W911W6-19-R-0001_Amendment_1_-_Q&A_1.pdf

Question 1: Is the Government's proposed business arrangement for the OTAP expenditure-based (cost reimbursable) or fixed amount (fixed price)?

Answer 1: The proposed business arrangement for the OTAP is a fixed amount OT as defined in the DoD OTA for Prototype Project Guide, paragraph D1.8, the Program Solicitation paragraph 3.2.1., and the draft OTAP attached to the Program Solicitation, Article I, B.3.

Question 2: The Draft OTA defines this agreement as a Fixed OT, yet invokes cost/financial reporting requirements that are not consistent with a Fixed OT. Does the Government intend to run this as a true Fixed OT or a best-efforts with adjustment of payment milestones based upon financial/accounting records?

Answer 2: The FARA OTP is a fixed amount OT. The required cost/financial reporting has multiple objectives. The first is to allow the Government and the performer to track whether the program is on schedule within funding objectives. This will allow both the Government to assess whether the prototype project is successful and prepare for transition into the program of record, if successful. The second objective of cost/financial reporting is in the event that a traditional defense contractor is cost-sharing the project with the Government. See DoD OTAP Guide, paragraph C2.16.6. Financial Reporting.

"Other transactions that use amounts generated from the awardee’s financial or cost records as the basis for payment, or require at least one third of the total costs to be provided by non- Federal parties pursuant to statute, should require financial reporting that provides appropriate visibility into expenditures of Government funds and expenditures of private sector funds and provide for appropriate audit access (see C2.14)." Finally, the FARA OTP is envisioned to become a Program of Record.

Cost/financial reporting will assist the Government in making a determination regarding fair and reasonable pricing in the future.

Question 3: In the funding profile below, is the 1% for FY19 for the referenced potential additional funding for the Phase 2 long lead parts and/or just for Phase 2?

3.2. Anticipated Funding for the Program

3.2.1. Anticipated funding will be split among all awards with the anticipation of completing two competitive prototyping efforts through the end of Phase 2. Each Phase 1 Performer will receive approximately $15M between FYs 19-20 ($8.5M in FY19 and $6.5M in FY20) with an anticipated 4-6 Industry Performers (additional funding may be provided for long-lead Phase 2 activity with Government concurrence). While the Government anticipates 4 to 6 Performers will be participating in Phase 1, the decision is contingent on the technical merit of the proposed approaches. Therefore, based on its assessment of the proposal, the Government retains the discretion to award more, fewer or none. The two Industry Performers selected for Phase 2 in FY20 after ID&RR will receive a fixed funding level of approximately $735M between FYs20-23. The Period of Performance for Future Vertical Lift (FVL) FARA CP is not anticipated to extend beyond FY23. The funding profile is FY19 - 1%, FY20 – 18%, FY21 – 27%, FY22 – 32%, FY23 – 22%. It is desired that proposals address Phases 1 and 2.

Answer 3: Phase 2 doesn’t start until after ID&RR in FY20. The Phase 2 funding in FY19 is an estimate for long lead items.

Question 4: Article XIII of the draft OTA states, “As part of the offeror's response to the solicitation, the offeror will be expected to propose an Airworthiness Qualification Specification (AQS) which validates airworthiness qualification efforts to meet the requirements of this Airworthiness Qualification Plan (AQP) and the aircraft system specification.” Is it the Government’s intent for a full AQS to be provided within the 150 page proposal response (internal plan referenced as being able to be used is ~400 pages), or does the USG intend that the Performers will simply explain their approach to achieving USG-AED

Airworthiness Release (1st Flight) and a follow-on plan to achieve full-qualification? If the Government is seeking a full AQS as part of the proposal response, will the BAA be amended so this document is outside the 150 page response?

Answer 4: The USG intends that the Performers will simply explain their approach to achieving USG-AED Airworthiness Release (i.e. 1st Flight) as a part of their response to the solicitation which has a 150 page limit. A follow-on, more detailed plan to achieve full-qualification will be addressed at a later time.

Question 5: Does the classified annex count towards the 150 page limit for the technical volume?

Answer 5: The classified annex may be up to 25 pages in addition to the 150 for the unclassified part of the proposal.

Question 6: In the Survivability section of the SPS, Paragraph 3.3.2.1.1 Passive Ballistic Protection for Personnel, both ‘should’ and ‘shall’ statements are used. Is the USG’s true intent that the one portion of the paragraph is more important (non-tradeable) than the others or was this just a typo?

Answer 6: Yes, the statement reflects the USG’s intent, and stands as is.

Question 7: Section 3.2.1 Funding in the BAA states that there is $15M per participant available for Phase 1. For Phase 2, the funding says it is fixed, but doesn’t state if the $735M is total or per performer. Can you please clarify if the available Phase 2 funding is per performer or a total fixed amount?

Answer 7: Phase 2 is approximately $735M per performer.

Question 8: Will the Government allow an acronym list and compliance matrix to be included as part of the front material that will not be subject to the 150 page limitation?

Answer 8: No

Question 9: How many Army pilots will require training prior to Independent Government Testing? Will these be the same pilots supporting the CP development effort?

Answer 9: For costing purposes, plan on four pilots.

Question 10: Can we submit our recommended GFE list to the USG for a Yes-No review?

Answer 10: No, your assumed GFE list should be clear in the proposal cost estimate.

Question 11: Can we request acquisition and direct maintenance cost data from the USG for the parts/systems identified as GFE?

Answer 11: The Government will provide additional information in an update to the SIP on or before November 9, 2018.

Question 12: Is it the Army's expectation that the contractor will fly development testing (pre- USG testing) under a civil airworthiness certificate?

Answer 12: All flight testing will be under Army airworthiness authority.

Question 13: Would the Government consider changing bi-monthly technical and financial status reports to quarterly?

Answer 13: Offerors may propose alternative schedule of deliverable submission.

Question 14: Would the US Army allow an engine directly interchangeable with ITEP, other than the 701D?

Answer 14: ITE is the mandatory engine. The government is open to suggestions for surrogates if that becomes necessary.

Question 15: The fuel flow seems high compared to ITE goals. Curious to know if this is intentional and whether this is intended to represent a degraded engine. If so, is it redundant with the 5% fuel flow factor in the spec. Also, heard that we might be getting an updated engine data set. Would like to know whether to expect new data and what may be coming from a power and fuel flow point of view.

Answer 15: Information about the ITE performance table: The table represents a "refereed" engine cycle deck which is intended to represent a minimum-spec "ITE-like" engine. This table, however, does not represent a degraded engine or include any 5% fuel flow factor. Upon conclusion of the ITE SSEB and contract award, an updated cycle deck should be available for release. Suitability of the FADEC for single engine use is being analyzed. Program schedules are synced for delivery of the ITE engines to meet the FARA need.

Question 16: Is the government open to a contractor developed launcher?

Answer 16: No, the Government will provide a launcher as GFE.

Question 17: Is there flexibility in the dimensional envelope for the munitions launcher?

Answer 17: The Government is reviewing the dimensional and other constraints. The Government will provide additional information in an update to the SIP on or before November 9, 2018.

Question 18: What flexibility does the aircraft designer have to employ the launcher?

Answer 18: The Government is reviewing necessary constraints that might limit design flexibility. The Government will provide additional information in an update to the SIP.

Question 19: What are the interfaces for ALE and MMT?

Answer 19: The GFE launcher will interface with munitions. The aircraft designer should be concerned only with launcher interfaces to the aircraft.

Question 20: How many launchers is the aircraft required to carry?

Answer 20: There is no requirement for how many to carry. It will be a function of available volume and payload.

Question 21: Can Industry propose a means for transferring the aircraft to the Army.

Answer 21: Yes.

Question 22: Is flight testing and Army-only testing at the end of the program at multiple locations?

Answer 22: Testing is expect testing to take place at two or three locations. Plan for four Government pilots. The Government anticipates a mixed team, led by Industry, during the first part of flight testing.

Question 23: What can be expected of the Government for SRR?

Answer 23: The Government will assess the risk to meeting program goals and will provide feedback accordingly.

Question 24: The Aircraft Design Data Appendix 1 of the BAA says that MIL-STD-881C should be used in the estimating ground rules. However, this was superseded in full with the release of MIL-STD-881D on 9 April 2018. Please clarify which should be used, as they are different.

Answer 24: MIL-STD-881D3