: Is the fly-away cost based on specific quantity of aircraft? What is included in fly away cost?

Does it include the MEP package for Increment 1? GFE items?

Answer 5: Fly-away cost includes GFE items and Mission Equipment Package (MEP) items. Refer to the "Cost estimating ground rules" in "Appendix 1: AIRCRAFT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DATA" of the Solicitation for more information.

Question 6: Will the FADEC provided with ITE be suitable for single engine operation, or does that need to be developed?

Answer 6: Yes, the FADEC provided with ITE will be suitable for single engine operation.

Question 7: Would the Army consider the use of a YT706 engine as a surrogate to the ITE?

Answer 7: The Government is open to information about using the YT706 as a surrogate if ITE is unavailable in time to meet program needs. Any alternate engine would be at the election of the Government and would be provided as GFE.

Question 8: Is the intent of the integrated simulation environment for a pilot to sit in the aircraft and use it as a simulator?

Answer 8: It is up to the Performer to decide whether or not to include an integrated simulation environment as a capability within the trade space.

Question 9: Will the Government define the mechanical and electrical interfaces?

Answer 9: The Government will provide ICDs defining the mechanical and electrical GFE items for prior to Final Decision and Risk Reduction (FD&RR).

Question 10: Can the OTAP be used for production?

Answer 10: Yes, as specified in Solicitation and draft OTAP the agreement term may be extended to include production.

Question 11: Is it the intent for FARA to be “authorized” to fly in public airspace?

Answer 11: FAA or civil certification is not required. Airworthiness Releases (AWRs) for FARA will be issued by the U.S. Army Aviation Engineering Directorate (AED). AWRs cover all ground and flight operations in civil and tactical airspace. The requirements for airworthiness are specified in the AQP.

Question 12: In consideration of Condition A for 10 U.S.C. 2371b (d)(1) compliance if an approved non-traditional contractor changes status and becomes CAS-compliant during performance under the OTAP, what is the impact to the Agreement?

Answer 12: In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2302(9), quoted following the answer, an offeror’s status as a "nontraditional defense contractor" is determined as of the date of DoD’s “solicitation of sources”. Any post-award change in status as a “nontraditional defense contractor” would not change the agreed upon terms of the OTAP as long as the status as a "nontraditional defense contractor" met the definition contained in 10 U.S.C. 2302(9).

10 U.S. Code § 2302 (9): "The term 'nontraditional defense contractor', with respect to a procurement or with respect to a transaction authorized under section 2371(a) or 2371b of this title, means an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the Department of Defense for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section."

Question 13: The draft OTAP states that the USG can order up to 15 additional prototype aircraft under the OTAP. Does the USG intend to issue a waiver under Condition D so that if Condition C is used for the OTAP, the contractor doesn’t have to cost share at least 1/3 of the cost of the additional aircraft?

Answer 13: The cost share requirements only apply through the successful completion of the competitive prototype project. Orders for additional aircraft would be considered part of the follow-on production effort. There is no intention to request a waiver under Condition D.

Question 14: The cost price proposal requires both Phase 1 and Phase 2 to be bid by cost element, by task/subtask, by month, and the evaluation criteria is also based upon this detailed breakdown. For Phase 2 there is not enough information available to provide estimates at this level of detail for a clean sheet aircraft design. Can the requirement for Phase 2 be changed to allow for parametric estimating/pricing at this time, then after the Initial Design and Risk Review (ID&RR) during phase 1, provide the more detailed level of substantiation as part of the updated cost proposal and work plan for Phase 2?

Answer 14: See Pages 19 and 20, Volume 2 Instructions Cost/Price Proposals. Provide adequate evidence to prove the credibility to reasonably explain the estimating processes. Offers will have opportunity to update cost proposals and plans prior to ID&RR.

Question 15: Can the OTAP continue if a different prime contractor takes over or the teaming arrangement changes at some point?

Answer 15: Yes. The prime performer can request the Government agree to substitution of another entity as the prime performer responsibility if such substitution supports the objectives of the FARA CP and the planned transition to production. The Government and the prime performer would affect such a substitution via a bi-lateral modification to the OTAP.

Question 16: The Government has received questions regarding the inclusion of optional or alternate configurations in the same proposal.

Answer 16: Per the solicitation, it is the Government's intent to evaluate one design per proposal. The Government will not select between options and expects each proposer to clearly define their preferred design for consideration. If there is potential for additional capability, or the proposer desires to convey trade space for attributes not defined in the System Performance Specification, then the proposer may provide additional data.