T-6A ARP RFI II.pdf

10 November 2021

Request for Information (RFI) II

The purpose of this RFI is to provide the preliminary System Requirements Document (SRD) and request responses to the following sets of questions. It augments RFI I published on 23 February 2021. Please notice this RFI includes two sections with differing due dates for responses. Request all responses be based on your company’s review and analysis of the program requirements in the

SRD.

Section I

(Responses due by 24 November 2021)

1. Does your company possess the necessary data/licensing rights to perform this Avionics Replacement effort (Original Equipment Manufacturing (OEM) and sub-vendors)?

a. If not, do you envision any challenges obtaining data/licensing rights (OEM and legacy component sub-vendors)?

2. Does your company have established relationships with the T-6 aircraft OEM (Textron) and any necessary legacy component vendors required for integration?

a. If so, do you currently have an agreement or letter of intent (LOI) with the OEM and/or sub-vendors? Provide copies or a detailed description of what the agreement or LOI covers.

b. If not, could you obtain such an agreement or LOI?

c. If yes, provide a copy of the T-6 aircraft OEM LOI with the response to Section II below.

3. This effort is required to be ISO 9001 certified enterprise wide.

a. Does your company hold a certification for ISO 9001 or higher? Please provide details.

4. Does your company depend on international developments, partnerships, or products?

a. If yes, provide details to include anticipated countries and experience with successfully managing the supply chain.

5. Describe your company’s experience with cyber security compliance. Can you comply with cyber security clauses DFARS 252.204-7008, 252.204-7012, 252.204-7015, 252.204-7018, 252.204-7019 and 252.204-7020?

6. Is your company capable to providing firm fixed prices for the following at the same time in one proposal submission:

a. EMD

b. Group A and Group B production kits

c. Aircraft installation

If not, please explain concerns.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA

7. The United States Government (USG) may be selecting a vendor utilizing Other Transaction Authority (OTA). This may be done through the AFLCMC Consortium Initiative (ACI)/The System of Systems Security Consortium (SOSSEC) or other OTA.

Please inform the USG if your company is able/willing to propose under an OTA. Please explain your response.

a. If yes, do you anticipate partnering with a non-traditional defense company for a significant portion of the effort?

b. If not, will your company be willing to cover the cost share requirements of at least one third of the total cost under an OTA?

8. Does your company have experience interfacing with PT6A-68 Power Management Unit, GE Aviation Model 4280 Engine Data Manager, T-6 Trim Aid Device, and/or NGT- 9000R transponder?

a. If your company does not have experience with specific components, do you have experience with similar components/systems? If yes, please provide a description of the experience.

9. Does your company have experience interfacing radio management with VC-401B VHF Communication Transceiver, CVC-151 VHF Communication Transceiver, VN-411B VHF Navigation Receiver, and DM-441B DME Transceiver, and/or NGT-9000R transponder?

a. If your company does not have experience with the specific components, do you have experience with similar components/systems? If yes, please provide a description of the experience.

10. Please respond to the following questions regarding program schedule:

a. How long do you anticipate it would take your company to complete all EMD

(virtual prototype, final prototype and testing) requirements? (USG target is no longer than 18 to 24 months from award.) Explain any anticipated risks to meeting your company’s stated timeframe? In addition, explain any concerns you have with meeting the USG target of 18 to 24 months.

b. How long do you anticipate it would take your company to complete the virtual prototype? (USG target is no longer than 6 months from award.) Explain any anticipated risks to meeting your company’s stated timeframe. In addition, explain any concerns you have with meeting the USG target of 6 months.

c. How long to you anticipate it would take your company to complete production and installation? (USG target is no longer than 48 months from production award.) Explain any anticipated risks to meeting your company’s stated timeframe. In addition, explain any concerns you have with meeting the USG target of 48 months.

Please explain if there are any issues with meeting the recommended program execution timeframe. If there are issues, please describe an alternative schedule which would be acceptable for your company.

11. Is there any additional information you would like to communicate to the USG related to this anticipated requirement?

Please provide responses to Section I questions via email to Welth Cooper at Welth.Cooper@us.af.mil by close of business Wednesday, 24 November 2021. Provide responses to Section II questions via email by close of business Friday, 10 December 2021.

Section II

(Responses due by 10 December 2021)

1. The ARP Systems Requirements Document (SRD) has been provided with this RFI.

Please complete the “Preliminary ARP SRD Industry Survey Matrix v2” spreadsheet provided to the best of your ability and return with your response.

2. What level of data rights do you anticipate providing the USG for the developed system (Reference Data Rights Listing below)?

3. Does your company require any unique support equipment for your solution?

4. Does your company develop software or do you subcontract that effort?

a. Does your company have experience with Agile Software Development?

b. Does your company have software storage policies to ensure the product is maintained for its entire life and for follow on modifications?

c. Does this include all revision controls on supportive files, development environment, and third party Software Development Kits?

5. Has your company performed an avionics replacement modification of similar scope and complexity as required by the preliminary SRD including completing prototypes, manufacturing, development, fielding, and sustainment?

a. If yes, provide examples.

6. Has your company performed a similar scope and complexity as required by the SRD for an avionics modification to include fielding (installation) of a large number of aircraft (T- 6 fleet is over 400 aircraft)?

a. If so, provide examples.

7. Does your company have experience with obsolescence management?

a. If yes, please explain how your company would manage obsolescence through the program lifecycle for this effort.

8. A Digital Twin is defined as, “An integrated multiphysics, multiscale, probabilistic simulation of an as-built system, enabled by Digital Thread, that uses the best available models, sensor information, and input data to mirror and predict activities/performance over the life of its corresponding physical twin.” What are your company's capabilities with regard to providing a Digital Twin of an installation of the Avionics Suite and Aircrew Training Devices (e.g.: simulators)?

a. If not a complete suite, what components?

b. If you have experience with Digital Twin, please provide examples.

mailto:Welth.Cooper@us.af.mil

c. Was it used to assess installation, cooling requirements, Weight and Balance, Power usage, and/or ICD (electrical, protocol, and data definition) for a given platform?

d. Has the Digital Twin been used in artifacts for an STC or Mil Airworthiness?

e. Include details related to 3D CAD models, Matlab/Simulink models, Physics models (especially for Thermal Analysis), and Reliability models.

f. Does your company currently have a desktop simulator that represents COTS

Avionics as displayed to the pilot?

9. Regarding Large Area Displays; what Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF), environmental specifications, Solar exposure, Repair Turn Around Time, drop, shock, and impact can your company's products meet?

10. For 80 T-6A Aircrew Training Devices (ATDs) installed across six Air Force flight training bases, what would the retrofit plan look like for these simulators?

a. Would retrofit be performed in-place at the six flight training bases or would it be necessary to pack and ship the simulators to some centralized mod line location?

b. Would some hybrid retrofit solution be more suitable where some portions of each simulator remain in-place for modification while other elements are shipped away for the same?

12. Describe the minimal data set needed to successfully reverse engineer a technical solution for Aircrew Training Devices (ATDs).

13. Request your company provide a rough order of magnitude for the follow, including assumptions:

a. EMD as required by the SRD

b. Production

c. Installation

14. Is there any additional information you would like to communicate to the USG related to this anticipated requirement?

Please provide responses via email by close of business Wednesday, 10 December 2021. To include completion of the attached ARP Preliminary SRD Verification Matrix. Note: Gregory Benjamin has moved to a new position. If you have additional questions regarding the above or the Avionics Replacement effort, please direct questions to Welth Cooper at Welth.Cooper@us.af.mil.

mailto:Welth.Cooper@us.af.mil STRUB, GEORGETTE B NH-04 USAF AFMC AFLCMC/PZK (Systems Support Contracting Division) Do you want a time estimate with this?

Reference: Data Rights Listing

Below is a list of data of interest to USG to secure for ARP. For each bullet and sub-bullet, please indicate your company’s considered data rights assertions/offering you plan to make to the USG according to definitions in DFARS 252.227, such as government purpose rights, limited rights, unlimited rights, and specifically negotiated license rights, and the duration in effect for those data rights. Also indicate if the data will be considered: (1) developed exclusively with private contractor funds; (2) developed using USG funds, or (3) developed using a mix of contractor funds and USG funds. The sustainment strategy goal is 25 years.

• Interface Data for every component included in ARP solution.

• User Manuals for every component included in ARP solution.

• All data developed during contracts and supporting ARP virtual prototype, physical aircraft prototype, fielding, and Ground Based Training System. This includes required CDRLs, Technical Data Package, OMIT data, and anything foreseen as necessary for sustainment of T-6A.

o Source Code o Executables o CSCI Libraries, Widgets, and Drivers o Drawings o Drawing Tree o Bill of Materials o Interface Control Document o Design Rational records o Engineering Procedures o Manufacturing Procedures o Manufacturing Processes o Operational Procedures o Maintenance Procedures o Quality Assurance Provisions o Certification artifacts o Analyses o Studies o Company customized libraries used for analyses (i.e. PSpice components) o Models & Simulations (all formats – i.e. CAD, SysML, Matlab, Ansys, code based, xml) o Equipment, Tools, and aides (manufacturing, support, stimulation, jigs, test, templates, packaging, etc.)

o Verification and Validation data o Test Procedures o Qualification, Verification, Validation, and Demonstration procedures, reports, and equipment o Any T-6 specific profiles used in testing, modelling, simulation, and/or analyses o Reports (Test, repair, material discrepancies, manufacturing & process discrepancies, etc) o ECOs o Intelligence (the data acquired in order to plan, develop, analyze, or test) o Logistics Product Data o 3D CAD Model with Form, Fit, Function detail of components and detail design of integration o Description, Source, and supporting data for Algorithms

• Software Development kit, libraries, documentation - the full complement of whatever it takes to o Rebuild and rehost ARP software CSCIs o Add applications to ARP

• Desktop Simulators

• Emitter characteristics

• Description, Source, and supporting data for Algorithms and Order of Operations

• Description and Interface data for Modular subcomponents for alternate configurations of components