Pre-Soliciation Conference Industry Questions-Responses_Part VII.pdf

1 | P a g e

21-Nov-22

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

OVERVIEW QUESTIONS (Document Access, Timeline, etc.)

1) Notice ID: FA8106-22-R-0004 is no longer showing as active and seems to have been terminated early. Can you please advise if there has been a new NOTICE ID assigned to this effort?

Response: Notice ID: FA8106-22-R-0004 has been cancelled and replaced with Notice ID: FA8106-23-R-0001 due to the solicitation anticipated release in fiscal year FY23 instead of FY22. Please monitor the new notice ID for the anticipated final solicitation for the T-6 ARP effort.

2) On SAM.gov there are two active RFIs listed for the T-6A Avionics Replacement Program. One with a Notice ID of WLDW1 and the second with the Notice ID of FA8106-22-R-0004 and identifies WLDW1 as a related notice. FA810622R0004 lists an RFI response date of 23 December 2022 and the related WLDW1 lists a response date of 17 October 2022. Having multiple RFIs listing multiple response dates has created confusion. It was assumed the FA810622F0004 is the primary listing since it identifies WLDW1 as a related notice, but the WLDW1 is the one being updated. How do we identify which is the primary RFI notice?

Response: The Notice ID of WLDW1 is the current RFI notice that will be used to post RFIs and draft RFPs/documents. The second notice FA810622R0004 is the synopsis posting for the forthcoming final RFP. Update: Notice ID: FA8106- 22-R-0004 has been cancelled and replaced with Notice ID: FA8106-23-R-0001 due to the solicitation anticipated release in fiscal year FY23 instead of FY22.

Please monitor the new notice ID for the anticipated final solicitation for the T-6 ARP effort.

3) We are attempting to estimate when the RFP will be released. Since the RFI response date is not until 23 December 2022 is it safe to assume the RFP will not be released before the RFI response date? Or can the RFP be released before the RFI response is due?

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA

2 | P a g e

Response: Please reference Industry Questions-Responses Part V regarding estimated Final RFP release. Also, please refer to updated Notice ID: FA8106-23- R-0001.

CONTRACTING QUESTIONS

1) Model Contract. Request that Progress Payments be authorized for the Fixed Price CLINs through incorporation of FAR Clause 52.232-16, “Progress Payments”, with Alternate 1 applicable as this is a small business set aside. Also request incorporation of DFAR 252.232-7004.

Response: FAR Clause 52.232-16 (Deviation 2020-O0010) and DFARS Clause 252.232-7004 (Deviation 2020-O0010) have been incorporated into the final solicitation.

2) Section B, paragraph c; Section L, paragraph 5.2.4. Section B states that "The Offeror shall submit certified cost and pricing", while Section L states adequate price competition is anticipated so certified cost and pricing will not be required. Request deletion of Section B paragraph c.

Response: The Government has removed Section B, Paragraph c, from the final solicitation (RFP FA8106-23-R-0001). There is not a requirement for Offerors to submit certified cost or pricing data. However, Offeror’s may be required to support price reasonableness via other than cost or pricing data. The requirement to submit “certified cost or pricing data” is only applicable if the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403.1 apply. Section L, paragraph 5.2.4 states, “In accordance with FAR 15.403-3(a), however, information other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. FAR 15.403-3(a)(1) provides for obtaining information other than cost or pricing data if needed to determine price reasonableness. Therefore, the FAR does not preclude the requirement for obtaining other than cost or pricing data under certain circumstances and the Government reserves the right to obtain data as appropriate.”

3) Model Contract and Section L paragraph 1.2. Section L states some funding will be Fixed Price with Economic Price Adjustment (FP EPA), but no EPA provisions in model contract. Please add provisions to the model contract to address the applicability and management of the EPA.

Response: The USG is not including an Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clause for this contract and the reference to EPA has been removed from Section L, Paragraph 1.2.

3 | P a g e

4) Section L, Paragraph 5.3.6. This is generally stated as a supply contract, as indicated by the MFG NAICS, but Section L states Service Contract Labor Standards apply. Please clarify applicability of SCLS to this contract.

Response: Section L, Paragraph 5.3.6 has been removed and does not reflect Service Contract Labor Standards.

5) Section L, Paragraph 5.3.6. Section L states offeror must provide info related to any CBAs that are applicable. However, since the installation work will be performed at Government sites, are there any CBAs covering the workforce at these sites that the proposer needs to be aware of?

Response: Section L, Paragraph 5.3.6 has been removed and does not reflect CBAs.

6) Section L Paragraph 1.2 and 5.3.7. Section L.5.3.7 states labor rates must cover all fluctuations, but 1.2 states Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) will be included. Please explain what is covered by the EPA.

Response: The USG is not including an Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clause for this contract and the reference to EPA has been removed from Section L, Paragraph 1.2.

7) Section L. Paragraph 6.3.5. Section L 6.3.5 has requirement for Small Business Subcontracting plan although the Q&A acknowledges it is not applicable for this Small Business Set Aside proposal effort. Please remove the requirement to prepare a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Response: This requirement will be removed from Section L, 6.3.5 in the Final

RFP.

8) Are we correct in assuming that the 3rd column header in Table 3 should read “ % Incentive Fee Earned”? That appears to make the most sense for all CLINs except Aircraft Modification Delivery.

Response: No; Table 1 and Table 3, Column 3 identify is the maximum earnable incentive amount. Tables 4 and 6 show the percent earned and have been updated to “% incentive earned”.

9) Where or which line(s) in the Aircraft Modification Delivery section of Table 3, does the $45,000 occur? Or, is the correct interpretation that any early or late aircraft delivery will have a $45,000 deduction taken from the target cost?

Response: The aircraft will be planned for a 30-calendar day modification cycle.

If an aircraft is delivered early, the new aircraft will be provided to the Contractor on the pre-scheduled date. At the time CLIN 0024 and 1024 (listed in Table 2) is

4 | P a g e ordered, the full amount will be placed on contract. A withhold of $25,000.00 per aircraft will be placed upon the CLIN. In the event contractor performance against CLIN 0024 and 1024 is timely or less than three (3) calendar days overdue, the CO will issue a modification removing the withhold within thirty

(30) calendar days of the delivery validation. After the withhold is removed, the contractor may invoice the remaining amount. If the Contractor is more than three (3) calendar days late, the CO will issue a modification reducing the price of CLIN 0024 and 1024 by $25,000.00.

10) How will the penalty be applied? Per individual aircraft or by program timeline? If Plane 1 takes 35 days and Plane 2 takes 30 days, then that production line is 5 days behind schedule. The contractor improved performance to meet the 30-day requirement on Plane 2 but is still behind the program timeline. Will a penalty be applied to the second (and subsequent) plane? Recommendation: Solicit and accept a contractor’s proposed schedule that meets a program time schedule for installations. Apply a 1% of the installation price (per plane) per day for each day any plane is delivered behind the contracted program timeline (capped at 10% per plane).

Response: At the time CLIN 0024 and 1024 (listed in Table 2) are ordered, the full amount will be placed on contract. A withhold of $25,000.00 per aircraft will be placed upon the CLIN. In the event contractor performance against CLIN 0024 and 1024 is timely or less than three (3) calendar days overdue, the CO will issue a modification removing the withhold within thirty (30) calendar days of the delivery validation. After the withhold is removed, the contractor may invoice the remaining amount. If the Contractor is more than three (3) calendar days late, the CO will issue a modification reducing the price of CLIN 0024 and 1024 by $25,000.00.

11) The structure of CLINs 0024 and 1024 seem awkward for execution. They appear to be a lot of 10 aircraft delivered every 30 days. If nine are delivered in 30 days and one isn’t, can the contractor invoice the other nine? Inevitably, the start and delivery dates of these 10 production lines will diverge (for many reasons). How will this CLIN be administered when that happens. Recommend that each production line have its own CLIN, e.g.0024A

– 0024J. It should be easier to invoice and easier to apply late delivery penalties.

Response: The USG has requested pricing of 0024/1024 per aircraft. At the time of task order issuance, the Government would specify the amount of the production. Successful delivery is in accordance with the required delivery notated in Schedule B for each CLIN. Please note that progress payments have been authorized for this contract per FAR Clause 52.232-16 (Deviation 2020- O0010) and DFARS Clause 252.232-7004 (Deviation 2020-O0010).

12) DRAFT RFP II, Section L/ RFP Section A Page 2 and Section L 5.2.4 Pricing Information Requirements. Section L, 5.2.4 Pricing Information Requirements states: "In accordance with FAR 15.403(1)(b), prices based on adequate price competition do not require submission of cost or pricing data." However, RFP Section A, page 2, item (c)

5 | P a g e has not been deleted in the updated Draft RFP II. Please delete this paragraph in Section A as it conflicts with FAR 15.403(1)(b) and Section L 5.2.4.

Response: There is not a requirement for Offerors to submit certified cost or pricing data. However, Offerors may be required to support price reasonableness via other than cost or pricing data. The requirement to submit “certified cost or pricing data” is only applicable if the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403.1 apply. Section L, paragraph 5.2.4 states, “In accordance with FAR 15.403-3(a), however, information other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. FAR 15.403- 3(a)(1) provides for obtaining information other than cost or pricing data if needed to determine price reasonableness. Therefore, the FAR does not preclude the requirement for obtaining other than cost or pricing data under certain circumstances and the Government reserves the right to obtain data as appropriate.” Please note that RFP Section B (c) will be updated to match Section L 5.2.4.

13) DRAFT RFP II/ Section B Minimum/Maximum. Section B, first page, paragraph b states: "The minimum dollar amount is the price of CLINS XX." Can the Government identify which CLINs are included in the minimum dollar amount as soon as possible?

Response: Section B in the final solicitation has been updated to include CLIN 0001 as the minimum order requirement.

14) Attachment - ARP Incentive Plan/ Table 2 Aircraft System Delivery Disincentive.

DISCUSSION: Pursuant to FAR 16.403, fixed-price incentive contracts provide for adjusting profit and establishing the final contract price by application of a formula based on the relationship of total final negotiated cost to total target cost. The Incentive Plan for this solicitation includes a disincentive of -$70K/Aircraft for deliveries later than 3 days.

This disincentive amount goes far beyond adjusting profit because the value of the disincentive far exceeds a fair profit objective using the weighted guidelines method set forth in DFARS 215.404-71. CLARIFICATION REQUEST: Although this contract is not a fixed-price incentive contract, it includes extensive incentive/disincentive arrangements. Therefore, the cited FAR guidance is relevant and topical. Please therefore identify the regulatory basis, program considerations, and calculations used to establish the dollar value of the per-aircraft disincentive.

Response: Based on industry feedback, the Government has reduced the disincentive amount in the final solicitation to ensure proper incentive is applied without causing undue harm to the contractor.

15) Attachment - ARP Incentive Plan/ARP Incentive Plan Paragraph 7.2. Incentive Plan paragraph 7.2 Disincentive: The procedures for a per-aircraft withhold of funding followed by a per-aircraft release of withhold or price reduction could require up to 442 task order modifications over the contract period of performance. Is this a correct

6 | P a g e understanding of the procedure and its impact on the level of effort required for contract administration? If not, please clarify how this process will be executed?

Response: There is the potential of several task order modifications to release the withholding. However, this would be accomplished unilaterally by the Government Contracting Officer as it will be within the terms of the contract.

16) Attachment - ARP Incentive Plan/ ARP Incentive Plan paragraph 7.2. Incentive Plan paragraph 7.2 Disincentive: The CO has up to thirty (30) calendar days after the delivery validation to issue a modification removing the automatic withhold of funds. Since the contractor will not be able to invoice for these amounts until the funds are released, this procedure will result in payments that could lag invoices by 30 days or more and after deliveries by 60 days or more. Is this a correct understanding of the potential lag in the invoicing/payment process? If not, please clarify when the contractor will be able to invoice for the delivery of aircraft kit installations?

Response: Per Attachment 3 – Incentive Plan, paragraph 6.6.4, the contractor cannot invoice the withhold until it has been released by a modification from the Government Contracting Officer. However, it does not preclude the contractor from invoicing up to the withheld amount utilizing progress payment authorization per FAR 52.232-16 Progress Payments (Deviation 2020-O0010) and DFARS 252.232-7004 DoD Progress Payment Rates (Deviation 2020-O- 0010).

17) T-6A ARP Pricing Matrix/ Pricing Matrix, CLINS 006, 012, 017, 020, 028AA, AB, AD, AD, AK, AL, AM, and AQ. Please clarify how the Government intends to issue orders for CLINS 006, 012, 017, 020, 028AA, AB, AD, AD, AK, AL, AM, and AQ. For example, CLIN 028AD for Technical Data Package (TDP) lists quantities of 3, 8, 8, or 4 across the base periods. Will the Government order the maximum required quantity of each in a single delivery order?

Response: As notated in the final solicitation: CLIN 0006 may be ordered in conjunction with CLIN 0003; CLIN 0012 may be order in conjunction with CLIN 0011; and CLIN 0017 may be order in conjunction with CLIN 0016. Since this effort is anticipated as an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract, the Government does not have exact quantities required at this time. However, the Statement of Work (SOW) provides a notional program schedule in Appendix B for planning purposes. Please note that the schedule is notional and may change due to funding, aircraft availability, or other reasons at the Government’s convenience.

18) T-6A ARP Pricing Matrix/ Pricing Matrix, Quantity of 1 EA CLINs (e.g., 0001, 0002, 0003, 0007, 0010, 0011, 0015, 0016, 0019, and some CDRL CLINs). In the Pricing Matrix, please verify that the Government intends that offerors should bid the entire price for each Quantity of 1 EA CLIN such as 0011 Aircraft EMD and 0019 ATD EMD in

7 | P a g e each period (e.g., Basic Period 1, Basic Period 2, Basic Period 3) rather than spreading the cost across the periods?

Response: The Government’s intention for the offerors to price the entire price for efforts that occur once per the SOW and not spread the cost out across periods.

For example, TMRR 2 may be ordered when TMRR 1 is complete, but the timing on when TMRR 2 is ordered is dependent to when TMRR 1 is completed.

Therefore, TMRR 2 could be ordered in base year 1 or base year 2.

19) Section L/ Page 19. “In accordance with FAR 15.403(1)(b), prices based on adequate price competition do not require submission of cost or pricing data. We request the Government confirm other than cost or pricing data is required with proposal submissions and amend Part I, Section B(c) to reflect that Table 15-2 of FAR 15.408 will only be required if the CO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply.

Response: The Government will delete Section B, Paragraph c, from the final solicitation (RFP FA8106-23-R-0001). There is not a requirement for Offerors to submit certified cost or pricing data. However, Offerors may be required to support price reasonableness via other than cost or pricing data. The requirement to submit “certified cost or pricing data” is only applicable if the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403.1 apply. Section L, paragraph 5.2.4 states, “In accordance with FAR 15.403-3(a), however, information other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. FAR 15.403-3(a)(1) provides for obtaining information other than cost or pricing data if needed to determine price reasonableness. Therefore, the FAR does not preclude the requirement for obtaining other than cost or pricing data under certain circumstances and the Government reserves the right to obtain data as appropriate.”

20) Section L 5.3 - The detail required by 5.3 in Section L is usually required for cost-reimbursable contracts (CPFF, CPIF, etc.). Will this level of detail be necessary since this contract will be FFP?

Response: The USG will not be conducting a cost realism analysis (which is required on a cost type contract). The Government will use price analysis techniques as identified in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to ensure fair and reasonable pricing. Offerors are not required to submit detailed cost data. However, should the Contracting Officer (CO) determine proposed prices appear unreasonable or the possibility that an Offeror does not fully understand the requirement, the Offerors may be required to support price reasonableness via other than cost or pricing data. The information included in Section L, paragraph 5.3 must be provided to assist the Government in understanding the methodology and assumptions used in the preparation of proposed price proposals and ultimately determine prices to be reasonable, balanced, and realistic.

8 | P a g e

21) Pricing Matrix - While it is clearly stated the quantities in the pricing matrix are for evaluation purposes only, would it be possible to get additional details on expected quantities in each period?

Response: The USG has provided the best estimated quantities for each period based on the expected schedule and delivery of items. If the schedule slips and delivery of items are delayed, then the quantities that were expected to have been purchased in one period could be pushed to the next period.

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS

1) EN Tables. In Section 3.6 Subsystem Requirement you have added a new Shall statement.

“The installed system components software shall be specified, developed, and verified per the guidance in RTCA DO-178C.” Per an FAA Advisory Circular FAA, AC 20-115D states that avionics manufacturers can meet the 178C requirement by providing a Modification and Reuse Assessment to ensure that we comply with AC 20-115D when reusing DO-178B. The FAA Advisory Circular, Para 9 guidance referenced here along with the associated flow chart that LRU manufacturers must complete as evidentiary information to show that they meet this AC. Some LRU manufacturers list compliance with this guidance vs stating the specific DO-178 level of the unit. Also, Government programs have agreed that meeting FAA Guidance AC-20-115D is an acceptable method of compliance. Industry can meet the intent of this requirement by supplying the version of DO-178 that the unit has been designed to and also show compliance to FAA AC-20- 115D Advisory Circular. Will compliance with AC 20-115D allow other versions of DO- 178 be acceptable in meeting the DO-178C shall statement stated in 3.6 Subsystem Requirement?

Response: The Contractor may show compliance to DO-178C for previously developed DO-178B software by using AC 20-115D

2) SOW Paragraph 3.1 and 1.2. Paragraph 3.1 requires an ACA be put in place with SRC as the Integrator. Paragraph 1.2 states the contractor selected for this award is the Integrator.

Please explain SRC's role as Integrator.

Response: It is the USG’s intent that the winning offeror will be the ARP integrator. SOW Paragraph 3.1 has been updated with removal of “integrator”.

3) SOW Paragraph 3.1 and Section L Paragraph 3.2.6.e. These paragraphs require ACAs with the OEM's and component providers. It is possible some of these parties may try to leverage the ACA requirement to limit the number of primes and / or be sole sourced work scope beyond what is necessary for to achieve the purpose of the ACA's. These actions would harm the Government by limiting the extent of competition. Request that the Government issue guidance that leveraging ACA requirements will not be permitted and / or provide a venue to mediate ACA scope disputes.

9 | P a g e

Response: Based on recent industry feedback, the Government team has updated

Section L, Paragraph 3.2.6.e to allow for additional approaches.

4) SRD/3.6.3. “The integrated computer system shall be specified, developed, and verified per guidance in RTCA DO-297.”. Please define "integrated computer system".

Response: The integrated computer system, also known as Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA), are real-time computer network airborne systems. This network consists of computing modules capable of supporting numerous applications of differing criticality levels.

5) SRD/3.6.3. If the bidder is providing existing TSOA components per the SRD section 3.1, “FAA Technical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA) components shall be utilized to support the Avionics Replacement Program (ARP) effort if available.”, are bidders required to re-evaluate the existing TSOA components to RTCA DO-297, even if the FAA does not require this for the existing TSOA components that are not classified or defined as an Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) architecture?

Response: Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) is real-time computer network airborne systems. This network consists of computing modules capable of supporting numerous applications of differing criticality levels.

6) SRD/3.6.3. If the bidder is providing existing TSOA components, are bidders required to re-evaluate the existing TSOA components to RTCA DO-297, even if the FAA does not require this for the existing TSOA components that are classified or defined as an Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) architecture?

Response: It is not the intent to re-certify TSOA components. If it will be modified and a new TSO required, then DO-297 may be a requirement. However, solutions should still meet the stated design requirements of open architecture, current industry standards, and projected availability of 25 years.

7) SRD/3.6.3. Does the DO-297 requirement only apply to components classified as Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) by the FAA?

Response: Yes, DO-297 applies to Integrated Modular Avionics.

8) SOW Para 3e states that PT-406 will be shipped to the Contractor and shall be returned.

Will the Contractor bear the cost of this shipment and preparation for shipment?

Response: Yes, the Contractor will be responsible for the shipment of PT-406 and

UTD 003.

9) SRD Section 3.6.1 – Does providing the standby instruments in each cockpit to satisfy

SRD 3.6.8 with one Air Data Computer (ADC) and one Attitude Heading Reference

10 | P a g e

System (AHRS) satisfy the SRD 3.6.1 requirement for “The front and rear cockpit primary flight displays shall be driven by separate sources to prevent a single point failure”? Please note that this is equivalent capability of the existing T-6A with one ADC, one AHRS, and standby instruments in both cockpits.

Response: Per the SOW 5.9 System Safety Program all contractors will perform a system safety analysis. Aircraft safety drives certain design decisions, including in many cases redundancy, regardless of other requirements. Some solutions that work well for a 2-seater side by side aircraft may not work well for the T-6A’s separate cockpit design. However, it is anticipated that the SRD 3.6.8 requirement for separate displays can satisfy safety without all sources of displayed data being redundant.

10) SRD Section 3.6.1 – Does the requirement for “The front and rear cockpit primary flight displays shall be driven by separate sources to prevent a single point failure” require the installed system to provide two GPS units? Please note that the existing T-6A GPS implementation with the GPS in the forward cockpit as a master and the GPS in the aft cockpit as a slave does not satisfy this requirement to prevent a single point failure as only the forward GPS is connected to an antenna and has a data cartridge installed. A failure in the forward GPS unit’s receiver loses GPS capability until the forward GPS connected to the antenna is replaced/repaired regardless of the status of the GPS in the aft cockpit or whether the forward GPS is being controlled from the forward cockpit or aft cockpit slave.

Response: Per the SOW 5.9 System Safety Program all contractors will perform a system safety analysis. Aircraft safety drives certain design decisions, including in many cases redundancy, regardless of other requirements. Some solutions that work well for a 2-seater side by side aircraft may not work well for the T-6A’s separate cockpit design. However, it is anticipated that the SRD 3.6.8 requirement for separate displays can satisfy safety without all sources of displayed data being redundant.

11) SOW Section 6.1 - This section states that anomalies discovered during ARP are to be documented, reported and final lists turned over to USG when aircraft are returned to service. From prior experience, some anomalies or issues found on the aircraft cannot be deferred during an upgrade of this magnitude without adversely affecting the modification. Thus far, I have not located any guidance on how these matters are to be handled. Does the Government intend to add CLINS each option year to accommodate any over-and-above maintenance items that cannot be deferred to ensure a successful ARP installation?

Response: It is the USG’s intent that there will be no Over and Above maintenance items to be accomplished by the ARP contractor. Over and Above CLINs will only be approved by the PCO and will only apply to issues directly affecting ARP testing and installation. Further, it is the USG’s intent that any aircraft requiring extensive maintenance that would preclude the ARP installation

11 | P a g e would be returned to the USG. SOW Para 6.1 states, “Within one (1) working day of aircraft delivery to the CFT; the Contractor shall conduct an Aircraft Acceptance Inspection to establish the conditional baseline of the provided aircraft. Once complete, the Contractor shall annotate any adverse conditions of the aircraft that will impede modification completion. The Contractor shall provide the data to the COR and T-6A PO/PM at close of working day one (1), via email (Contractor format is acceptable). 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.” The USG and the ARP contractor will collaborate on an updated schedule for the newly provided aircraft.

12) Reference T-6A_ARP_SOW_20Sept22_DRAFT, Section 12 Warranties (Aircraft and ATDs): it states the requirement of when the Program Office wants the warranty period to begin. Question: Is there a specific duration of warranty period the Program Office requires?

Response: The warranty will be based on Industry/OEM standards.

13) Question/request: Request that the Program Office provide part numbers/model numbers of the avionics equipment currently on the T-6A that are not included on the DMSMS list. This data is needed to determine interface requirements to the new systems.

Response: The Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) will be made available as an attachment to the Final RFP.

14) Please confirm that Equivalent Aircraft is to mean “aircraft of similar size and weight”, and not specifically that all avionics equipment in the avionics suite will have to have flown in a certified FAA FAR Part 23 or 25 aircraft. For example, would avionics equipment that has flown on an Australian CASR-23 (equivalent to FAR Part 23) type aircraft as certified by Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Regulations qualify?

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 System Requirements Document (SRD). Equivalent Aircraft is clarified in Title 14 CFR FAA Part 23 regulations describing aircraft of similar size and functionality.

15) Would avionics equipment (TRL-7 or higher) that will have been flown and operated successfully on an aircraft of similar size and weight that is scheduled to begin the aircraft certification process in CY23 be considered?

Response: No. The avionics suite must be FAA certified on an existing aircraft prior to submittals to the Final RFP.

12 | P a g e

16) If the Program Office’s intent is to consider FAR Part 23 for size and weight constraints only, would you consider changing the verbiage to the following in SOW Para 3? “The Contractor’s proposed avionics suite shall have demonstrated successful operation on Beechcraft Model 3000 or equivalent aircraft. Equivalent aircraft is defined as an aircraft that is similar in size and weight to a FAR Part 23/25 aircraft and has been certified by any military or civilian airworthiness authority.”

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 System Requirements Document (SRD). Equivalent Aircraft is clarified in Title 14 CFR FAA Part 23 regulations describing aircraft of similar size and functionality.

17) Would the Program Office consider a more optimized milestone schedule that remains within the proposed Base and Option contract periods of performance?

Response: See response to Question 10 a. in RFI II Section I, posted 19 Nov 2021 to SAM.gov. It has been the USGs intent for a TMRR/EMD phase completing within 18 to 24 months after contract award. It remains the Government’s intent to continue with this strategy.

18) The Program Office had mentioned that there would be a period in mid-November for contractor site visits. Are the contractor site visits still going to occur in November, or is it going to be pushed to December?

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

19) Is it possible for the USG to provide the dimensions of the Instrument Panel in the T-6A aircraft?

Response: It is not the USG’s intent to provide this information.

20) Would the Government reconsider the list of required removals from the aircraft as some of the removed equipment is still available for purchase, satisfies the requirements and drives the cost of the modification. If removal is still required for these parts, would the Government consider identifying deficiencies with these parts so that alternatives could be selected which address the deficiencies with the removed parts?

Response: The Avionics Replacement Program shall replace the components in Table 1 in SRD. 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.

21) Is it the Government’s intent to have Textron as the OEM hold the STC for the modified aircraft so that all future updates, changes, and modifications are controlled by Textron, 13 | P a g e or will the Government allow for a third party STC holder to help reduce future change costs?

Response: It is the Government’s intent that the prime contractor of this anticipated contract holds the STC for ARP.