Pre-Soliciation Conference Industry Questions-Responses_Part IV.pdf

1 | P a g e

30-Sep-22

Pre-Solicitation Conference Questions & Responses – Part IV T-6A Texan II Avionics Replacement Program (ARP)

OVERVIEW QUESTIONS (General, Document Access, etc.):

1) General\Pre-RFP Release Industry Communications. In order to bid accurately, the contractor must assess the sites and ATDs. Will the Government coordinate site surveys of the 5 bases, the Tinker AFB site of the SD, and the Textron site of the Test Aircraft before release of the final RFP?

Response: It is the USG’s intent to schedule two (2) Industry Days for contractor site visits.

The locations will be Vance AFB, OK and Sheppard AFB, TX to be scheduled in mid- November. These site visits may occur after release of the final RFP. Please continue to monitor www.SAM.gov for updated information.

2) Will an OTA contract vehicle be utilized for this procurement?

Response: No, the USG is not pursuing and OTA for this effort.

3) Will AFMAN 11-202 Vol. 3, AFMAN11-2T-6 Vol. 1, 2, and 3, and AETC Supplements be made available in the bidder’s library?

Response: The USG is currently reviewing documents that will be made available in the final Bidders Library, prior to final RFP release.

4) Will the T-6A Flight Manual TO 1T-6A-1 be made available in the bidder’s library?

5) Will interface control documents be provided for the ABOS?

Response: It is the USG’s intent to provide interface documents in the Bidder’s Library prior to the release of the final RFP.

6) Will interface control documents be provided for the ELT?

Response: Currently, the ELT does not interface with any other system. The USG has not made a final decision on a replacement for the ELT, but the ELT 1000 is a candidate for the replacement.

7) Will TO 1T-6ABD-01 be made available in the bidder’s library?

8) Will the list of approved carry-on equipment be made available in the bidder’s library?

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA

2 | P a g e

Response: There are no Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) modifications or interfaces in ARP.

Dimensional and human factors considerations of the existing carry-on EFB presence is expected. This will be discussed in the Cockpit Working Group.

9) Will the US Government provide weights on the systems to be replaced (LRUs, wiring, structural items)?

Response: The TOs will be provided in the Bidder’s Library prior to the final RFP release.

10) Will TO 01-1A-14, 01,1A-14-2, 01-1A14-3, 01-1A-14-4 be made available in the bidder's library?•Ground Support Maintenance Computer (GSMC): Will the USG provide definition of the data configuration file as part of the bidder's library.

11) Will AFI 91-203 will be provided as part of the bidder's library?

Bidders library. This is available on the AF E-Publishing web site.

12) Will the USG provide Air Force Pamphlet 63-129 Air System Development and Sustainment Engineering Processes and Procedures?

Bidders library. This is available on the AF E-Publishing web site.

13) Will the Ground Based Training System Program Unique Specifications Document (PUSD) be provided as part of the bidder's library?

14) Many companies are not able to offer a SPRS score at this point in time since this is a new government mandated requirement for this effort. Since the Draft RFP Controlled Unclassified Information documents have already been provided to companies without a SPRS score, we respectfully request the government provide all documents for the draft and final RFP. This will level the playing field and halt the unfair advantage of bidders that downloaded this information prior to this new requirement over the bidders that did not download this data prior to this new requirement.

Response: In order to protect Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), controlled documents can only be accessed upon submission of an approved DD2345, JCP registration, and granted access to the documents on www.SAM.gov by the data custodian of the company. JCP application has several requirements including NIST assessment in SPRS.

Therefore, there has not been any unfair advantage, as all companies must meet these requirements for access to CUI. The Government cannot release CUI information to the general public.

CLIN QUESTIONS:

1) Draft RFP Section B CLINs and Pricing Matrix Draft (Appendix B)/Section B and Pricing Matrix CLIN 0002 (discrepancy in quantity listed). The DRFP RFP lists CLIN 0002 as a quantity of 16, however the Pricing Matrix has a quantity of 20. Which is correct?

3 | P a g e

Response: The CLINs have been restructured and updated with appropriate SOW references. An updated Draft RFP is posted. Please continue to monitor www.SAM.gov for updated information.

2) RFP Section B CLINs, Pricing Matrix (RFP Appendix B), SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 4.9 Initial Spaces, Section B CLINs, Pricing Matrix. SOW 4.9 requires the contractor to provide initial spares in the quantities identified in the initial spares CLINs for the option period. Neither Section B nor the Pricing Matrix includes the Initial Spares CLINs. Please add these CLINs to both Section B and the Pricing Matrix with the quantities to provide.

Response: The CLINs have been restructured and updated with appropriate SOW updated information.

3) Draft RFP Section B CLINs/CLINs for Aircraft Production Lot Kit Buys, Aircraft Production Lot Kit Installations, ATD Production Lot Kit Buys, and ATD Production Lot Kit Installations. In Section B, the Unit of Issue is Lot (LO) and the Quantity is one (1) for Aircraft and ATD Production Lot Kit Buys and Installations. The Unit of Issue should be changed to each (EA) and the Quantity to the total for each CLIN. Rationale for change from Lot to Each Unit of Issue: The current payment structure, only allowing the contractor to bill once after delivery of the entire lot, puts an extreme financial burden on the small business contractor. For example, it will take perhaps a year for the contractor to complete and invoice CLIN 0029 Aircraft Production Lot 1 Kit Install (106 each).

Meanwhile, it will be paying out very significant expenditures for payroll and other costs as it performs the requirement.

Response: The CLINs have been restructured. An updated Draft RFP is posted. Please continue to monitor www.SAM.gov for updated information.

4) Draft RFP Section B CLINs and Incentive Fee Plan/Section B Incentive CLINs and Incentive Fee Plan. Section B does not include a disincentive CLIN for Aircraft modification delivery. Does this mean that the awarded FFP price for one each modification will be decremented by 25% for a delivery 3 or more days prior to scheduled delivery order and 40% for an aircraft delivered 3 days or more late? If yes, please re-evaluate these extreme penalties. Instead, incentive CLINs for aircraft modification delivery should be established in the same manner as for the other CLIN items.

Response: The CLINs have been restructured. There is no disincentive CLIN, refer to ARP

Delivery Incentive Plan 7.2 for disincentive information. An updated Draft RFP with a revised Incentive Plan has been posted. Please continue to monitor www.SAM.gov for updated information.

5) Draft RFP Section B CLINs/Section B Incentive CLINs. Section B Incentive CLINS 0006, 0010, 0015, 0018, and 0025 are FFP CLINs. Please clarify: Is the Section B amount the target value for the incentive? How and when will these incentives be negotiated and awarded?

Response: The CLINs have been restructured. An updated Draft RFP with a revised Incentive

Plan has been posted. Please continue to monitor www.SAM.gov for updated information.

PRICING MATRIX QUESTIONS:

1) Pricing Matrix Draft (RFP Appendix B), Pricing Matrix Workbook. The Excel file is locked. The unadjustable column widths are too narrow causing large numbers to be displayed as hash marks.

Please modify the sheets so offerors can adjust column widths to display numbers correctly.

4 | P a g e

Response: The Pricing Matrix has been modified to allow Offeror's to adjust the column widths as needed.

2) Pricing Matrix Draft (RFP Appendix B), Pricing Matrix Workbook, Tab: T-6A ARP Pricing Matrix.

Please clarify the TBD's listed under the Qty column in the "T-6A ARP Pricing Matrix" spreadsheet. Is it correct to assume that these will all be Quantity 1?

Response: An updated Draft RFP is posted with an updated ARP Pricing Matrix. Please continue to monitor www.SAM.gov for updated information.

3) Pricing Matrix Draft (RFP Appendix B)/Pricing Matrix Workbook, Tab: T-6A ARP Pricing Matrix, Option 1 and 6-mo. Option. Why does the Government pricing model count the quantities of items delivered in lots (kit buys and installs) twice for the calculation of the Total Price for Option 1 and the 6-Month Extension period? This means the price evaluation includes 884 Aircraft Kits and Installs and 360 ATD kits and Installs, which significantly reduces the impact of the EMD and development activity on the TEP, which masks the actual lowest price solution. For example, if Offeror 1 bids $50M for EMD and Offeror 2 bids $100M for EMD but Offeror 1 has a kit price that is $40K higher, the TEP will be the same but in the end the Government will pay $20M more for the program of 442 Aircraft and 79 ATDs.

Response: The Pricing model totals per year are for evaluation purposes. The quantities listed below are Best Estimated Quantities (BEQs) for evaluation purposes only. The Government has provided quantities in the optimal years based on the expected schedule.

However, for some CLINs the total evaluation quantity may exceed the BEQ to ensure a price is proposed in all years for evaluation purposes and in case the expected schedule should change. The yearly totals are not necessarily cumulative (this is also noted in the Pricing Matrix).

4) Pricing Matrix Draft (RFP Appendix B)/Pricing Matrix Workbook, Tab: T-6A ARP Pricing Matrix CLIN

021. Can the Government provide some estimate of the timeframe expected for Government operational testing so the right level of CLIN 0021 Operational Testing Support can be bid?

Response: The CLINs have been restructured and updated with appropriate SOW updated information. The USG’s intent that Operational Testing will not extend past 45 calendar days.

SECTION L/M QUESTIONS:

1) Section L 2.3.2, Table 2.1 Page Limit and 2.3.4 Page Limits. Please add the following items to the list of exclusions from the page limitations: Cross-Reference Matrix, Section L Engineering Tables, Integrated Master Schedule, Integrated Master Plan, OEM Letters of Intent.

Response: Section L, Table 2.1 has been updated; the cross-reference matrix, Section L Engineering Tables, Integrated Master Schedule/Integrated Master Plan, Airworthiness Plan, Letters of Intent and Installations Plans are not included as part of the Technical Volume 50-page count limit.

2) Section L/L.2.3.2, Table 2.1 Page Limits and L.4.3.1/L.4.3.2 Relevant Contracts. For Volume II, Relevant Contract Narratives (L.4.3.1), Section L, Table 2.1 Page Limits specifies "Request Max 5 pages per contract." Section L.4.3.1 and L.4.3.2 suggest a target of 10 pages, but allow more pages if necessary to fully describe relevancy. Please clarify: Will all pages of each relevant contract narrative be evaluated even if the narrative for a contract exceeds 10 pages?

Response: Per Section L, Section 4.3.1, PPIF has a target of 10 pages and Section 4.3.2 has been updated to reflect the contract narrative has a maximum of 5 pages. Yes, if determined

5 | P a g e necessary to fully describe relevancy, the offeror may exceed the 5-page limit per Section 4.3.2.

3) Section L/2.3.6, Table 2.2 Cross-Reference Matrix and 3.2.2 Volume Organization. The required Cross-Reference Matrix (L.2.3.6, Table 2.2) is not identified in the technical volume general outline (L.3.2.2). Can offerors place the cross-reference matrix at the beginning of the volume as an unnumbered section to retain compliance with the outline numbering in the solicitation?

Response: Section L, Table 2.1 Proposal Organization and Section 3.2.2 have been updated to include the cross-reference matrix; Section 2.3.6 has been updated. Table 2.2 is not included as part of the Technical Volume page limit.

4) Section L/L.3.2.6.a IMS (Subfactor 4 Schedule). Can offerors provide the Integrated Master Schedule as an Appendix in a separate Microsoft Project file?

Response: The Government will accept the IMS to be submitted as an Appendix to the Technical Volume. The IMS is not included as part of the Technical Volume 50-page count limit. Per Section L, paragraph 2.3.3 “Files provided in .pdf format are also acceptable if conversion is made from a Word document or equivalent Word processing software while maintaining searchable text.” Therefore, the Government may accept a MS Project file if it is converted into a searchable .pdf format for the Government’s review.

5) Section L/L.3.2.6.a IMP (Subfactor 4 Schedule). Can offerors provide the Integrated Master Plan as an Appendix in a separate Microsoft Excel file?

Response: The Government will accept the IMP to be submitted as an Appendix to the Technical Volume. The IMP is not included as part of the Technical Volume 50-page count limit. The Government would accept Microsoft Excel files if provided as part of the offerors submission. Also, Per Section L, paragraph 2.3.3 “Files provided in .pdf format are also acceptable if conversion is made from a Word document or equivalent Word processing software while maintaining searchable text.”

6) Section L/L.3.2.6.e LOIs (Subfactor 4 Schedule). Can offerors provide the OEM Letters of Intent as an Appendix in separate Adobe PDF files?

Response: The Government will accept the OEM LOIs to be submitted as an Appendix to the Technical Volume as separate Adobe PDF files IAW with Section L, paragraph 2.3.3 “Files provided in .pdf format are also acceptable if conversion is made from a Word document or equivalent Word processing software while maintaining searchable text.”

7) Section L\Section L 3.2.7 Subfactor 5 and Section M 2.2.5 Subfactor 5 - Modern Integrated Avionics.

Like Subfactor 2, Subfactor 5 Modern Avionics includes critical and subjective requirements that are worthy of consideration as strengths to receive best value credit and a color rating. For example, offerors could propose to implement the Open System Architecture in a variety of ways in accordance with various selected industry protocols and standards. These choices could lead to solutions that vary considerably in their technical risks, costs, and long-term value delivered to the Air Force. Features of the solution such as the degree to which the "Operator Workload is decreased" or "convenient means for loading databases and flight plans" are also suitable for trade-off consideration. Please consider changing Subfactor 5 to a color-rated subfactor.

Response: Section L, Section L 3.2.7 Subfactor 5b and Section M 2.2.5 Subfactor 5b - Modern Integrated Avionics, for requirements marked as “Y” or “N” in the Full Compliance column of the Section L Engineering Tables, SF5 Modern Integrated Avionics Tab, the proposal must include convincing rationale describing the Offeror’s approach to achieve full compliance for each Threshold requirement or meet the threshold requirement to the fullest extent possible. For these threshold requirements which are not in full compliance, the

6 | P a g e

Offeror’s rationale must ensure the approach will meet the requirements to the fullest extent possible. The Subfactor will remain as pass/fail, but will be one of the Subfactors evaluated for Factor 2, Technical Risk.

8) Section L, L.5.4 Volume Organization (for Volume III Price), Section 2. Section L.5.4 Volume Organization (for Volume III Price), Section 2, does not include a narrative requirement associated with L.5.3.6 SCLS. However, Section M.2.5.12 does have an associated evaluation criteria that requires a narrative. Please add this requirement into the Section 2 content outline presented in L.5.4.

Response: Section 2 has been corrected with the addition of SCLS.

9) Section L\L.5.4 Volume Organization (for Volume III Price), Section 2. Please remove the Price Reasonableness narrative requirements based on the amount of expected competition, with the qualification that the Government has the right to request this information if adequate competition is not obtained.

Response: IAW FAR 15.404-1(a)(1) The Contracting Officer is responsible for evaluating the reasonableness of the offered prices. IAW FAR 15.404-1(b)(3) The first two techniques at 15.404-1(b)(2) are the preferred techniques. However, if the contracting officer determines that information on competitive proposed prices or previous contract prices is not available or is insufficient to determine that the price is fair and reasonable, the contracting officer may use any of the remaining techniques as appropriate to the circumstances applicable to the acquisition. The Price Reasonableness section will not be modified.

10) Section L-L.6.1.1 Solicitation/Contract Form. Instructions for Volume IV Contract Documentation, Section L.6.1.1 requires offerors to complete specified blocks of the SF1449. The draft RFP was released with SF1447. Should the instruction and form be updated to a SF1449 or SF33?

Response: As this effort is non-commercial with some commercial aspect, SF1447 is the correct form. This will be corrected in Section L, 6.1.1 in the final RFP.

11) Section L-L.6.1.4 Reps and Certifications. Instructions for Volume IV Contract Documentation, Section L.6.1.4 requires offerors to verify by offer submission that its currently posted electronically at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items are correct. Please clarify this instruction. Is the acquisition being conducted under FAR Part 12 or FAR Part 15 policies and procedures?

Response: As this effort is non-commercial with some commercial aspect, this acquisition is being conducted under FAR Part 15 policies and procedures. The reference to FAR 52.212-3 will be removed from Section L, 6.1.4 in the final RFP.

12) Section L-L.6.3.5 Attachments to the Model Contract. Instructions for Volume IV Contract Documentation, Section L.6.3.5 requires offerors to submit a Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-9.

However, FAR 52.219-9(a) specifies "This clause does not apply to small business concerns."

Therefore, please remove this proposal content requirement.

Response: This requirement will be removed from Section L, 6.3.5 in the final RFP.

13) Section M-M.2.5.7 Estimating Techniques and Past Experience, M.2.5.8 Estimating, Purchasing, and Accounting Systems. Section M.2.5.7 and M.2.5.8 state that the Government will evaluate the offeror's estimating methods and standard practices will be evaluated against its Disclosure Statement and Cost Accounting System (CAS) compliance. However, the contract type is Firm Fixed Price.

Additionally, the contract is set aside for small business concerns and thus not covered by CAS per 48 CFR § 9903.201-1(b)(3). Pursuant to 48 CFR § 9903.202-1, the submission of a new or revised Disclosure Statement is not required for any non-CAS-covered contracts or from any small business

7 | P a g e concern. Please review and update the evaluation process as needed for consistency with the requirements for a non-CAS-covered FFP contract set aside for small business concerns.

Response: Section M 2.5.7 and Section M 2.5.8 have been revised to remove the reference to the Offeror's Disclosure Statement and Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) compliance.

14) "The 07/26/2022 Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, identifies TRL 7 or higher in 2.2.5.a. The program requirements paragraph calls out Technology Readiness Level 8 (TRL). The pre-solicitation conference presentation called out TRL 7. May the USG please clarify the required TRL?”

Response: The SOW has been corrected to show TRL 7 or higher requirement.

15) Neither the Section L Engineering Tables Spreadsheet tabs SF1 Threshold Compliance nor SF2b Objective Compliance contains the following requirement from SRD section 3.5.21.2:

"The Installed system shall provide a fault history page accessible on display when weight on wheels."

The second part of this requirement paragraph is as follows and appears on the Objective tab of Section L:

The fault history page shall be identified as “Maintenance Page” and include at minimum [OBJECTIVE];

· PBIT status for every LRU

· LRU failures that occurred in recent flight

· Currently failed LRUs

· Status of Databases

· Software versions and mods

Is the first part of this requirement paragraph a Threshold requirement and will be added to the SF1 Threshold Compliance tab of Section L Engineering Tables?

Response: All threshold requirements are captured in Section L Engineering Tables Spreadsheet tab SF1 Threshold Compliance; “"The Installed system shall provide a fault history page accessible on display when weight on wheels" is listed under Section 3.5.21.2.

INCENTIVE PLAN QUESTIONS:

1) Attachment Incentive Fee Plan\Incentive Fee Plan. Please clarify: Will the Government establish the $TBD dollar values and x.xx% incentive fee pool for the objectives in Tables 1 and 2? Or will the contractor propose the Target Cost, x.xx%, and $TBD? Since there are no FPIF CLINs, the calculation of fee pool is unclear.

Response: The CLINs have been restructured and updated with appropriate SOW references.

An updated Draft RFP with a revised Incentive Plan has been posted. Please continue to monitor www.SAM.gov for updated information.

2) Attachment Incentive Fee Plan\Incentive Fee Plan. Aircraft modifications could be delayed due to external factors that are not contractor induced. What will be the method for adjusting the date of the scheduled delivery order for the purpose of calculating the aircraft modification disincentive?

Response: For any USG caused delays the contractor would receive relief of day for day change to the schedule.

3) Attachment Incentive Fee Plan\Incentive Fee Plan. In the Incentive Fee Plan, for the GBTS effort, the scheduled dates for completion of the PDR and CDR are both measured from days after calendar award. Should the scheduled date for the CDR be the latter of either XX calendar days after PDR or XX calendar days after contract award?

8 | P a g e

Response: The CLINs have been restructured and updated with appropriate SOW references.

An updated Draft RFP with a revised Incentive Plan has been posted. Please continue to monitor www.SAM.gov for updated information.

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS:

1) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 1.1.3 Production & Deployment (PD) Phase. SOW 1.1 Table 1-1 lists the number of T-6A aircraft as 442 whereas Section 1.1.3 lists the total number as 441.

Which is correct?

Response: They are both correct. Each is showing different data. Table 1-1 shows 442 aircraft and number/base, along with one Test a/c and PT-406 Static Display. While the SOW 1.1.3 states “This will also include the installation to 441 T-6A aircraft, not counting the three (3) T-6A modified during EMD.”

442 T-6As at USAF base + 1 test T-6A +1 PT-406 = 444 T-6A441 T-6As at USAF bases + 3 ARP modified T-6As at Randolph AFB = 444 T-6A

2) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/ SOW 3.0 Requirements. Some issues, anomalies, findings or problems may have root causes that are not contractor induced. Therefore, we recommend that the second paragraph of SOW 3.0 be updated as follows: "Issues, anomalies, findings or problems that arise during any phase of the T-6A ARP with regard to any existing or unknown T-6A aircraft conditions... shall have the root cause and corrective actions identified, corrected and implemented at the expense of the contractor unless the issues, anomalies, findings or problems have root causes that are not contractor induced."

Response: SOW 3.0 has been updated to read “ Issues, anomalies, damage, or problems that arise during any phase after the Contractor’s testing and acceptance of the T-6A with regard to any sensor readings, configurations, installations, fit issues, interfaces, communications with any existing T-6A aircraft systems, avionics, structures, including but not limited to those that arise during design, development, prototyping, testing, kit proof installation, ground test, flight test, and production installations shall have the root cause and corrective actions identified. If the root cause is identified to be caused by the Contractor, then the corrective action implemented will be at the expense of the Contractor.”

3) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 3.1 Program Management. Reference SOW 3.1 "The Contractor shall ensure the USG is provided unlimited access to the Contractor’s T-6A ARP work areas any time work is being performed." Does this access include work areas where a commercial product is being produced? Or just the aircraft/ATD modifications?

Response: This does not reference commercial product production spaces. The SOW will be updated to reference modification areas that the USG provides.

4) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 3.5 CSDR Reporting. To determine Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) reporting requirements (SOW 3.5) and to prepare a bid with the correct WBS baseline IAW MIL-STD-881E, offerors must start from the Government's program level WBS (DoD 5000.4 CSDR). Please provide as soon as possible the Government's full program-level WBS structure that will satisfy the CSDR requirement.

Response: The USG will provide the Government's full program-level WBS structure with the final RFP.

5) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 3.14.1 – SRR. Reference SOW 3.14.1: At SRR, please confirm that draft documents for the test documents, E3 Verification Procedures, Program Life Cycle Cost, and several others will be acceptable at the requirements review?

Response: Refer to completed DD Form 1423-1 for CDRLs.

9 | P a g e

6) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/ SOW 3.14.3 – PDR, Reference SOW 3.14.3: At PDR, please confirm draft or initial analysis documents will be acceptable, as many of these require data that may not be fully available at the time of PDR (for example Weight & Balance would be only estimates), including test documents, E3 Verification Procedures, ICD, IDD, TDP, Weight & Balance, SDD.

SPS. SAR, Training materials, enviro and loads reports, and others.

Response: Completed DD Form 1423-1 for CDRLs provided includes maturity of document expected at submissions. Also, IEEE 15288.2 guides expectations throughout systems phases and reviews.

7) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 3.14.4 – CDR, Reference SOW 3.14.4: At PDR, please confirm that initial analysis documents will be acceptable, as many of these require data that may not be fully available at the time of CDR (for example Weight & Balance would be only estimates), including test documents, E3 Verification Procedures, Weight & Balance, Training materials, enviro and loads reports, and others.

Response: Completed DD Form 1423-1 for CDRLs provided includes maturity of document expected at submissions. Also, IEEE 15288.2 guides expectations throughout systems phases and reviews.

8) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 3.15 - Service Info & FAA Directive Review. SOW 3.15: Will requirements related to Service Information and FAA Directive Review be Over and Above (O&A) activities charged to O&A CLINs?

Response: If the Service Information is from the ARP contractor or their vendor(s) providing ARP components/materials, then changes to the component/materials or the installation/maintenance methods, it is expected that the ARP contractor will implement that change on remaining aircraft to be modified at no additional cost. This would include updated maintenance manual data delivered to the USG if warranted by the service information. The ARP contractor is expected to propose a solution for aircraft already fielded (e.g., updated firmware at next component overhaul). If the service information issue requires immediate (safety) removal of components from aircraft, the ARP contractor is expected to provide the rework of these component/material at no additional cost.

9) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 3.20 Facility/Runway/Security Management (Aircraft Only) SOW

3.20 requires the contractor to control access to the aircraft. Will each installation site be configured in such a manner that the contractor will/can be the controlling authority?

Response: It is the USG’s intent that the contractor will have the ability to control access in the provided workspace. Contractor personnel should wear distinctive clothing which identifies the company and allows for easier control of space.

10) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/ SOW 3.20 Facility/Runway/Security Management (Aircraft Only). SOW 3.20: Will the Government allow the contractor to control access to the installation sites allowing the contractor to extend a repair station to each site in order to establish FAA processes?

Response: The work is expected to be performed utilizing the FAA requirements for process control that would otherwise be used at an FAA Repair Station (e.g., certification and oversight of installation technicians, control of parts/materials, safety, etc). However, the facilities on USAF bases cannot be approved as an FAA Repair Station (it is outside the scope of the FAA’s statutory responsibility to oversee repair stations on military installations).

11) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 4.6 Base Site Survey. SOW 4.6: Please verify that the performance of LRU repair activities is outside the scope of this contract.

10 | P a g e

Response: The SOW has been updated. An updated Draft RFP is posted. Please continue to monitor www.SAM.gov for updated information.

12) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 4.11 Aircraft Installation Kit Proofing (Aircraft Only). SOW paragraph 4.11 requires kit proofing of the first 50 aircraft installations. Does the Prototype, Validation and Verification count as a part of the first 50? Will a separate CLIN (other than 0029) be provided to price the Kit Proofing?

Response: The first three (3) T-6A aircraft modified will have Installation Configuration audits conducted and will count as part of the first 50 installations. “Aircraft Installation Kit Proofing” has been replaced with “Aircraft Installation Configuration Audit”.

13) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 4.11 Aircraft Installation Kit Proofing (Aircraft Only). SOW 4.11:

Please define what "aircraft installation kit proofing" means in terms of the required activities and documentation.

Response: The SOW has been updated, refer to SOW 4.12. An updated Draft RFP is posted.

Please continue to monitor www.SAM.gov for updated information.

14) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 4.11 Aircraft Installation Kit Proofing (Aircraft Only). SOW 4.11:

The contractor is required to perform kit proofing on 20% of installations after the first 50 installations. Some installation CLIN quantities are not evenly divisible by 5. Therefore, please provide guidance for pricing this requirement.

15) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 4.11 Aircraft Installation Kit Proofing (Aircraft Only). SOW 4.11 requires the Contractor shall perform kit proofing on all installations of A-kits and B-kits for the first 50 T-6A and after the first 50 installations, kit proofing will be conducted on 20% of the remaining installations. Please update the quantity of CLIN 0020 to cover the total number of prospective Aircraft Installation Kit proofs, or add a new CLIN of type each (EA) to cover this requirement, or verify that additional proofs requested by the Government after the first 50 installations will be invoiced on the Over & Above CLIN.

16) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 4.15 – GFP. SOW 4.15 states: "The Contractor shall return all the loaned LRU/equipment in the "A" serviceable condition." Can the item be returned as "serviceable" if no faults are found during the use of that item? Or does the Government require the contractor to perform some activity such as bench or depot level testing to demonstrate each item's serviceability? Is the Contractor responsible for funding any checks to demonstrate serviceability?

Response: The Contractor shall return all loaned LRUs in serviceable condition. The Contractor shall return all loaned support/test equipment in “A” serviceable condition.

17) SOW (RFP Appendix A), SOW 4.15 – GFP. SOW 4.15: Who is responsible for funding repairs of loaned LRU/equipment? In some cases, repairs may not be possible due to obsolescence issues.

Response: The Contractor shall be responsible for repairs of loaned LRU/equipment.

18) SOW (RFP Appendix A), SOW 5.10 Technical Data Packages (TDP) (Aircraft and ATDs). SOW

5.10 and 5.10.1: Are production-level Technical Data Packages required for the commercial off

11 | P a g e the shelf products delivered as a part of the ARP? If yes, how will the Government protect the proprietary Data Packages from release?

Response: IAW DFAR 227.7102 (a) concerning commercial items, components, or processes, the DoD will acquire only the technical data customarily provided to the public except when needed for form, fit , function; repair, operation, or handling when the data customarily supplied to commercial users is insufficient; and when describing government funded modifications of commercial items.

19) SOW (RFP Appendix A), SOW 5.12.4.1 – DT, SOW 5.12.4.1: Will the ground and flight test plans be developed with VX-20 only, or will the USAF participate? Is the Contractor format for these test plans acceptable (if compliant with DI-NDTI-80566A), or will the Contractor be required to put these plans into the NAVAIR Test Plan format?

Response: The developmental test plans will be jointly developed between VX-20 and the contractor and will follow NAVAIR test plan format. The test plans will be reviewed by all ITT members, to include the program office.

20) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 5.12.7 Prototype ATD. SOW 5.12.7 Prototype ATD: Please confirm that the Government will be responsible for the shipment of the prototype UTD from the Contractor's facility to the destination.

Response: No, the USG will not be responsible for the shipment of the prototype UTD from the OEM’s facility. Instead, the winning contractor will be responsible for UTD shipment to desired location.

21) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 5.14 – ASIL. SOW 5.14 ASIL: Please confirm that the Government will be responsible for the shipment of the ASIL from the Contractor's facility to the destination.

Response: It is the USGs intent that the Contractor shall utilize the ASIL for the life of T-6A ARP to test all changes to all CI prior to incorporation on T-6A ARP, including but not limited to all service instructions, service bulletins, software modifications, firmware modifications, all Class 1 changes, and any Class 2 changes of interest. If required, the Contractor shall ship the ASIL to any location, setup, and perform acceptance test upon the request of USG at the expense of

USG.

22) SOW (RFP Appendix A), SOW 5.15 Temporary 2 Modification (T-2 Mod) (Aircraft Only). SOW

5.15 states: "The Contractor shall submit FAA Form 337 (or equivalent) stating the aircraft has been returned to its original configuration." Please confirm that "original configuration" means the post-modification configuration.

Response: Modification for T-2 Flight Test Instrumentation (FTI) must be reversed fully so the T- 6A asset selected for this test can be returned to service for training.

23) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 6.1 Acceptance of Aircraft . SOW 6.1: Will the Government provide written documentation from approved FAA sources that required functional checks have been performed prior to aircraft modification by Contractor’s Contract Field Teams?

Response: The USAF intends to document whether aircraft have existing issues prior to the modification. The USAF will not be providing documents from an approved FAA source.

24) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 6.4 Aircraft Modification (Production). SOW 6.4 states: "During modification, the Contractor shall visually inspect all accessed areas for any pre-existing aircraft damage. The Contractor shall report any identified damage to the USG." The performance of defect inspection without identified schedule slack for repairs dramatically increases schedule risk and adds installation team cost. Recommend removal of this requirement.

12 | P a g e

Response: The Contractor shall notify the USG and provide a list of affected aircraft installation areas with the completed ARP modified aircraft; the ARP contractor will not be conducting any aircraft repairs.

25) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 6.6 Aircraft Delivery. SOW 6.6: Are federal, state, and local holidays excluded from the 30 calendar day requirement?

Response: Federal holidays will be excluded from the 30-calendar day requirement.

26) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 6.6 Aircraft Delivery. SOW 6.6 states: "If the USG experiences problems with the new aircraft avionics suite components, the Contractor shall provide services to remedy the problem if directed by the USG." Please confirm that Contractor services to remedy USG problems will be charged to Over & Above CLINs.

Response: No, this is not considered Over and Above; the USG considers this to be a part of the original effort.

27) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 11.2.1 Initial Operator Training (Aircraft and ATDs). SOW 11.2.1:

Please provide the number of training events and the number of participants at each event who will receive aircraft operator training. Please provide the number of participants who will receive ATD training at each retrofit site. Please provide the expected/preferred durations for training events.

Response: For the aircraft, it is the USG’s intent to hold developmental training consisting of 5 days of ground testing followed by 26 days of flight testing and 15 test flights. These test events will be followed by operational testing, which will consist of 16 flights over 37 days. Training for maintenance personnel will be 4 avionics technicians and one field service technician from each main operating base (MOB). Training requirements for pilots will be 2 pilots from each MOB.

ATD Only to follow: “Per SOW para 11.2.2 ‘Civilian Simulator Instructor (CSI) Training (ATDs Only)’, each of the 6 flying sites will have at least one ‘train the trainer’ CSI available at LAFB for training on how to instruct on the new ARP system. Presently, no upper limit on the number of CSIs that may attend subject training has been identified. Currently, it is not anticipated that more the two CSIs from each of the 6 flying sites will undergo subject training for a total of 12 CSIs. However, for cost minimization and planning purposes, if so desired, the number of CSIs to undergo subject training identified in SOW para 11.2.2 can be more precisely defined.

Generally, it is left for the contractor to the define the number of training events and expected/preferred duration of training required for the company’s technical solution.

Per SOW para 11.2.4 ‘Maintenance (ATDs Only)’, the contractor will conduct maintenance training with on-site maintenance technicians at each of the 6 flying sites as ARP ATD retrofits take place. Across the 6 flying sites, the number of on-site maintenance technicians for T-6A ATDs ranges from 4 to 6 individuals. Generally, it is left for the contractor to the define the number of training events and expected/preferred duration of training required for the company’s technical solution.

28) SOW (RFP Appendix A)/SOW 12.1 Emergency TCTO (Aircraft Only). SOW 12.1 Emergency TCTO: If the Government requires the contractor to make the aircraft available to other entities, will the 30-day production clock be adjusted and will the government pay for the cost of labor due to the delay?

Response: This requirement has been removed from the Statement of Work.

29) Will the Integrated Logistic Support Plan, including sustainability requirements, be required as part of this RFP for the Sep/2023 to Nov/26 period, or is it a dedicated long term ILSP agreement expected to be signed to cover the requested 20 years sustainability?

13 | P a g e

Response: The Integrated Logistics Support Plan shall be required for the period of performance of this contract.

30) Please confirm the TRL requirement, conflicting information is stated on the DRAFT RFP, as follows: “APPENDIX A SOW / 3.0 Program Requirements: The Contractor shall already have a proposed avionics suite with a Technical Readiness Level 8 IAW Technology Readiness Assessment Guidance.” AND “ATTACH - T-6 ARP Section M: 2.2.5. Subfactor 5a: a) Approach must ensure Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Avionics Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) meet a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 7 or higher.”

Response: The SOW has been corrected to show TRL 7 or higher requirement.

31) The SRD states, "The Contractor shall use the T-6A JPATS Ground Based Training System Program Unique Specifications Documents (PUSD) as the basis for development of all specifications." How and when can Offerors get access to the PUSD and other technical details (e.g., schematics) regarding the architecture (hardware & software) of existing T-6A aircrew training devices (i.e., OFT, IFT, UTD, EPT, EST)?

32) What are the Government's requirements and/or preferences for simulated vs. stimulated avionic components in the upgraded ATDs?

Response: GBTS does not define a requirement defining the mix between simulated vs stimulated avionic components in upgraded ATDs. Instead, GBTS allows the contractor to determine such a mix as part of providing the company’s technical solution for the upgrade, provided that the solution has the fidelity required for the ARP aircraft system.

33) Alternate Information Screen: Who will be using that information - instructor or pilot and what kind of information?

Response: Alternate Information Screen content is TBD.

34) There are items that were identified as obsolete in the Industry Day slides, however, were not listed in the SRD. Were these omissions intended (Audio Control Panel, etc.)?

Response: Please refer to SRD for official list.

35) Will the US Government provide cooling requirements on the systems to be replaced?

Response: The contractor needs to obtain OEM data.

36) Will the USG consider LRUs with integrated capabilities (such as a combined TCAS/Transponder), to replace existing capabilities (i.e., Transponder)?

Response: Yes

37) Will the USG consider embedded EFB as an evaluation criteria?

expected.

14 | P a g e

38) Will the USG provide information on the EFB planned for use or in use on the T-6A?

expected. The Electronic Flight Bag utilizes a laundry list of applications. Key applications are:

PDF viewers to view Flight Manuals; and, the ForeFlight application to display Traffic and Weather information (that is typically made available utilizing a device such as the Sentry or Stratus 3).

39) Will objective requirements be evaluated as "shoulds"?

Response: Every “shall” in this section will be assigned a requirement ID by the integrator. All requirements are mandatory and defined as the minimum acceptable threshold, except where noted OBJECTIVE. A requirement with [OBJECTIVE] following the sentence is defined as a desired objective where all other mandatory requirements are met. The threshold is equal to the objective in the case where no objective is listed. Meeting OBJECTIVE requirements will be considered according to Section M evaluation criteria.

40) Will the installed system need to interface to the existing TAS?

Response: The existing TAS will be replaced with the ARP solution.

41) Will the Navigation Database be a vendor provided item?

Response: The Contractor shall be responsible for delivering the ARP modified aircraft with the current navigation database load. Subsequent updates will be a USG responsibility.

42) The SOW states "The Contractor shall design, incorporate and maintain a style guide based on Space Systems Command (SSC) Model-Based Systems Engineering Style Guide…" Is the Style Guide available in the bidders library or available by request? The SSC MBSE style guide was not located via Google search.

43) The requirement, in 3.6.4.7 CFIT-P Reliability Requirements, "In addition to meeting threshold requirement for TMTBF for whole installed system, the CFIT-P LRU(s) shall meet or exceed a Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of 10,000Hrs per HDBK-217 plus for an Airborne Uninhabited Fighter (AUF) aircraft environment." This requirement is on the objective tab but the Draft SRD doesn't identify it as an [Objective]. Is this requirement a Threshold or an Objective requirement?

Response: SRD Rev 001 has correction.

44) Requirement "The installed system shall meet the human engineering criteria in MIL-STD-1472H, sections 4, 5.1 through 5.5, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.13, 5.16, 5.17, and 5.20 for all normal and emergency conditions for all anticipated missions contained in the JPATS ORD." What is the verification method for this requirement? Presumed to be I/A/D/T.

Response: This omission will be addressed in SRD Rev 002.

45) Does the USG intend to utilize the current SEPM contract for O&As identified during each aircraft's inspection and installation phases?

Response: No

15 | P a g e

46) Are there any Low Level training missions conducted in the syllabus which may require the

TAWS to remain silent in situations where a typical TAWS will be alerting Modes 1 - 4?

Response: SRD Rev 001 updated with “The installed system shall ensure safety of flight and provide for manual, temporary inhibiting of warnings during extended low level flight (500 feet AGL, between 140 to 316kts Indicated Airspeed) conditions.”

47) May the list of CAD STEP files be provided as part of the bidder’s library, or at least a detailed description of what will be provided? This would help determine any additional integration design work required as part of the bid.

48) In addition to the ATD asset, would it be possible to deliver to the contractor site the T-6A static aircraft or equivalent aircraft? Having a T-6A aircraft will support the overall engineering and prototyping schedule, reducing travel costs for engineering personal.

Response: PT-406 (Static Aircraft) will be made available to the Contractor for shipment from Tinker AFB to the Contractor’s facility at the beginning of the contract and will need to be shipped back to the USG (at Tinker AFB, OK) prior the end of the contract.

49) The requirements for both an STC and USAF Airworthiness approvals is unwise. It is wasteful and unproductive for multiple reasons. It is wholly redundant, expensive in costs in time and money and it will create confusion on many fronts. It will not increase safety in maintenance or flight operations and it won’t enhance the final design. It will cause confusion in things such as establishing the correct Aircraft Flight Manual Supplement for these aircraft following the modifications. There will be 2 new manuals needed to legally fly the aircraft and 2 different sets of Maintenance Instructions. It did not serve the T-1A Avionics Upgrade program well at all. The STC requirements should be dropped altogether for the T-6A Texan ARP.

Response: The USAF approved AW Plan for T-6A ARP requires this strategy of FAA STC with some sub-elements not FAA Certified (OBOGS, ABOS, UHF Radio). The USAF AW approval will be based on FAA certification and any elements that are not FAA certified.

50) Since this is intended to be an entirely COTS based solution, the software and much of the hardware certification requirements in the SOW are redundant, not necessary and expensive in time and money. If the equipment is FAA certified with a TSO, these additional software and hardware validation requirements are not needed.

Response: There are some aspects of the ARP modification that may only be partially FAA Certified, or not at all. These certification requirements in the SOW will be used to substantiate (for USAF AW certification) these aspects. Examples of ARP interaction with systems that are not (or not fully) FAA Certified are: connection to and display/record of status/data from OnBoard Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS) and Automatic Backup Oxygen System (ABOS); and, functionality of the UHF radio.

51) The SOW seems to throw the book at all airworthiness certification requirements. Instead of citing entire manuals for technical requirements such as Mil Handbook 516C, state the particular requirements for each identified task. A more detailed Airworthiness Certification path should be defined to help enable a successful program.

Response: There is an AW Certification Basis in the Bidder’s library that identifies the MIL- HDBK-516 criteria that are applicable to this project. The solution proposed may render some of these criteria N/A and there is a post award review process to approve changes.

16 | P a g e

52) Requiring reports to be submitted with bids during the bidding process such as a STC

Certification Plan are wasteful, not productive and expensive for companies to produce. Without a more detailed knowledge of the final design following CDR, these reports useless and are very costly in time and money for companies to produce without a contract in-hand. This proposal effort will already be a very large effort for any company, adding in unworkable and useless reporting requirements for the proposal is a needless waste for all. The final RFP should be clear as to exactly what reports are required to be submitted with the proposal.

Response: The ability of the bidder to obtain an FAA STC is a key aspect of this project.

53) 3.14.1 Many of these CDRL reporting requirements are excessive, unworkable and very costly in time and money. No new software will be developed for this program as all new avionics will be COTS using FAA Certified TSO authorizations.

Response: The Program Office utilizes some of these CDRLs as a means for tracking contractor progress to technical solution and schedule, and documenting that the approved configuration meets the contract requirements. Additionally, there are some aspects of the ARP modification that may only be partially FAA Certified, or not at all, which could require software development.

Also, the integration of avionics components with the aircraft could require software development.

For any Source Lines of Code (SLOC) or software configuration managed as part of the solution that is…