Pre-Soliciation Conference Industry Questions-Responses_Part VI.pdf

1 | P a g e

21-Oct-22

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

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

1) With the DOD operating under a restricted continuing resolution until December 16, 2022, will USG be able to release a final RFP and evaluate proposals under this continuing resolution?

Response: The Final RFP can be released, and evaluations can occur, but a contract cannot be awarded under CR. It is still the USG’s intent to award the contemplated contract 4th quarter FY23.

2) Requirement for Letters of Intent (LOI) with the OEMs. Due to several questions from industry regarding the LOI requirement, please see the Government response below:

Response: The Government has determined it is a requirement to have letter of intent with OEM demonstrating access to the data needed to integrate with the existing simulator system. The Government does not dictate the terms of the business arrangement used to obtain the data required.

SMALL BUSINESS QUESTIONS:

1) Please confirm that for NAICS Code 336411 (Aircraft Manufacturing), a Small Business Administration waiver for a class of products (class waiver, FAR 19.505.4ciii) has been granted for when there are no small business manufacturers or processors available to participate in the Federal market for that class of products, so that the bidders do not need to separately request these waivers.

Response: SBA has issued a class waiver of the nonmanufacture rule for NAICS 336411, waiving the requirement for the small business nonmanfacturer to supply the end item of a small business manufacturer, processor, or producer. Therefore, with the waiver in place, a small business nonmanufacturer can supply the end item of a large business manufacturer. FAR 19.505(b)(4)(iv) requires the contracting officer to provide potential offerors with written notification of any class or individual waivers in the solicitation. Therefore, this notification will be issued in the final RFP.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA

2 | P a g e

CLAUSE QUESTIONS:

1) DRAFT RFP II/ 'Section I Clauses and SOW 5.12.4.1 Developmental Testing (DT) (Aircraft Only). SOW 5.12.4.1 requires the Contractor to provide a FAA or DER pilot fully qualified to fly in a USAF T-6A. SOW 6.0 requires the contractor to take possession of the aircraft for modification. Given these requirements, recommend that DFARS Clause 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk clause be added to the RFP.

Response: DFARS Clause 252.228-7001 will be included in the final RFP.

2) DRAFT RFP II/ 'Section I Clauses. RECOMMENDATION: Given that the installations will be accomplished at Government sites where the contractor does not have full control of the site workdays and hours and given that schedules could also be delayed due to other causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor such as epidemics or unusually severe weather (to name just a few examples), we recommend adding 52.249-14, Excusable Delays to Section I Clauses.

Response: Per FAR 49.505(b), FAR Clause 52.249-14 Excusable Delays, shall be inserted in solicitations and contracts for supplies, services, construction, and research and development on a fee basis, when a cost-reimbursable contract is contemplated. As this effort is contemplated as a Firm-Fixed Price contract, this clause will not be included in the Final RFP or possible resulting contract. Please note that FAR Clauses 52.242-17 and 52.249-8 are included in the RFP.

3) DRAFT RFP II/Section I Clauses. RECOMMENDATION: Due to potential inflation and due to the overall T-6 Anticipated Value, will the Government add FAR 52.216- 4, Economic Price Adjustment-Labor and Material, to the Contract Terms and Conditions?

Response: Per FAR 16.203-4(c), FAR Clause 52.216-4 Economic Price Adjustment-Labor and Material, shall be inserted in solicitations and contracts when all of the conditions of FAR 16.203-4(c)(i)-(iv) apply. The USG team has reviewed the conditions listed and determined that not all of the conditions of FAR 16.203-4(c)(i)-(iv) have been met. Therefore, this clause will not be included in the Final RFP or possible resulting contract.

4) DRAFT RFP II/ Section I Clauses. RECOMMENDATION: Due to potential inflation and due to the overall T-6 Anticipated Value, will the Government add FAR 52.216- 4, Economic Price Adjustment-Labor and Material, to the Contract Terms and Conditions?

Response: Per FAR 16.203-4(c)(1), FAR Clause 52.216-4 Economic Price Adjustment-Labor and Material, shall be inserted in solicitations and contracts when all of the conditions of FAR 16.203-4(c)(1)(i)-(iv) apply. The USG team has reviewed the conditions listed and determined that not all of the conditions of

3 | P a g e

FAR 16.203-4(c)(i)-(iv) have been met. Therefore, this clause will not be included in the Final RFP or possible resulting contract.

SECTION L/M QUESTIONS:

1) Section L, ITO Attachment 1.1 Past Performance Information Form and 1.2, Past Performance Questionnaire/ PPI and PPQ in General. DISCUSSION: Section L, ITO Attachment 1.1 Past Performance Information Form and 1.2, Past Performance Questionnaire are designed to obtain information on individual contracts. This approach may not be suitable for commercial manufacturers. Those manufacturers typically sell avionics products through authorized dealers and thus may have no contracts/agreements or relationships with the end buyers and users. Additionally, commercial dealers may not keep detailed sales or performance records or make them available to the manufacturer.

RECOMMENDATION: Please consider permitting commercial manufacturers to provide information on individual products or product lines (vs. individual sales). Or remove this requirement for commercial manufacturers of avionics products.

Response: The Past Performance Questionnaire requirement will not be removed.

2) Section L, ITO Attachment 1.2, Past Performance Questionnaire/PPQ Section 4 Evaluation Subfactor 4: Program Schedule. The PPQ Section 4 Evaluation, Subfactor 4:

Program Schedule includes no questions related to the system installation/aircraft modification activities. The contractor's performance of the aircraft modifications will have a meaningful contribution to program success and schedule performance.

Additionally, the value of the installation activities will be a significant portion of program value. Therefore, we recommend adding evaluation questions related to the system installation/aircraft modification activities.

Response: Please refer to Past Performance Questionnaire, Section 4 Evaluation, Subfactor 4. The following question was previously listed regarding installations:

“Did the contractor adequately plan to ensure installation outputs were delivered to meet schedule?”

3) Sect L EN Tables/ SF2a - Threshold Exceedances. Section L Engineering Tables, SF2a - Threshold Exceedances: The Government's approach to issuing Significant Strengths and Strengths is unclear. Will the evaluators issue a strength/significant strength for each LRU/component that exceeds Table 4 or solar radiation requirements even if not every LRU in the system exceeds the requirements? Or will the evaluators issue only one strength/significant strength for each evaluation category for the system as a whole if one or more LRU/components exceed the threshold requirements?

Response: If an Offeror answers Y and provides supporting rationale, then this will signal a strength/significant strength. Each SRD requirement listed on SF2a and SF2b, would be evaluated as an individual strength/significant strength and per Section M, 2.2.2., “The overall rating for SF2 will be based on the number of strengths/significant strengths assigned by the Government, and the level of

4 | P a g e anticipated benefits the Government will receive during contract performance from the strengths/significant strengths.”

Per Section M, Section 2.2.2, “To receive consideration as a strength/significant strength under Subfactor 2, Offerors must specifically identify which requirements the proposed approach exceeds in relation to Subfactor 2a and meets in relation to 2b below and provide convincing rationale supporting the strength/significant strength. The Government will assess the rationale for each proposed strength/significant strength and apply professional judgment to determine if the proposed strength/significant strength is an actual strength/significant strength and if so, the level of anticipated benefit during contract performance the Government will receive from the strength/significant strength. The Government will not identify any proposal aspect as a strength/significant strength unless it relates to the criteria listed in Subfactor 2a and 2b below, and the aspect is specifically identified as a strength/significant strength in the Offeror’s proposal as described in Section L, paragraph 3.2.4.”

Per Section L, 3.2.4, “Within the attached Section L Engineering Tables spreadsheet, the Offeror shall indicate areas of the proposed approach which exceed Threshold requirements and/or meet Objective requirements. Threshold exceedances related to Subfactor 2a below are listed in the spreadsheet in the SF2a Threshold Exceedance Tab. Objective requirements related to Subfactor 2b below are listed in the spreadsheet in the SF2b Objective Compliance Tab. Refer to the Section L Engineering Tables, Vol I Instructions tab for guidance regarding how to complete the spreadsheet. The Government will not consider strengths/significant strengths for requirements that are not listed in the SF2a Threshold Exceedance Tab or the SF2b Objective Compliance Tab.”

“For both tabs, the Offeror shall mark “Y” in areas where the Offeror believes the proposed approach should receive consideration as a strength/significant strength for exceeding threshold requirements in Subfactor 2a and/or complying with objective requirements in Subfactor 2b. For all areas marked as “Y”, the Offeror shall provide supporting rationale for the proposed strength/significant strength in the Offeror’s Volume I Technical Proposal. The Government will only evaluate the approach for potential strengths/significant strengths for requirements where the Offeror has indicated a “Y”. For requirements indicated by the Offeror as “N”, or are blank, the Government will not assign any strengths/significant strengths.”

4) Sect L EN Tables and SRD/ Section L EN Tables, multiple locations. Sect L EN Tables -

SF2b - Objective Requirements. The Engineering Table no longer contains an Objective requirement for ARINC 429. Was this deletion intentional?

Response: The Engineering Table in Section L will be used for evaluation purposes but do not include all SRD Objectives. The SRD Objectives not

5 | P a g e evaluated in Section L will not be deleted from the SRD because they are desirable.

5) Sect L EN Tables and SRD/ Section L EN Tables, multiple locations. SF2b - Objective Requirements L. There are multiple Objective requirements in the SRD that are no longer in the Engineering Tables including weight, CG, TCAS II, and Interfaces. Is it correct to assume the Engineering Tables take precedence and the SRD will be updated to delete these Objective requirements?

Response: There were some SRD requirements removed from the Section L EN Tables, tab SF2b Objective Compliance, those particular SRD requirements will not be a part of the evaluation of SF2b. The SRD Objectives not evaluated in Section L will not be deleted from the SRD because they are desirable to the

USG.

Please see Section M, Section 1.8, Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions): “Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, System Requirements Documents (SRD), and Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, other than those identified as factors and subfactors. Requirements included in the factors and subfactors will be evaluated in accordance with the process described for each factor and subfactor. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. For SRD requirements where the Offeror’s approach is not in full-compliance with the threshold requirements, the Offeror’s approach will be evaluated as part of Factor 1 Technical, Subfactor 5b.

The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.”

6) Section L/ 4.2 Early Proposal Information. Section L requests offerors to submit the Past

Performance Volume II fifteen calendar days prior to the solicitation closing date.

QUESTION: Will this be the final volume II submittal, or should volume II be re-submitted on the final solicitation due date?

Response: The Section L request for Offerors to submit the Past Performance Volume II 15 calendar days prior to the solicitation close date is referring to the final Volume II submission. As this is only a request, Offerors are not required to submit Volume II early. If Offerors elects to submit Volume II early, Offerors are not required to re-submit Volume II on the final solicitation due date. If Volume II is submitted 15 days early and if the Offeror has any updates, it can be resubmitted when the RFP closes.

7) In the Section_L_EN_Tables_US_15Sep22, tab SF2b Objective Compliance, there were requirement details that were removed that were in the July 25 edition. However, those requirement details that were removed still appear in the SRD with the [OBJECTIVE]

6 | P a g e tag. Is it the US Government’s intent to include all SRD requirements tagged with [OBJECTIVE] as a SF2b evaluation criteria?

not be a part of the evaluation but will still be a part of the contract requirements because they are still included in the SRD.

Please see Section M, Section 1.8, Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions): “Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, System Requirements Documents (SRD), and Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, other than those identified as factors and subfactors. Requirements included in the factors and subfactors will be evaluated in accordance with the process described for each factor and subfactor. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. For SRD requirements where the Offeror’s approach is not in full-compliance with the threshold requirements, the Offeror’s approach will be evaluated as part of Factor 1 Technical, Subfactor 5b.

The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.”

8) CONTROLLED_Section+L+EN+Tables_UE_15Sep22 – Will the SF2b Objective

Compliance be updated to include the missing [OBJECTIVE] requirements from the SRD sections 3.5.4.2, 3.5.4.4, 3.6.1, 3.6.3, 3.6.4, 3.6.7.5, and 3.7.1.4?

not be a part of the evaluation of SF2b. The SRD Objectives not evaluated in Section L will not be deleted from the SRD because they are desirable to the

USG.

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS:

1) SOW and Section M/ 'SOW 3.1 Program Management and Section M, paragraph

2.2.4(e). DISCUSSION: SOW 3.1 requires the contractor to establish Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA) or subcontracting agreements with OEMs, component vendors, support contractor, and integrator "as needed for successful performance through final aircraft installation, and to meet scheduled contract deliveries/milestones."

This suggests that if the ACAs or subcontracting agreements are NOT needed for successful performance, etc., the contractor need not execute the agreements. However, Section M, paragraph 2.2.4(e) requires the contractor to submit proof of such agreements or letters of intent without the caveat statement "as needed for successful performance".

QUESTION: If the offeror's solution does not require an agreement with a particular vendor to ensure successful performance or meet milestones, and therefore does not

7 | P a g e provide in its proposal proof of an agreement with that vendor, will the Government assess the response as technically acceptable?

Response: Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs) are not required with the proposal but can be provided if offerors possess a current ACA; but would be required after contract award. LOIs are required to be submitted with your proposal and are required to be considered technically acceptable.

2) SOW/ General (No text in current SOW). How does the Government intend to update the ITD Part Task Trainers (Virtual Reality Trainers)? Should this contract add the requirement to update the ITDs with the new avionics?

Response: The ITDs are not part of the T-6A ARP effort and will not be updated in this effort.

3) SOW/ SOW 3.2.2 Integrated Master Schedule. RECOMMENDATION: SOW 3.2.2 Integrated Master Schedule includes the following requirement: "If scheduled performance occurs on a USG installation, the Contractor’s IMS shall observe all federal holidays and local base closure procedures." After this requirement, we recommend adding the following sentence: "Any future changes in federal holiday schedules or other delays in production not caused by the contractor such as Government-directed base closures/safety stand-downs shall be excusable delays and the IMS shall be updated."

Response: The USG is evaluating this request. After the USG has made its determination, the SOW may be updated accordingly.

4) SOW/ SOW 3.8 Hazardous Materials (Aircraft and ATDs). DISCUSSION: SOW 3.7 states: "The Contractor shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and Local laws, regulations, and requirements and any additional military base hazardous material requirements when applicable." QUESTION: Can the government add to the Bidder's Library the detailed safety and environmental procedures applicable to each base listed in SOW Table 1.1?

Response: The USG is reviewing USAF documents to be placed in the Bidder’s Library prior to Final RFP release. The USG believes that Federal, state, and local law are readily available and does not intend to post those documents in the Bidder’s Library.

5) SOW/ SOW 4.10 Initial Spares Kits (Aircraft and ATDs). SOW 4.10 Initial Spares Kits (Aircraft and ATDs): We assume that a minimum spares kit will include one of each LRU in the avionics suite. Is this assumption correct?

Response: No, the A&B kits are expected to be in the same configuration for the spares as they are for each aircraft A&B kit purchase.

8 | P a g e

6) SOW/ SOW 4.4 Supportability (Aircraft and ATDs). SOW 4.4 Supportability (Aircraft and ATDs): Can the government provide the current maintenance man-hour requirements to allow the Offeror to determine compliance to SOW 4.4 Supportability requirements?

Response: Currently, there are no scheduled maintenance man-hours pertaining to the avionics systems. The ARP solution shall not require any scheduled maintenance man-hours requirements.

7) SOW/ 3.1 Program Management (Aircraft and ATDs) and 5.2 Systems Engineering Management Plan (Aircraft and ATDs). DISCUSSION: SOW 3.1 states: "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." SOW 5.2 states: "The Contractor shall ensure that only authorized personnel have access to the aircraft and ATDs, such as approved installers, PCO, Contract Officer Representative (COR), and specified USG employees, Program Managers (PMs) and engineers." CLARIFICATION REQUEST: In SOW 3.1, is the requirement for unlimited access restricted to only authorized personnel as set forth in SOW 5.2? If yes, recommend updating the wording SOW 3.1 to reflect that condition.

Response: The SOW will be updated to reflect the following: “The Contractor shall ensure that only authorized personnel have access to the aircraft and ATDs, such as, but not limited to: approved installers, PCO, Contract Officer Representative (COR), specified USG employees, Program Managers (PMs), engineers, and personnel identified by the Program Office (PO). This list will be annotated and can be updated by the PO or the COR as required”.

8) SOW/ SOW 5.12.6.2 Prepare Aircraft for Ground and Flight Test (Aircraft Only).

DISCUSSION: SOW 5.12.6.2 states: "The Contractor shall perform a thorough preflight inspection IAW 1T-6A-6WC-1. This is in addition to post modification testing, de-preservation, installation of removed items, and servicing tasks as necessary to prepare aircraft for flight." QUESTION: What is the preservation requirement for aircraft undergoing modification for 30 days or less?

Response: The SOW will be updated to reflect the following verbiage, “The Contractor shall perform a thorough preflight inspection IAW 1T-6A-6WC-1.

This is in addition to post modification testing.

9) SOW/ SOW 6.0 Aircraft Modification Requirements (Aircraft Only). Q&A Part II, Answer 51 states: USG Maintenance will remove the ejection seats and canopies when preparing the aircraft for modification. We recommend adding this clarification to the opening section of SOW 6.0 Aircraft Modification Requirements (Aircraft Only).

Response: The SOW has been updated as follows: “The USG Maintenance will remove the ejection seats and canopy prior to delivering each aircraft to the Contractor’s CFT for the ARP modification”.

9 | P a g e

10) SOW 6.0 Aircraft Modification Requirements (Aircraft Only). Will the aircraft have any explosive devices (Cads/Pads/Etc.) installed when transferred to the Contractor? If yes, will the sites listed in table 1.1 have explosive storage capabilities available to the Contractor?

Response: It is the USG’s intent that no explosive devices will be installed when the aircraft is transferred to the Contractor.

11) SOW 6.1 Acceptance of Aircraft. SOW 6.1 states: "...aircraft will be planned for a 30-day delivery cycle." SOW 6.6 states: Aircraft are to be modified on a thirty (30) calendar cycle. Please confirm that the 30-day delivery cycle referenced in SOW 6.1 is calendar days.

Response: Yes, the SOW will be updated to reflect calendar days.

12) SOW 6.1 Acceptance of Aircraft. SOW 6.1 states: "...aircraft will be planned for a 30-day delivery cycle." Some 30-day periods may include multiple federal holidays. Will the Government allow day-for-day extensions to the delivery schedule for each federal holiday in a 30-day cycle?

Response: Yes, the USG holidays and base closures will not count against the 30-calendar day cycle.

13) SOW 6.1 Acceptance of Aircraft. SOW 6.1 states: "The COR/T-6A PO/PM will work with base maintenance to provide a replacement aircraft within one (1) working day if adverse conditions exist that will impede or exclude the ARP modification." In such a case, please verify that the IMS will be updated to incorporate the receipt time of the replacement aircraft as the start date/time for the delivery schedule?

Response: Yes, it is the USG’s intent that the IMS will be updated with the start date/time for the delivery schedule in the event that this delay is realized.

14) SOW 6.1 Acceptance of Aircraft (Aircraft Only). SOW 6.1 requires the contractor to list anomalies by "tail/BUNO number." Typically, a Buno number refers to a Navy aircraft.

Will this effort include BUNO numbered aircraft?

Response: This effort will not include Navy T-6A aircraft. The T-6A Program Office is a joint office with U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Army personnel and positions. Some documents use joint aviation terminology from all services;

please do not read this as being inferred that USN aircraft are a part of ARP.

15) SOW 6.1 Acceptance of Aircraft and ARP Incentive Plan. DISCUSSION: SOW 6.1 Acceptance of Aircraft states "The aircraft will be planned for a 30-day delivery cycle to coincide with the modification timeline. If an aircraft is delivered early, the new aircraft will be provided to the Contractor on the pre-scheduled date. If an aircraft is delivered late, a new aircraft will not be provided to the Contractor until after receipt of late aircraft

10 | P a g e

ARP delivery. The Contractor shall only have two (2) aircraft in modification at any given time." The ARP Incentive Plan specifies that the Government will apply a disincentive penalty of $70,000 for any aircraft modification delivered later than 3 days after the scheduled delivery date. If one aircraft is delivered late, there could be a cascading schedule impact to the subsequent modifications in the same production queue.

This could leave the small business prime contractor in an irrecoverable position of being late and accruing the $70,000/aircraft disincentives unless the schedule is adjusted.

QUESTION: We understand that the scheduled delivery date for each aircraft (and the production IMS) will be adjusted to reflect the 30-day delivery cycle noted in SOW 6.1 with the actual date the aircraft is provided to the Contractor serving as Day 1 of the 30-day delivery cycle. Is this understanding, correct?

Response: Yes, it is not the USG’s intent to continuously penalize the Contractor for one aircraft delivered late. The 30-calendar day cycle will start from the day the Contractor is given the new aircraft and the IMS will be updated accordingly.

16) SOW Appendix B/ Table GBTS - ATDs, fourth column ATD Installations. SOW Appendix B, Notional Production Planning Schedule, last table "GBTS - ATDs", has changed the approximate start date for installations from 994 days in Draft RFP I to 365 days in Draft RFP II. Is this a typographical error?

Response: Yes, this is a typographical error. USG will correct this information for Final RFP.

17) Appendix G CDRL & Data Rights List. SOW Appendix G CDRL List is color coded (Green, Yellow, Orange, and Red). What does the color-coding mean?

Response: The color coding has no meaning for the RFP and will be removed in the Final RFP.

18) Attachment - ARP Incentive Plan/ ARP Incentive Plan paragraph 6.6.4 (deleted). The Government has deleted Paragraph 6.6.4 from the ARP Incentive Plan. "Aircraft modification delivery (disincentive) will not be effective for the first five (5) months of ARP installations (Approximately 45-50 ARP installations). This will allow the Contract Field Teams a learning curve for improved efficiencies and procedures." Was this deletion intended? If yes, please explain why the Government deleted the learning curve period?

Response: The verbiage has been incorporated in the current Incentive Plan.

19) Attachment - ARP Incentive Plan/ ARP Incentive Plan paragraph 6.6.4 (deleted).

Paragraph 6.6.4 has been deleted from the ARP Incentive Plan. Recommend adding it back in as follows: "Aircraft modification delivery (disincentive) will not be effective for the first five (5) months of ARP installations (Approximately 45-50 ARP installations).

This will allow the Contract Field Teams a learning curve for improved efficiencies and procedures.

11 | P a g e

Response: This deletion was unintentional; the USG has added this verbiage and will be in the Final RFP release.

20) Attachment – SRD/TCAS I threshold requirement. What is the Threshold requirement for TCAS I? Currently, the SRD does not define any requirements.

Response: The installed system which includes Traffic Advisory System (TAS) shall retain existing T-6A capability while addressing known deficiencies identified in this SRD. The threshold requirement is to retain T-6A capability of the current TAS and meet the Airborne Traffic Collision Warning requirements in the PIPFS.

21) Attachment – SRD/ 3.3 Legacy Requirements. SRD, 3.3 Legacy Requirements: Can the Government clarify that the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) is a future TCTO that is being worked under another contract and the ARP contractor is only responsible to ensure the correct wires are run for the new ELT.

Response: The Government does not currently have a TCTO to update the ELT.

The ELT is not on the Component Replacement List in the SRD. The SRD requirement remains the same.

22) Previously the government had stated that the LITEF LCR-100 AHRS was considered obsolete. However, it appears that that the LCR-100 is NOT obsolete as there is a software change that addresses this topic. We understand that the government has not upgraded the entire fleet of T-6A's with this AHRS. Just to verify the latest and greatest information, can you clarify for us if this AHRS Is/Is Not obsolete? If not obsolete, can you verify our assumption that the US Government will continue to upgrade the balance of the T-6A fleet until all aircraft are upgraded with the LCR-100?

Response: The AHRS is on our Component Replacement List (Table 1) in the SRD. The Avionics Replacement Program shall replace the components in Table

1. Where multiple part numbers are listed in Table 1, installed system shall meet the performance of the most capable model, with consideration for multiple configurations.

23) Section 3.6.3 Integrating Computing the change was "The integrated computer system shall be designed in compliance to ARINC 653 for partitioning support for all DAL levels [OBJECTIVE}." (Question) Should Section 3.8.1 Major System Interfaces "All LRU interfaces of the installed system are Major System Interfaces. Interfaces defined by ARINC 653 are Major System Interfaces." Should this also be an [OBJECTIVE} like stated in 3.6.3?

Response: Paragraph 3.8.1, the Government intends to keep SRD as follows: “… ARINC 653 compliant preferred”. Currently the Government does not intend to make this an objective. Reference SRD section 3 which states: “Every “shall” in this section will be assigned a requirement ID by the integrator. All requirements

12 | P a g e are mandatory and defined as the minimum acceptable threshold, except where noted OBJECTIVE.”

24) Is it the plan of the Program Office to replace the LCR-93 AHRS with the LCR-100 AHRS through attrition? Is the replacement of the LCR-93 AHRS a program of record?

Response: The AHRS is on the Component Replacement List (Table 1) in the SRD. The Avionics Replacement Program shall replace the components in Table

1. Where multiple part numbers are listed in Table 1, installed system shall meet the performance of the most capable model, with consideration for multiple configurations.

25) SOW/ App E. App E provides 34 days from CDR to start of the prototype installation for the Contractor to manufacture, FAA-DAR conform and deliver the prototype A-kit. This introduces high risk to the schedule. Contractor requests the schedule be revised to provide 90 days after CDR for delivery of prototype A-kit and start of prototype installation.

Response: After PDR, the Physical Prototype and PT-406 Mock-up A&B kits are ordered (CLIN 0013), approximately 130 days are allowed for the building of the Physical Prototype and PT-406 fuselage mock-up A&B kits which are delivered 30 days prior to CDR.

26) SOW/ 5.12.6 & App E. App E, Kit Proof, Val/Ver, and Spare are deliverables prior to STC Delivery. FAA-PMA cannot be obtained prior to STC Delivery. It is not expected that the FAA will authorize an FAA-DAR to provide the 8130 (prototype) tags for these kits as they will not be installed in the FAA STC prototype aircraft. Is a C of C for the Kit Proof, Val/Ver, and Spare A-kits acceptable to the USG?

Response: The Contractor shall verify Prototype Kits are in the FAA Type Inspection Authorization configuration before Ground and Flight testing begin.

There is language in the Airworthiness section stating the requirement for a copy of the CDRL delivery of the TIA.

27) SOW/ 5.12.6 & App E. The schedule proposed by the USG does not allow adequate time to order and receive materials for the prototype A & B kits post CDR. Will the USG authorize the Contractor to purchase all materials at conclusion of PDR in order to meet the proposed prototype installation start date?

Response: CLIN 0013 is set up for the order of the Physical Prototype and PT- 406 Fuselage Mock-Up A&B kits and will be ordered after successful completion of PDR. The Physical Prototype and PT-406 Fuselage Mock-Up A&B kits are to be delivered 30 calendar days prior to CDR and currently allows over 120 calendar days to build the two A&B kits.

13 | P a g e

28) SRD/ 3.6.1. In order to accommodate carry-on equipment (i.e. Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) currently approved for T-6A, the current mounting configuration is required.

Where exactly is the pivot mount location of the EFB? Can you provide a picture, or at least a drawing of the mount and the attachment point?

Response: Pivot mount is only authorized to be attached in the forward map light mount in each cockpit. See pictures’ below.

29) SRD/ 3.6.1 pg 64. The installed system shall allow the pilots to independently select presentations on PFR instruments, with mirror/slave to FWD as an option. What items are to be selectable for presentation?

Response: Please refer to AFM11-202 Volume 3 (Air Force Flight Standards Agency (AFFSA) will drive requirements for MAJCOM).

30) SRD/ 3.6.1 pg 64. The installed system shall allow the pilots to independently select presentations on PFR instruments, with mirror/slave to FWD as an option. What is the definition of mirror/slave?

Response: Definitions: Mirror – One screen identical to other. Slave – Instructor able to change students screen to what instructor wants (usually simplified).

31) SRD/ 3.6.1 pg 64. The installed system shall allow the pilots to independently select presentations on PFR instruments, with mirror/slave to FWD as an option. Is it the ability to select the same presentations?

14 | P a g e

Response: Same/or control the student screen.

32) SRD/ 3.6.1 pg 64. The installed system shall allow the pilots to independently select presentations on PFR instruments, with mirror/slave to FWD as an option. Or is it the ability for the AFT seat to dictate or change what the FWD is presenting?

Response: Yes.

33) SRD/ 3.6.7.5. Per the FAA, TCAS II is mandated by the U.S. for commercial aircraft, including regional airline aircraft with more than 30 seats or a maximum takeoff weight greater than 33,000 lbs. What is driving the objective for TCAS-II in a single engine, two-seat primary flight trainer?

Response: TCAS II is an Objective requirement.

34) SRD/ 3.6.7.5. The addition of TCAS-II will require the addition of a radar altimeter system. Is the USG aware of this additional equipment requirement and associated sustainment, test equipment, and pilot training?

Response: The USG is not driving vendor solutions. TCAS II is an Objective requirement.

35) SRD/ 3.6.7.5. The addition of TCAS-II will require the addition of a radar altimeter system. These systems typically require the addition of two bottom mounted antennas.

Does the T-6A have adequate space for two additional bottom mounted antennas?

Response: The Offerors should determine if there is adequate space for their proposed solution, since TCAS-II is an objective requirement.

36) SRD/ 3.6.7.5. The addition of TCAS-II also requires a diversity transponder with top and bottom mounted antennas. The existing bottom mounted L-band antenna may be reused.

Does the T-6A have adequate space for an additional top mounted L-band antenna?

Response: The Offerors should determine if there is adequate space for their proposed solution, since TCAS-II is an objective requirement.

37) SOW/ 3.1 Paragraph 8. The Contractor shall provide Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA) or subcontracting arrangements for OEMs Textron and Flight Safety International, and component vendors: Pratt and Whitney, Chelton, Extant Aerospace, Cobham, Honeywell, L3 Harris, General Electric (GE), and integrator: Scientific Research Corporation (SRC) as needed for successful performance through final aircraft installation, and to meet scheduled contract deliveries/milestones. Pre-Solicitation Conference Questions & Responses - Part III/ Technical Questions: 1) Pre-Solicitation Conference Questions and Responses - Part III dated 30 Sep 22 states "How offeror can develop the solution is not mandated by the PO. SOW requires “the Contractor shall

15 | P a g e provide Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA) or subcontracting arrangements for OEMs.” Section M/ 2.2.4 Subfactor 4: Schedule e) Proof of 1) current and valid Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs) or subcontracting arrangements with Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), Textron and Flight Safety International, and component vendors: Pratt and Whitney, Chelton, Extant Aerospace, Cobham, Honeywell, L3 Harris, General Electric (GE), Delaware Resource Group (DRG) and integrator:

Scientific Research Corporation (SRC) to accomplish integration to the T-6A with the ARP solution or 2) a Letter of Intent (LOI) to provide ACAs or Sub Contracting arrangements with OEMs Textron and Flight Safety, and component vendors: Pratt and Whitney, Chelton, Extant Aerospace, Cobham, Honeywell, L3 Harris, General Electric (GE), and integrator: Scientific Research Corporation (SRC). This documentation must ensure the requirements in SOW Sections 3.1 and 7.0 are met. QUESTION: If any of the listed OEMs respond that they will not provide an LOI/ACA, will the Government accept an alternative solution and remove the requirement from the evaluation factors?

Response: The Government has determined it is a requirement to have Letter of Intent (LOI) with OEMs demonstrating access to the data needed to integrate with the existing systems. The Government does not dictate the terms of the business arrangement used to obtain the data required.

38) CONTROLLED T-6A ARP SRD Rev 001/ Table 1 Component Replacement List/Page

10. QUESTION: In an effort to better understand the Customer's need, will the USG please explain the rationale for replacing the KTR-909B UHF Communication Transceiver (P/N 064-01076-0101)?”

Response: The UHF Communication Transceiver is on our Component Replacement List (Table 1) in the SRD. The Avionics Replacement Program shall replace the components in Table 1. Where multiple part numbers are listed in Table 1, installed system shall meet the performance of the most capable model, with consideration for multiple configurations.

39) In the SOW, the entrance criteria for the SRR called out an “Approved SRD that addresses MOSA standards and requirements” and an “Approved SOW that addresses MOSA standards and requirements”. With both the SRD and SOW being US Government documents, is it the US Government’s intent to include the MOSA standards and requirements in the Final RFP’s SRD and SOW?

Response: These entrance criteria will be removed from the SOW. The SRD requires the installed system design shall use Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) appropriately. The System Functional Review contains specifications to deliver in conjunction with the SRR.

40) Will the USG please confirm that the aircraft to be modified are currently conformed to the TCDS (ie., specifically IAW drawing 133-005001) and, if not, what is required to get them into this configuration?

16 | P a g e

Response: The aircraft to be modified are not conformed to the TCDS. The aircraft to be modified will not be returned to the TCDS configuration. The project requirements will require an FAA STC with an associated “FAA Certified design”, and a final design that contains added features (beyond the FAA Certified design) that will be USAF Airworthiness certified (i.e., not fully FAA Certified, example “Safe Carriage”, or not FAA Certified at all). These added features will include the control and functionality of the UHF radio, and the interface(s) with ABOS and OBOGS.

41) SOW Para 3 states “The Contractor’s proposed avionics suite shall have demonstrated successful operation on Beechcraft Model 3000 or equivalent aircraft. Equivalent aircraft is defined as FAR Part 23 aircraft of similar size and weight.” Please confirm if a system LRU that is compliant to the SRD/PIPFS requirements and is TRL 9 flying in DoD/USAF non-Part 23 aircraft can still be considered.

Response: The referenced SOW language is specific to "avionics suite" and not specific components that may be changed in the suite as part of the effort to meet SRD requirements. Program Office is considering changing the SOW to include both FAR Parts 23 and 25 in SOW para 3.

42) SOW Para 7.1. Will the Air Force provide access to GBTS document BS25301 Rev 3 Flight Training Device (FTD) Program Unique Specification Document (PUSD), BS25507A Procedural Training Device (PTD) Program Unique Specification Document (PUSD), and BS25302 Systems Specification, JPATS GBTS with the final RFP or prior to submittal of proposals? When will a determination be made of what documents will be provided in the bidder’s library?

Response: The USG is reviewing documents to be placed in the Bidder’s Library prior to Final RFP release.

43) SOW 5.2 SEMP is required to be IAW USG SEP 26 May 2017. Will USG SEP be updated IAW DoD SEP Guide V4 2021, DoD 5000 series 2020, DoD 5000.88 Systems Engineering 2020, and DoD Systems Engineering Guide 2022?

Response: Please reference the SEP provided in the bidder’s library. A revision is not forthcoming at this time.

44) Will IEEE 15288.1 2014 for Reviews and Audits be replaced by DoD Systems Engineering Guide 2022 that was updated for updated DoD 5000 Series including DoD

5000.88 Systems Engineering?

Response: Please reference the IEEE 15288.1 2014 provided in the bidder’s library. There are no plans to replace this document.

45) SOW 3.12 The Contractor shall conform Data Management to the principles outlined in DODI 5000 series and the Defense Acquisition Guidebook for acquisition, protection, 17 | P a g e storage, and use. This is a broad statement. Can the USG clarify with more specific references? Does USG mean to refer to DOD Data Strategy 2020? Or DoD Systems Engineering Guidebook 2022 paragraph 4.1.7 Technical Data Management Process?

Response: For compliance with the regulation/guidance cited in this SOW, data management process should cover all data that includes the various categories of technical data and non-technical data managed outside your configuration management plans and software configuration management process (see Data Taxonomy in Figure 4-13 in the February 2022 “DOD Systems Engineering Guidebook”). For further guidance, see the July 2022 “DOD Technical and Program Protection Guidebook” including the additional resources listed in Table 1.

46) SOW Section 3.0 and Appendix E – Will the added Appendix E Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) Delivery at approximately 515 calendar days (~17 months) after contract award be corrected to the Section 3.0 STC within 22 months of contract award?

Shortening the delivery of the STC by 5 months for the complexity of the T-6A ARP installed system significantly increases program schedule risk.

Response: SOW Section 3.0 and Appendix E will be corrected to read “The Contractor’s proposed solution shall be FAA certified via STC for use in all USAF T-6A aircraft within ~ nineteen (19) months of contract award, and the Program System Model will be delivered within ~ twenty-two (22) months of contract award.” Appendix E will be corrected prior to Final RFP release to reflect these new timelines.