Pre-Solicitation Conference Industry Questions-Responses.pdf

1 | P a g e

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA

2 August 2022

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

OVERVIEW QUESTIONS (DOCUMENT ACCESS, SMALL BUSINESS, NAICS etc.):

1) If an offeror or potential vendor did not submit response(s) to previously released Request for Information (RFI) by the designated due date(s), will the offeror or potential vendor be allowed to respond to the final Request for Proposal (RFP) when it is published?

Response: Interested offerors and potential vendors are not required to submit RFI responses to be considered for final proposal submission.

2) When does the Government plan to release the final RFP and milestones to Contract Award?

Response: The Government intends to release the final RFP in the fourth quarter of 2022. All notifications and documents will be posted to www.SAM.gov.

3) Can foreign nationals be involved in this effort? If so, what are the requirements?

Response: A Contract Award has not occurred for this effort to be designated as official business for the Department of Defense (DoD). The Government does not currently intend to approve release of data to foreign entities or foreign nationals.

4) Are controlled documents available to all offerors and potential vendors as long as they have approved DD Form 2345? Are controlled documents only available via the www.SAM.gov website? Can offerors and potential vendors share documents with potential teammates as long as we follow rules of controlling unclassified military technical data with another certified user?

Response: All controlled documents are available to offerors and potential vendors that submit an approved DD Form 2345. The only approved access to controlled documents is through www.SAM.gov.

Vendors shall follow the controlled data access process below:

1. Submit approved DD Form 2345 via email to Welth Cooper at Welth.Cooper@us.af.mil

2. Ensure your company is registered on the Joint Certification Program (JCP) website at https://www.dla.mil/Logistics-Operations/Services/JCP/

a. JCP Help Line 1-877-352-2255

3. Once previous two bullets are completed, the ‘DATA CUSTODIAN’ listed in DD Form 2345 Block 3 is to request access to Controlled Documents on www.SAM.gov

a. SAM Help Line at 1-866-606-8220, 8:00 am to 8:00 pm EST http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ mailto:Welth.Cooper@us.af.mil https://www.dla.mil/Logistics-Operations/Services/JCP/ https://www.dla.mil/Logistics-Operations/Services/JCP/ http://www.sam.gov/

This is a Pre-Solicitation Conference Registration, which, as part of market research, is being issued in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 10 Market Research and 15.201. This is not a solicitation. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Training Aircraft Section (AFLCMC/WLK) is seeking to gather information and identify sources that may be capable of providing Avionics Replacement Program for the T-6A fleet, located at five (5) CONUS operating locations with a total of 442 aircraft.

5) How long will the controlled documents be available on www.SAM.gov?

Response: All controlled documents will be available on www.SAM.gov until the proposal submission deadline.

6) When will the System Requirements Document (SRD) be released?

Response: The SRD was published as a controlled document to www.SAM.gov in later June 2022. An updated SRD will be posted when the final RFP is posted. Each interested vendor must request access to controlled documents by submitted a DD Form 2345. Please see process above.

7) August 22, 2022 is posted on www.SAM.gov as a release date for the final RFP.

Response: All documents and timelines currently posted to www.SAM.gov are draft or tentative. All information is subject to change and all updates will be posted to www.SAM.gov.

8) Will the Pre-Solicitation Conference brief be posted to www.SAM.gov?

Response: The Pre-Solicitation Conference brief was posted to www.SAM.gov on 15 July 2022.

9) On www.SAM.gov the North American Industry Classification System (NACIS) Code listed is 336411.

However, the draft RFP document lists NACIS Code 336413. Which is the accurate NAICS?

Response: This effort is contemplated as a Small Business set-aside based on NAICS Code 336411, Aircraft Manufacturing. The draft Request for Proposal (RFP) has been updated to reflect the correct NAICS Code.

10) The MIL-HDBK-516C Airworthiness Certificate Criteria document is unreadable – appears to be poor quality scanned document.

Response: The Government has posted a higher resolution version of the MIL-HDBK-516C Airworthiness Certificate Criteria document to www.SAM.gov.

11) The Statement of Work (SOW) references Limitations on Subcontracting FAR 52.219-14, there is reference to both Services and Supply. Does the contract include both Services and Supply? Shall the prime small business conduct 50% of the contract payables?

Response: This effort is anticipated to be a supply with services embedded. FAR 19.505 Limitations on Subcontracting and Non-Manufacturer Rule has been updated since draft RFP release. The updated Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) text is provided below.

The Air Force Sustainment Center (AFSC) Small Business Office is an available resource for full interpretation of Limitations on Subcontracting. AFSC Small Business Office representatives are available via email: afsc.sb.workflow@us.af.mil and phone: (405) 739-2601. The office website is https://www.afsc.af.mil/Units/SBO.aspx.

FAR 19.505 Limitations on subcontracting and non-manufacturer rule.

(a) Applicability.

(1) This section applies to small business set-asides above the simplified acquisition threshold and orders issued directly to a small business in accordance with 19.504(c)(1)(ii) above the simplified acquisition threshold.

(2) This section applies, regardless of dollar value, to the following awards under http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ mailto:afsc.sb.workflow@us.af.mil https://www.afsc.af.mil/Units/SBO.aspx https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-19#FAR_19_504

3 | P a g e subparts 19.8, 19.13, 19.14, and 19.15:

(i) Contracts that are set aside.

(ii) Contracts that are awarded on a sole-source basis.

(iii) Orders that are set-aside as described in 8.405-5 and 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F).

(iv) Orders that are issued directly in accordance with 19.504(c)(1)(ii).

(v) Contracts that use the HUBZone price evaluation preference to award to a HUBZone small business concern unless the concern waived the evaluation preference.

(b) (1) Limitations on subcontracting. A small business concern subject to the limitations on subcontracting is required to comply with the following:

(i) For a contract or order assigned a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for services (except construction), the concern will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count towards the concern's 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. When a contract includes both services and supplies, the 50 percent limitation shall apply only to the service portion of the contract.

(ii) For a contract or order assigned a NAICS code for supplies or products (other than a procurement from a non-manufacturer of such supplies or products), the concern will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count towards the concern's 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. When a contract includes both supplies and services, the 50 percent limitation shall apply only to the supply portion of the contract.

(2) Compliance period. A small business contractor subject to the limitations on subcontracting is required to comply with the limitations on subcontracting—

(i) For a contract that has been set aside, either by the end of the base term and then by the end of each subsequent option period, or by the end of the performance period for each order issued under the contract, at the contracting officer's discretion; and

(ii) For an order set aside under a contract as described in 19.504(a), (b), or (c)(1)(i) or an order issued in accordance with 19.504(c)(1)(ii), by the end of the performance period for the order.

12) Request a two-week extension to submit questions and feedback to allow appropriate review of all documents.

Response: Approved extension(s) will be posted to www.SAM.gov.

13) The draft RFP is listed as an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. Please explain how the Government is planning to issue task orders or delivery orders. Is it Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) base or product based?

Response: Task orders or delivery orders will be funded/executed throughout the contract based on

CLIN.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-19#FAR_Subpart_19_8 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-19#FAR_Subpart_19_13 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-19#FAR_Subpart_19_14 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-19#FAR_Subpart_19_15 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-8#FAR_8_405_5 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-16#FAR_16_505 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-19#FAR_19_504 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-19#FAR_19_504 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-19#FAR_19_504

This is a Pre-Solicitation Conference Registration, which, as part of market research, is being issued in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 10 Market Research and 15.201. This is not a solicitation. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Training Aircraft Section (AFLCMC/WLK) is seeking to gather information and identify sources that may be capable of providing Avionics Replacement Program for the T-6A

14) Is the Government willing to consider milestone payment structure, net +30 terms allowing interested vendors to recoup costs and lessen constraints on cash flow?

Response: Please review the draft CLIN structure as it provides CLINs with monthly payments to lessen burden and impacts to cash flow (example: Aircraft Technology Maturation Risk Reduction, Aircrew Training Device (ATD) Technology Maturation Risk Reduction, Aircraft Engineering and Manufacturing Development, Developmental Testing Support, ATD Engineering and Manufacturing Development etc.).

Submit any additional suggestions which will enhance the draft RFP structure to Welth Cooper and Gale VanDeventer.

15) Section B (and the associated pricing file) of the draft RFP has a single CLIN for all site installations.

Based on applicable area wage determinations, the cost of labor for the installations may vary considerably by site. Therefore, industry recommends breaking out the task into separate Service CLINs by location, subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards (formerly known as the Service Contract Act of 1965). This is anticipated to drive a separate CLIN for each location and annual adjustments as Wage Determinations change.

Response: This effort is anticipated to be a supply with services embedded. At this time, site installation pricing will be a single price. Please review the final RFP for CLIN updates.

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS:

16) Proposal submittal: There is a page count limit. What constitutes the page count? Does the cover sheet, past performance, cost volume etc. go against the page count?

Response: The Technical Volume has an official page count limit. Please review the full Section L --- Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Respondents for Proposal Preparation Using Tradeoff Source Selection Procedures. Specifically reference, Section 2.3. Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits, Table 2.1 Proposal Organization and Section 2.3.4. Page Limitations. The Integrated Master Schedule does not have an official page limit and is considered to be unlimited.

17) Past Performance – Request the Government extend the past performance recency to cover a period greater than three (3) years. Three (3) years will allow for greater flexibility for offerors or potential vendors adversely impacted by COVID-19. (Reference: Section L, paragraph 4.3; Section M, paragraph 2.4.2.1)

Response: The Government has revised past performance criteria to 5 years. Please review updated documents.

18) PPIF Form – Can offerors utilize past performance from a commercial company as part of the final RFP response?

Response: The Government does not intend to exclude past performance from commercial contracts.

19) Subfactor 5 Modern Integrated Avionics (MIA) is not part of the Technical Risk scoring. However, many elements of the MIA are high-risk elements that can impact pilot workload, ease of flight planning, supportability and ability to integrate new capabilities into the system. Will the Government consider adding Subfactor 5 into the evaluation of Technical Risk?

Response: All evaluation methodology will be provided in the final RFP, specifically Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award.

5 | P a g e

20) Starting up installation operations at the 5 bases and hiring qualified aircraft mechanic teams to support the project is critical for program success. The Technical and Past Performance evaluations do not assess the contractor’s transition-in approach or past performance in starting up new modification programs. Please consider adding a requirement in Subfactor 4 to provide the start-up approach for onsite aircraft/ATD modifications. Also, please add a past performance evaluation criteria that gives consideration in the areas of magnitude and complexity for hiring and managing similar numbers of aircraft maintenance personnel.

Response: Refer to Section M, Technical Factor 1, Subfactor 4 (Schedule), SOW Sections 6.4, 7.4, and Appendix B. These references address the aircraft and ATD installation plans.'

21) Is it the Government’s intent during the Source Selection process to BAFO (Best and Final Offer) the prime respondents? What type of post proposal submittal outside of traditional Evaluation Notices (ENs) does the Government anticipate?

Response: The Government will follow the Source Selection Procedures as outlined in Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Respondents for Proposal Preparation Using Tradeoff Source Selection Procedures and Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award of the final RFP.

22) Quality Standard – The draft RFP references ISO 9001:2008 certified. Is ISO 9001:2015 certification acceptable?

Response: The reference to ISO 9001:2008 has been removed from the draft RFP.

23) SRD – Is there a plan to produce a SRD with the SOW document?

Response: The current SRD is posted on www.SAM.gov under controlled documents. Access to controlled documents must be requested through the proper process (listed above). Please note, an updated SRD will be provided at Final RFP release.

24) How will the approval authority obtain approvals for engineering milestones in accordance with the SOW as they may impact or relate to an offerors ability to continue the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) process under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) cognizance?

Response: The Program Office utilizes the Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) as a means of 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, and these CDRLs will be used to substantiate (for USAF AW certification) these aspects. Examples of ARP interaction with systems that are note (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.

25) Will the Government consider changing the location requirement for the Prototype Val/Ver integrations from Randolph AFB to the contractor’s facility? This would allow the contractor to quickly make any needed changes to wiring, fabrication, drawings, tooling, etc. on the spot thus significantly reducing risk to the program schedule. It is critical to collocate the engineering, leadership, manufacturing, quality, and entire design team during these installations. This requirement could include the contractor to ferry the aircraft.

Response: The Government intends for all prototype aircraft installations to be conducted at Randolph AFB. Removal and storage of ejection seats at a contractor’s facility would be problematic.

This is a Pre-Solicitation Conference Registration, which, as part of market research, is being issued in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 10 Market Research and 15.201. This is not a solicitation. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Training Aircraft Section (AFLCMC/WLK) is seeking to gather information and identify sources that may be capable of providing Avionics Replacement Program for the T-6A

26) Does the United States Air Force (USAF) intend or expect the contractor to go through a classic STC project where the contractor shall perform ground/flight testing? Industry assumes there will be FAA retained portions requiring FAA/DER test pilots to fly in the aircraft as well. What is the expectation and will the first flight(s) be contractor or mixed Government?

Response: The contractor will be responsible for jointly developing and Test Plans with the lead developmental test organization, VX-20. Test plans will include all testing needed to substantiate an STC with the FAA. All flight testing will be fully supported by contractor. All flight testing will be accomplished by Government VX-20 pilots with the oversight and participation of the USAF.

27) SRD Section 3.6.14 is reserved for Heads up Display (HUD) and SOW Section 3.22 lists HUD as “TBD”, industry is requesting guidance from the Government. Does the Government recommend the integration approach have provisions designed in the integration for HUD? Will the Government consider creating an additional OBJECTIVE requirement for providing a full system architecture that enables HUD and embedded training capabilities such as a tactical situation display? Specifically, is the Government considering a future follow-on for HUD?

Response: Assuming funds become available, the Government does have the desire to add HUD capability to the T-6A at a future date.

28) Military Certification Office (MCO) – Has the Government set up groundwork with MCO or program awareness? Will the Government start from zero and have the contractor lead?

Response: The FAA-MCO is aware of the project and the top level details of the requirement. It is the contractor’s responsibility to manage the STC application and substantiation process.

29) MCO – What is the FAA Certification basis?

Response: It is the contractor’s responsibility to develop an FAA Certification basis with the FAA-MCO.

30) Is there a point of contact (POC) in the FAA office?

Response: The FAA-MCO is not part of the DoD and can assign or reassign personnel at their discretion, recommend calling the FAA-MCO office telephone number for initial contact.

31) Confirm the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) number for the subject aircraft.

Response: Aircraft TCDS = A00009WI, Engine TCDS = E26NE, Propeller TCDS = P10NE Supplemental Type Certificate SA00158MC (ADS-B Out).

32) SOW Paragraph 3.11 (Data Rights) – Is the intent of the Government to modify the mission software system versus the flight critical software? Does the Government plan to take over software maintenance organically?

Response: The ARP hardware, software, and integrated architecture should enable growth for future requirements of T-6A. Among those might be non-flight critical applications (i.e. formatting of alternate information page to display status info for mission or instructor use) added to integrated computer . It is the understanding of engineering advisors to the Government that the architecture should support different levels of DAL in appropriate partitioning within the framework of the certification of the Line Replaceable Units (LRU). The importance of schedule, threshold requirements, certification, and objectives will be as indicated in Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award.

The Government does not intend to maintain T-6A ARP software. The Government intends to have the

7 | P a g e option of organic, third party, and/or vendor support that would be determined in the future.

33) Will industry have an opportunity to touch the T-6A aircraft?

Response: Access to the T-6A aircraft will be made available after Contract Award.

34) Digital Thread and MBSE processes in conflict with Authoritative Source of Truth (ASoT) for everything;

how it aligns with Space Systems command.

Response: The USAF Digital Transformation is maturing in defense acquisition offices at varying degrees. Not all of the tools have been selected and used by the T-6 Program Office. The language in SOW for ASoT, Product Life-Cycle Management (PLM), and Digital Thread was left open so that contractor can offer best supportable solution for the Government that will be usable as office matures in Digital capabilities. The DD Form 1423s for CDRLs indicate both native, 2D exports, and alternate file format needs for various types of digital artifacts. These files must be delivered per Data Item Description (DID) tailoring so that Government may have options on viewing the necessary data. The most important aspect of the SOW is that Government is granted appropriate remote access and means without any program impacting disruption to hosted ASoT, PLM, and other tools and enterprises for Digital Engineering, where used.

35) 3D CAD EDDAL – Does the Government have any expected exporter compatibility requirements.

Response: Please see the above response.

36) Digital Thread – Digital Thread information provided is very broad with no IP data rights strategy related.

37) Open Systems Architecture – Some open architecture statements are in direct conflict with FAA certification. Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) – how does square with safety critical systems and still align with program goals?

Response: Open Architecture does not conflict with FAA certification. It is the understanding of engineering advisors to the Government that some Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 7+ TSO boxes may not employ standards. The importance of schedule, threshold requirements, certification, and objectives will be as indicated in Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award.

38) Modular Open System Design – How does this align with safety critical operating systems that support flight critical components by their nature? How does industry ensure it aligns with program goals for not using proprietary systems, which by their nature, safety critical operating systems are?

39) Technical Data Package (TDP) – Is the intent to do a re-procurement package in the TDP?

Response: The intent of TDP is to deliver the work products developed by this contract.

40) Software TDP – Does the Government want Source codes?

Response: Source code developed for T-6A ARP should be delivered. Where development was mixed Government/contractor funded, code snippets supporting T-6 ARP should be delivered. Where development was contractor funded, the proposal should identify offered data rights, if any.

This is a Pre-Solicitation Conference Registration, which, as part of market research, is being issued in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 10 Market Research and 15.201. This is not a solicitation. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Training Aircraft Section (AFLCMC/WLK) is seeking to gather information and identify sources that may be capable of providing Avionics Replacement Program for the T-6A

41) T-2 Mod – Is the intent/expectation to test the aircraft and validate? Use it throughout the program for testing? What is the Government attempting to capture?

Response: T-2 mod tests or collections cannot be used for validation. T-2 mod is intended for engineering data collection and risk mitigation. T-2 Mod package is an optional engineering development risk mitigation allowing collection of data contractor may need to ensure proper performance and integration with existing systems under dynamic environment. This is not required but outlined in SOW for effort and coordination if required to support the contractor’s solution. Omission in proposal within FFP offer does not obligate Government to funding if contractor identifies it as necessary later.

42) Testing – Will testing as outline SOW Paragraph 5.12.4/5.12.4.1 be a contractor or Government task?

Response: Currently the SOW 5.12.4.1 reads, “The Contractor shall support Government Developmental Test (DT) of T-6A ARP modifications at Randolph AFB, TX to include ground-based testing and flight testing of the T-6A ARP system”.

With ARP, the Government is requesting the ability for the DT agency to work directly with the contractor to jointly create a DT plan that will satisfy FAA requirements and military requirements. The contractor would then execute only the ground portion of test, and the Government would conduct the flight portion.

43) Government ownership of Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) data (in Pre-Solicitation release) – What is the Government looking for from a data rights ownership aspect?

Response: Please review the unique H Clauses and SOW.

44) Why is the Government contemplating performing installation simultaneously instead of base by base?

SOW Appendix B Production Planning Schedule does not seem to cover all the aircraft. The modification of ATDs at Sheppard AFB, TX, Randolph AFB, TX, and CSO Pensacola, FL take place in the second half of the project.

Response: Yes. It is the Government’s intent to modify at 5 bases simultaneously; this footprint minimalizes disruption to normal operations in pilot production and maintenance while allowing aircraft modifications. The USAF may re-distribute (loan/transfer) ARP modified aircraft between bases to support ARP and legacy pilot production. The ARP contractor will be required to support the schedule and plan for the required aircraft and ATD’s that meet the Government’s requirements in Appendix B of the final RFP.

45) Are all members of the Government ARP team located in Oklahoma?

Response: Majority of the Government team is located at Tinker AFB with a few team members at other locations.

46) What is necessary to fulfill the ARINC 653 requirement? Would a solution other than ARINC 653 software partitioning be a disqualifier?

Response: The ARP hardware, software, and integrated architecture should enable growth for future requirements of T-6A. Among those might be non-flight critical applications (i.e. formatting of alternate information page to display status info for mission or instructor use) added to integrated computer at different levels of DAL in appropriate partition within the framework of the certification of the LRU.

The importance of schedule, threshold requirements, certification, and objectives will be as indicated in Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award. Data rights will be significant consideration for any

9 | P a g e architecture’s ability to meet intent of open systems. Please review the final SRD and final RFP for the most current requirements, will be posted to www.SAM.gov.

47) Would it be acceptable for an offeror to propose a system equivalent but not the same architecture in

ARINC 653 system?

Response: The ARP hardware, software, and integrated architecture should enable growth for future requirements of T-6A. Among those might be non-flight critical applications (i.e. formatting of alternate information page to display status info for mission or instructor use) added to integrated computer at different levels of DAL in appropriate partition within the framework of the certification of the LRU. The importance of schedule, threshold requirements, certification, and objectives will be as indicated in Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award. Data rights will be significant consideration for any architecture’s ability to meet intent of open systems. Please review final SRD and final RFP for changes when published.

48) Does the Government plan to establish a process similar to a FAA certified system? Is the Government going to take the process over after delivery?

Response: The contractor will manage the FAA STC application and substantiation process with the FAA-MCO, and be the STC holder. The USAF utilizes the STC as substantiation for a majority of the USAF airworthiness requirements in MIL-HDBK-516C.

49) SIL – Will potential offerors have access to the SIL at a Government facility or will the contractor need a second SIL for the life of the program?

Response: The Government does not currently have any SIL for the aircraft or the avionics. The contractor will meet delivery of Avionics System Integration Lab (ASIL) developed and built under this contract by acceptance testing witnessed by Government. ASIL will be kept at the Avionics Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or contractor selected facility for future program requirements until requested by Government to be moved.

The contractor must adequately maintain ASIL for configuration and access, and GFP handled appropriately. Other terms and conditions will be clarified in future. Shipment request may come at any time during or after contract, but intent is to make sure any updates to suite is confirmed by ASIL testing for T-6A ARP configuration.

50) MBSE Model – What elements of the life cycle sustainment plan are most essential in setting up the MBSE and getting it early on? How does the Government plan to use the MBSE/Digital Twin models to optimize the life cycle sustainment costs?

Response: MBSE and Digital Twin support organic goals for USAF. All models representing the design of ARP in form, fit, and function will benefit sustainment engineering at the T-6 Program office. There are no training or specific virtual use targeted for Digital Twin, but should be delivered in standard fashion to support evolution to common uses.

51) CMMI Level 3 – Does the CMMI Level 3 requirement apply to each contractor involved or the specific contractor who is supplying the avionics? Is the Government expecting this to apply at the prime level?

Response: CMMI Level 3 or equivalent Software development quality assurance is expected of the contractor or subcontractor developing Avionics software, GMCS software, and any supporting software for the avionics – including version control for OFPs, firmware, applications, configuration files, supporting libraries, and SDKs. It does not pertain to databases unless specified under certifications and standards required by FAA or other required accreditations, qualifications, or certifications.

This is a Pre-Solicitation Conference Registration, which, as part of market research, is being issued in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 10 Market Research and 15.201. This is not a solicitation. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Training Aircraft Section (AFLCMC/WLK) is seeking to gather information and identify sources that may be capable of providing Avionics Replacement Program for the T-6A

52) GFR at Install Facility – Will GFR apply to contractor personnel?

Response: The GFR/GGFR will approve all contractor maintenance and safety procedures prior to beginning of ARP modification.

53) Is the Government directing FlightSafety (FSI) for ARP integration for ATDs?

Response: No; the Government is requiring Letters of Intent (LOIs) with OEMs to obtain the appropriate data rights.

54) MOSA – Why did the Government specify MOSA standard as opposed to other open systems architecture?

Response: Department of Defense requires MOSA, as pertinent. Please see summary of MOSA Benefits and Summary at https://www.dau.edu/acquipedia/pages/ArticleContent.aspx?itemid=143.

55) ARINC 818 – What is driving the ARINC 818 requirement? Would the Government consider other high bandwidth video standards as compliant?

Response: The Government has changed the ARINC 818 threshold requirement to industry standard interface. The Government will correct the SRD Appendix B. Interface growth provisions of ARINC 818 is still an objective, with consideration for industry HUD capability or additional MFD support.

56) If a proposed solution does not organically include ARINC 818, can an offeror be compliant with a converter, if so, is there a latency requirement? Or will it be compliant with that standard?

Response: Please see the response above. The Government is not specifying latency on interface but the proposed solution is required to meet the human factor requirements.

57) Digital Engineering – Is there a preferred Government format? Will the final RFP specify the format?

Response: CDRLs (DD Form 1423) provided in the final RFP will specify the format. Also, review SOW language for tool guidance.

58) SRD Table 2 AOA Indicator – Is the preference to have a stand-alone or integrated AOA indicator?

Response: The Government preference is integrated.

59) Will there be a Bidders Library providing access to T-6A specific documents?

JPATS ORD III

BS24806

AFI 62-601

AFI 63-101/20-101

AFI 63-133

AFI 92-203

Air Force Manual 11-202 Air Force Manual 11-2T-6

TO 01-1A-14

TO 01-1A-14-2

TO 01-1A-14-3

TO 01-1A-14-4

Aircraft IPC Aircraft Wiring Diagram https://www.dau.edu/acquipedia/pages/ArticleContent.aspx?itemid=143

11 | P a g e

Response: The Government intends to continue population of the Bidders Library on www.SAM.gov.

60) The SOW references Contractor Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR), why is cost and hour reporting information required for a firm fixed price contract?

Response: In accordance with DoDI 5000.73, CSDR is required on all contracts meeting the reporting threshold regardless of contract type.

61) Flight bag currently in use – What software tools are on the currently used flight bag (beyond the hardware component)?

Response: The flight bag is a carry-on device used at the bases and does not connect to the aircraft.

There is no flight bag requirement for ARP.

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. 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).

62) The SOW references aircraft installation Kit Proofing on all “A” and “B” Kits for the first 50 T-6A ARP aircraft. Historically, there is 1 Kit Proofing performed followed by 1 VAL/VER. Is this a typo?

Response: The SOW will be corrected to read as follows:

4.12 Aircraft Installation Kit Proofing (Aircraft Only)

The Contractor shall provide the installation kits IAW the Supplemental Type Certificate installation package. All installation items will be confirmed to be authorized for installation by the FAA approved data on FAA Form 8110-3. COTS items (B-Kits) will be delivered with FAA Parts Manufacturing Authority (PMA) certificates or FAA Form 8130-3, Airworthiness Approval Tag, as appropriate.

4.12.1 Aircraft Installation Kit Auditing (Aircraft Only)

The Contractor shall perform kit audits on all installations of “A” Kits and “B” Kits for the first 50 T-6A ARP aircraft IAW CDRL A017, DI-SESS-81022E, Configuration Audit Summary Report and Certification. With Government approval after the first 50 installations, kit audits will be conducted on 10% of the remaining installations.

63) The ARP effort lists two different periods (first 7 months and the next 15 months), are the “A” Kits due after the first 7 months?

Response: The Government expects delivery of the virtual prototype during the first 7 months. The “A” and “B” Kits are due right before CDR. The “A” and “B” Kits will be used to populate the ASIL and used for the first prototype installation.

64) Historically, “A” Kits are built after CDR. If the SIL is built based on the pre-CDR, the Government will end up with changes to the SIL. Does the Government anticipate this?

Response: The Prototype and Mock-up “A” & “B” Kits would be delivered/available 30 calendar days prior to CDR. At this point in the design, there should not be required changes to the system as CDR is at a point where we are ready to test the system. If during ASIL testing deficiencies are denoted, Deficiency Reports (DRs) will need to be corrected. If changes are made to the final product after the Prototype, kit proof and Val/Ver, those aircraft would be required to be brought to current configuration.

This is a Pre-Solicitation Conference Registration, which, as part of market research, is being issued in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 10 Market Research and 15.201. This is not a solicitation. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Training Aircraft Section (AFLCMC/WLK) is seeking to gather information and identify sources that may be capable of providing Avionics Replacement Program for the T-6A

65) What maintenance will be performed during aircraft ARP modifications?

Response: There will be no scheduled aircraft maintenance required during the contractors’ ARP modification time period.

66) Is the USAF open to considering Head Mounted Display (HMD) vs HUD?

Response: There is no requirement for a Head Mounted Display.

67) Has full life cycle value been considered? Does it include a 20 years sustainability plan?

Response: Yes, the full life cycle value has been considered. Per the SOW, Sections 4.1 and 4.2, the intent is for the contractor to provide details of how their solution will support the fleet well into the future. The Integrated Logistics Support Plan and the Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages Management Plan should address all of the logistics elements as well as any future parts obsolescence and availability that will affect the proposed solution, including the 20+ year sustainment thereof.

68) Will additional definition regarding training requirements and duration be provide, specifically maintenance and quality training?

Response: All aircraft maintenance training shall be conducted at Randolph AFB. Maintenance training shall include academics on theory of operation, diagnostics, troubleshooting and repair of the new ARP systems. Hands-on ground training via an aircraft will be provided to familiarize maintainers with location of new equipment and removal and replacement of ARP LRUs. Training period shall not exceed one work week (five duty days).

69) Will Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Level 2 or Level 3 be required under the NIST 800-171 provision?

Response: NIST 800-171 full compliance still required by SOW but CMMC Level 2 is recognized as sufficient in evaluation of proposal.

Rationale: Level 2 will allow the contractor to move forward while working out any issues, pending a plan to acquire compliance.

70) Are “A” and “B” Kits required to have FAA Parts Manufacturing Authority (PMA) certification?

Response: The “A” and “B” Kits are required to contain the materials, parts, components that install the FAA Certified (and USAF AW Certified) ARP configuration. The kit materials provided shall have FAA 8130-3 or Certificates of Conformity, as appropriate.

71) Does the Government have display size preferences?

Response: Please review the updated SRD at final RFP release.

72) Within the SRD; shall statements or objectives prevail?

Response: Guidance for SRDs, PBSs, and requirements documents used in acquisition has changed through the years regarding Objectives. The ARP SRD follows latest guidance which outlines that every requirement must use “shall” and syntax for noting threshold or objective defined in the document and notated as needed. All requirements are mandatory and defined as the minimum acceptable threshold, except where noted OBJECTIVE. Any requirement noted “[OBJECTIVE]” is considered in a

13 | P a g e different subfactor in Section M than the threshold requirements. Additional note: A revision to the SRD is anticipated prior to contract formalization.

73) Do all avionics need to meet TRL-7 or TRL-8 requirements?

Response: The SOW has been updated to reflect TRL-7 or higher requirement.

74) It is unclear if display severability is considered a threshold requirement. Would a smart display

(embedded processing in display) that is not ARINC 653 compliant be considered viable as meeting threshold requirement 3.6.3 if a separate ARINC 653 processor with entry points and interfaces (such as video inputs to the smart displays) is provided?

Response: Display severability is deemed a sustainable architecture feature resilient for Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS), vendor and part obsolescence, and vendor lock. The ARP hardware, software, and integrated architecture should enable growth for future requirements of T-6A. Among those might be non-flight critical applications (i.e. formatting of alternate information page to display status info for mission or instructor use) added to integrated computer at different levels of DAL in appropriate partition within the framework of the certification of the LRU. The importance of schedule, threshold requirements, certification, and objectives is indicated in Section M.

Data rights will be significant consideration for any architecture’s ability to meet intent of open systems.

75) There are conflicts between the written SRD (pdf) and both the Engineering Tables and Appendix B

Test and Verification Matrix. One example: Section 3.8.3 (video interfaces) does not match. Many section numbers do not align after 3.8.3. Does the written section of the SRD take precedence over the Appendix B Test and Verification Matrix and engineering tables?

Response: The Government has corrected conflicts in the SRD. The updated SRD will be available at final RFP release.

76) COTS components to be integrated into the new system have gone through qualification by the FAA requiring extensive plans and documentation. Some of the solicitation CDRLs are duplicative of the qualification packages required by the FAA. We recommend reviewing the DID requirements for potential to remove duplicative content as a means to reduce program price and to mitigate schedule risks.

Response: The Program Office utilizes the CDRLs as a means of tracking contractor progress to technical solution and schedule, and documenting that the approved/final 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), or not at all, and these CDRLs 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.

77) SOW Section 3.11 – Data Rights (Software Provider) – Does the Government anticipate negotiating?

Response: The final RFP will outline necessary Data Rights requirements to support the ARP effort.

Please review all documents to include the final RFP, unique H Clauses, Section L, Section M and Pricing Matrix.

78) Which Quality Management System, AS9100 or AS9110, will be acceptable? (Both are based on ISO

9001:2015 core standard)

Response: Either are appropriate/acceptable.

This is a Pre-Solicitation Conference Registration, which, as part of market research, is being issued in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 10 Market Research and 15.201. This is not a solicitation. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Training Aircraft Section (AFLCMC/WLK) is seeking to gather information and identify sources that may be capable of providing Avionics Replacement Program for the T-6A

79) Incentive/Disincentive Plan – Why is the Government penalizing a contractor for early delivery?

Response: The Government requires steady state. The Government will evaluate the early delivery penalty, but the intent would be a new aircraft would not be made available until the scheduled start of the next mod. Please continue to review updates to the draft/final RFP as they become available.

80) What proprietary rights assertions, and against which documents, components, or subcomponents are being exerted by the aircraft and training device OEMs that are driving the LOI requirement?

Response: Please work with the corresponding OEM to obtain the appropriate data rights.

81) Is there an Intellectual Property (IP) rights assertions table the OEMs (Textron and FSI) can provide the

Government that can be supplied as part of the Bidders Library?

82) Regarding the aircraft and ATD Digital Twin requirement. Does the Government possess full aircraft and ATD Digital Twins to which the ARP solution is to be integrated?

If so, will the Government provide access to the Digital Twins for integration?

If not, does the Government intend the successful offeror to create complete Digital Twins for the full aircraft and ATD which would include content beyond the scope of the ARP solution?

Response: There is not an existing T-6A aircraft or ATD Digital Twin. There is low fidelity 3- Dimensional Computer-Aided Design (3D CAD) of some areas of the aircraft, but is not expected to be baseline for integration of ARP Digital Twin. The intent is to integrate ARP Digital Twin into future aircraft and ATD Digital Twin. Coordination with OEM and Government is expected to ensure transformation is seamless.

83) Digital Twin – Is the Government currently building a SIL? Does T-6A have a SIL to be updated? Is the

Government creating a new Digital Twin? Ability to input ARP Digital Twin into Aircraft Digital Twin?

Response: Two separate subjects – Digital Twin and ASIL are separate topics addressed in Government Response 1 and Government Response 2 below. Although, ASIL may utilize some digital engineering, ASIL does not satisfy Digital Twin requirements.

Response 1: There is not an existing T-6A Digital Twin. There is low fidelity 3D CAD of some areas, but is not expected to be baseline for integration of ARP Digital Twin. The intent is to integrate ARP Digital Twin into future aircraft Digital Twin. Coordination with OEM and Government is expected to ensure transformation is seamless.

Response 2: The Government does not currently have any SIL for the aircraft or the avionics. The ASIL referenced in the SOW is a standalone. The Contractor will meet delivery of ASIL developed and built under this contract by acceptance testing witnessed by Government. ASIL will be kept at the Avionics OEM or contractor selected facility for future program requirements until requested by Government to be moved. ASIL documentation and data rights are deliveries for purpose of duplication if needed later.

The Contractor must adequately maintain ASIL for configuration and access, and GFP handled appropriately. Other terms and conditions will be clarified in future. Shipment request may come at any time during or after contract, but intent is to make sure any updates to suite is confirmed by ASIL testing for T-6A ARP configuration.

15 | P a g e

84) Industry Day – Request for LOI (aircraft/SIM) – Will OEMs provide data rights assertion table which outlines parts claimed to be proprietary? What proprietary rights being asserted may be problematic for the simulator effort?

85) Does the Government plan to hold an Industry Day for ATD between now and final RFP release (in case the providers need to look at the ATD)?

Response: Due to schedule and ATD constraints the Government does not intend to schedule an additional Industry Day.

Please submit additional Pre-Solicitation Questions to Welth Cooper at Welth.Cooper@us.af.mil and Gale VanDeventer at Gale.VanDeventer@us.af.mil.

mailto:Welth.Cooper@us.af.mil mailto:Gale.VanDeventer@us.af.mil