KC-X Draft RFP Questions and Answers · DFAR regulations and include the appropriate rights to data...

Friday, November 13,2009

KC-X Draft RFP Questions and Answers

Q: For cost evaluation will feedback be given before FRP? Also, will the government adjust numbers? Finally, will the government share the calculations (i.e. whether we are inside or outside of gate)?

A: Prior to FPR, the Government will provide each offeror their respective Factor 2 TPP (PV), IFARA Fleet Effectiveness Value, Fuel Cost (PV), and MILCON Cost (PV). The RFP clearly specifies which adjustments will be made to the TPP (PV). During the evaluation period, the Government will not disclose if the offerors are inside or outside the gate.

Q: Fuel Burn Tables-the estimated fuel cost adjustment stops at year xxxx. Why?

A: The Government will extend the Section L, Attachment 3, "Fuel Cost" worksheet's Fuel Inflation Index through 2070.

Q: The ability to meet the flying qualities as defined in MIL-STD-1797, which implies quantitative test and analysis, is counter to the Cooper-Harper qualitative flying qualities demonstrated as part of the FAA Certification process required of paragraph 3.4.3.1.1. Do the Cooper-Harper ratings meet the intent of paragraph 3.4.2.3.1 by eliminating the conflicting requirement interpretation?

A: SRD requirements 3.1.2.1 and 3.4.2.3.1 are not in conflict with FAA certification (SRD requirement 3.4.3.1.1). MIL-STD-1797 is referenced in SRD requirements 3.1.2.1 and 3.4.2.3.1 to provide a source for defining unique terminology (e.g., level 1, satisfactory, and uncommon atmospheric disturbances). The Government will revise the RFP to clarify.

Q: "Precision landing approaches", "non-precision landing approaches" and "landing approaches"

The terms "precision landing approaches", "non-precision landing approaches" and "landing approaches" are used throughout the document. Are "landing approaches" interpreted as precision or non-precision?"

A: In most cases the approach type is dictated in the requirement (e.g. TACAN approaches are universally defined as non-precision approaches). The following requirements are specific SRD clarifications: 3.3.1.1-29 Requires non-precision autonomous approaches 3.3.1.1-32 Requires non-precision DGPS approaches 3.3.1.1-36 Requires both precision and non-precision approaches. However, MLS is only a precision approach. The Government will revise the RFP to clarify.

KC-X Draft RFP Questions and Answers Page 1 of 47

Q: Please confirm whether or not marking instructions should be changed for the current dRFP classified data per Government letter dated 13 September 2007 (attached).

A: Contact the contracting officer immediately if classified items received are believed to be incorrectly marked. Challenges to classification should follow procedures in DoD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, (28 Feb 06), Chapter 4 Classification and Marking, paragraph 4-104 Challenges to Classification.

Q: Request additional SO0 and TMCR referenced documents/files at enclosure 2 (attached) be provided on a compact disc at the Government's earliest opportunity.

A: The Government has provided to those offerors who have made a request, a CD with the most current SO0 and TMCR reference information.


Q: RFPText: CLlN 0509 Descriptive Data: The contractor also hereby grants or obtains for Government use the license rights for the FAA Type Certification data delivered under this ltem as indicated in Section J, Attachment 23 "Identification and Assertion of Restrictions on Technical Data and Computer Software" Attachment 3 Production 500, Paragraph 8 states, "The offeror shall deliver all FAA-approved type design and substantiating data (technical and computer software) for the KC X System and equipment to include the non military baseline aircraft, engines, components and modifications." It also states, "The offeror shall provide engineering technical support needed for the USAF to establish and maintain non FAA based military type certification. (Dl SAFT 80901, E001)" CDRL E O O l and the corresponding DID (Dl-SAFT-80901) states that the Government is seeking rights to the data required to substantiate the FAA Airworthiness Certification and existing engineering data developed for models of this aircraft, and states that this data may be utilized to fulfill data and test requirements for flight certification/clearance of modifiedlderivative models of this aircraft.

Please confirm that it is Government's intent for the Contractor to only deliver the FAA Certification data for the "Amended Type Certificate" and/or "Supplemental Type Certificate" for the end item delivered. Thus, the delivered items would be consistent with the intent of the DFAR regulations and include the appropriate rights to data substantially modified and/or developed using USG funding. This interpretation also seems consistent with the language in H O l O "~ederal Aviation Administration (or Equivalent) Requirements and Certificates" which states that Contractor shall obtain Amended Type Certificate" and/or "Supplemental Type Certificate". If the Government's intention is different, please provide clarification. Is the Contractor required to deliver the most recent commercial model certification or is the Contractor required to deliver all FAA certification data for the entire baseline platform? The data that substantiates the original Type Certificate of the aircraft or the Type Certificate of latest model of the commercial aircraft is an extensive l ist of design and test data and analyses, reaching into several tiers of subcontracts of the commercial baseline aircraft. Recommended Wording Change: Should the intent of this language be limited to FAA Type Certification data related to the military type certification, please include clarifying language in the following: CLlN 0509- .... The contractor also hereby grants or obtains for Government use the license rights for the Amended Type Certificate" and/or "Supplemental Type Certificate" of the end item deliverable data under this ltem as indicated in Section J, Attachment 23 "Identification and Assertion of Restrictions on Technical Data and Computer Software." Section J, Attachment 3, Production SOO, Paragraph 8: The offeror shall deliver all "Amended Type Certificate" and/or "Supplemental Type Certificate" of the end item deliverable, coupled with any military qualification/certification data for the KC-X System. This shall include a statement of the associated license rights as set forth ....... CDRL E001- Block 16- Tailor DID Dl-SAFT-80901, Paragraph (3)- Description/ Purpose as follows: All items delivered shall be limited to the "Amended Type Certification" and/or "Supplemental Type Certificate" of the end item deliverable, coupled with any military qualification/certification data for the KC-X."

KC-X Draft RFP Questions and Answers 11/13/2009 Page 3 of 47

A: Should the Government exercise option CLlN 0509, the intent is to obtain all FAAIEASA- approved type design data for the entire baseline platform. This includes all certification data for the non-miltary baseline platform and amended or supplemental type certification data.

Q: RFPText: H007 Delivery and License Rights for Technical Data and Computer Software Necessary for Depot- Level Maintenance and Training Systems, paragraph (a) Definitions.

Request for Clarification:

H007 defines the rights needed for the Government to perform Depot Level Maintenance. In order to clarify and remove any ambiguity associated with the term modification, we recommend the following language below.

Recommended Wording Change:

Recommend to insert the following language as (a)(l)(C):

"The term "modification" as used in this contract-

(i) Shall mean the restoration of the as delivered and other mutually agreed upon system capabilities and product integrity, and

(ii) Shall not include the design of new capabilities.

(iii) Alteration or design of new capabilities will be facilitated through a separate contractual action if the delivered data is not sufficient and may involve the procurement of engineering services as required."

A: The RFP will be modified to clarify the term Depot Level Maintenance to exclude the design and manufacture of new items.

Q: RFP Text: 3.4.3.12.1 The KC-X shall meet a design service life of at least forty (40) years with 750 flight hours per year to the usage and profiles in Figure A-I, and meet no less than the structural integrity criteria of the baseline non-military aircraft. (MANDATORY) Section L, Attachment 3 Fuel Cost Worksheet uses 489 flight hours per aircraft for the Fuel Usage Rate Evaluation Criteria

Comment/Request for Clarification/Recommendation:

As neither of these applies specifically to ICS, what annual operating flight hours should the offerors assume for ICS support?

A: Interim Contractor Support is based on an average of 489 annual flight hours per aircraft. The RFP will be revised to clarify.


Q: RFP Extract: 4.1 The Contractor shall develop and deliver all 0-level maintenance IETMs ASD/AIA SlOOOD, Issue 4, International Specification for Technical Publications utilizing a Common Source Database.

Is the Government's intention to mandate SlOOOD format for the 0-level maintenance manuals or will other commercial formats be accepted?

Recommendation: Revise paragraph 4.1 as follows: "The Contactor shall develop and deliver all 0-level maintenance IETMs in Digitallprintable format including flight manuals to existing SPEC 2200 or higher style and format unless otherwise specifically addressed in this document or as directed by the TOMAIFMM."

A: RFP TMCR, Section J Attachment 8, paragraph 2.0 requires the use of SlOOOD, lssue 4 format for 0-level maintenance manuals. Technical Order, TO 00-5-3 ( 1 Aug 09), states all new major acquisition programs acquire techical orders in a Type 2 Integrated Electronic Tech Manuals database format in accordance with AIA SlOOOD and the Air Force XML Business Rules. The RFP will be revised to clarify.

--

Q: RFP Extract: 3.5.3.2.21 The KC-X defensive SA system shall provide for the basic aircrew and additional aircrew member to electronically move the display map area in any direction from the aircraft's present position to any position within the preplanned mission area, and provide look- ahead, pan and at least nine (9) stepped-zoom levels functionality. (MANDATORY)

This paragraph requires the defensive SA Systems be provided at three crew stations and contradicts SRD paragraph 3.5.3.2.18 which calls for defensive SA System to be available at two crew stations.

3.5.3.2.18 The KC-X shall provide for defensive SA system and display control by Aircraft Commander and Pilot. (MANDATORY)

Recommendation: Revise SR paragraph 3.5.3.2.21 to reflect "...The KC-X defensive SA system shall provide the Aircraft Commander and Pilot the ability t o electronically move the display map area in any direction from the aircraft's present position to any position within the preplanned mission area, and provide look-ahead, pan and at least nine (9) stepped-zoom levels functionality." (MANDATORY)

A: The Aircraft Commander and Pilot are the only two crewmembers that must have control over the Situational Awareness (SA) system. The Government will revise the RFP to clarify.


Q: RFP Extract: After completion of IOT&E ... and complete any maintenance actions required to reset all inspection clock times to zero for the EMD aircraft ...

Recommendation: Provide clarification of maintenance actions required on EMD aircraft after IOT&E that would be more cost effective (e.g., perform maintenance actions due within X months after aircraft delivery).

A: After completion of IOT&E, all EMD aircraft will have maintenance actions completed to reset inspection clock times to zero.

Q: RFP Extract: 52.232-16 PROGRESS PAYMENTS (JUL 2009) Applies to Firm-Fixed-Price CLIN(s), Fixed-Price Incentive (Firm Target) CLIN(s) only.

1. Present Government financing construct results in excessive contractor financing obligations, please change to FAR 52.232-32 Performance Based Payments; in lieu of Progress Payments

Recommendations: FAR 52.232-32 PERFORMANCE BASED PAYMENTS (JAN 2008) Applies to Firm Fixed Price and Fixed-Price lncentive (Firm Target) CLINS only

Suggest a facilitating plan be established as follows: 1. For EMD CLINS; establish PBPs 60 days after contract award 2. For Option CLINS; establish PEPS 180 days before the particular option

A: The Government has determined that the use of progress payments, as presently defined in the draft RFP, is the appropriate payment method for this acqusition.


Q: RFP Extract: 1. TMCR Tailoring. 1.1 The Contractor shall provide their contractual comprehensive approach to the development, certification and delivery of all TOs required to fully meet the Government's identified technical data requirements within each paragraph in Section 1 and the associated tables in Section 2 of this TMCR. The Contractor shall also adhere to the Specifications/Standard Interface Records (SIRS) for the TO types, source data, TO updates, commercial manuals, and any TOs prepared to Non Government Standards (NGS) in Section 3 of this TMCR. The Contractor shall not delete any Government identified requirements, but may identify additional TOs required to support the KC- X System.

See attached Part A -Table 1 for listing of required TOs which include nuclear bomb delivery manuals, integrated Combat Turnaround Procedures, etc.

Is it the government's intent to expand the scope of the TO Program to include manuals that support capabilities that are not in the RFP? See attached document for specific questions and modifications.

Recommendation: The Contractor shall tailor this TMCR document, including all associated tables, matrices', and Specification/Standard Interface Records. The tailored TMCR shall be attached to the CDRL TO delivery, and shall be included in the proposal as a separate exhibit, referenced in the proposal SOW.

A: Titles or Types of Manuals identified in TMCR Part A, Table 1, Numbers 7 and 8 are not applicable. The RFP will be revised to clarify.


Q: RFPText: Section M.2.3.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): An offeror's TEP is the offeror's proposed TPP (PV) less any adjustments that may result from the IFARA, FURA, and MlLCON evaluations. Comment/Request for Clarification/Recommendation: - In a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement proceeding the United States has taken the position that Airbus, a subsidiary of EADS, has received roughly $5B in illegal subsidies from European Governments to support development of the A-3301340 aircraft (the DS 316 Dispute). - The United States has further taken the position in DS 316 that the Airbus A-330, a platform offered in the prior KC-X competition, would not exist today, were it not for these illegal subsidies. -The WTO Panel adjudicating the DS 316 Dispute is expected to publish a Final Report on the matter in the coming months, after the issuance of the Final RFP but well before an award in the competition. - A provision that simply requires contractors to reimburse the Air Force for the added cost of any tariffs imposed on imported Airbus aircraft as the result of the DS 316 ruling (the Air Force's described "hold harmless" provision) does nothing to rectify the unfair competitive advantage enjoyed by Airbus as the result of any illegal subsidies that Airbus is found to have received. Questions: Does the Air Force believe that a fair competition is possible if one competitor is permitted to enjoy the full benefit of $5B in illegal subsidies, without any price adjustment to take those subsidies into account and create a level playing field? How will the Air Force adjust contractor offers to take into account any findings by the WTO in DS 316 that in fact the A-330 aircraft has received illegal subsidies and/or that it would not exist today were it not for illegal subsidies? If the Air Force does not intend to adjust contractor offers for any such findings, how does it justify i t s No-Action position in light of: 1. FAR 45.202(a), 2. the principles of fair competition that underlie the FAR, and 3. the articulated desire of the Department of Defense and the Air Force to ensure a fair competition on a level playing field. With particular respect to FAR 45.202(a), if the Air Force does not intend to act under this provision and the level playing field principles underlying it, please explain the reasoning behind that decision.

A: The Government's position with regard to WTO rulings is addressed in special contract requirement HO18, titled "World Trade Organization Dispute--Costs Unallowable."


Q: Comment: Public Law No. 110-417,122 Stat. 4355, Section 886(a) provides that the "Secretary of Defense, not later than 10 days after a ruling by the World Trade Organization that the . . . European Union . . . has provided a covered subsidy to a manufacturer of large commercial aircraft, shall begin a review, as described in subsection b, of the impact of such covered subsidy on the source selection for the [KC-XI Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program." Questions: Please detail the actions and steps taken by the Department of Defense pursuant to the above requirement and/or any and all plans that the Department has for future action pursuant to the above requirement and in light of the ongoing KC-X procurement. Please provide the specific timetable that the Department has established for the action and steps described in response to the above.

A: The WTO has issued no final rulings regarding the allegations of covered subsidies by the European Union. The Department will comply with the Public Law No. 110-417,122 Stat. 4355, Section 886(a).

Q: RFPText: Section M.2.3.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): An offeror's TEP is the offeror's proposed TPP (PV) less any adjustments that may result from the IFARA, FURA, and MILCON evaluations. Comment/Request for Clarification/Recommendation: The official position of the United States Government has long been that the World Trade Organization (WTO) claims of the European Communities that [Offeror] has received research and infrastructure subsidies from the United States (the DS 353 Dispute) are without any merit whatsoever. The European Communities' claims do not allege that the United States has provided [Offeror] platform development subsidies equivalent to i ts own, widely known as Launch Aid, which funded the development of any particular [Offeror] aircraft. The WTO expressly requires that member nations not link separate disputes, such as DS 353, and the different and separate matter brought by the United States in DS 316. For example, WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) Article 3.10 ("It is also understood [by Member nations] that the complaints and counter-complaints in regard to distinct matters should not be linked"). It has been widely reported that the WTO issued an interim ruling upholding the position of the United States in DS 316, and a final version of the that ruling is expected well-before award of the KC-X contract.

Questions: On what timetable does the Air Force intend to implement the contractor price adjustments in the TEP mechanics? If that timetable is in any way linked to the DS 353 matter, what is the Air Force's basis for the linkage?

A: The Government's position with regard to WTO rulings is addressed in special contract requirement H018, titled "World Trade Organization Dispute--Costs Unallowable."


Q: ... request the documents/files indentified in Enclosures (1) and (2)be provided ...( Attached)

A: Reference Library will be updated on FedBizOpps prior to RFP release.


Q: 4.6.6.4.1.7 The Offeror shall provide the following formats: An electronic IMS in tabular Gantt format containing the following data (if applicable) for each task, summary task and milestone in the IMS:

Unique ID IMP ~eference/Code (Text3 field) Name Start Finish Duration (most likely) Total Slack Predecessors Successors Constraint Type Constraint Date SW Designator (Text1 field) Mission Capability Subfactor (Text2 field) CWBS (Text4 field) SOW Reference (Text5 field) Initial Risk Assessment Reference (Text6 field as defined by Section L, paragraph 4.6.8)

RFP Extract: 4.6.6.4.1.10 Four hardcopy tabular listings of the IMS in Gantt format shall be submitted on a single sided, 11 x 17 inch paper no smaller than 10 point font. This listing shall contain the following fields: ID, IMPS, SOOs, MC subfactor, Name, Block, Duration, Start, Finish, Predecessor, and Successor.

Para 4.6.6.4.1.7 provides a listing of minimum data and the corresponding Microsoft Project fields that the data should be contained in.

Para 4.6.6.4.1.10 stipulates the listing shall contain ..." ..., SOOs, ..., Block, ..."

Recommendation: Change "SOO" to "SOW" and remove "Block" requirement.

Section L paragraph 4.6.6.4.1.7 provides a listing of minimum data and the corresponding Microsoft Project fields that the data should be contained in. Also Para 4.6.6.4.1.10 stipulates the listing shall contain ..." ..., SOOs, ..., Block, ..." Recommend changing para 4.6.6.4.1.10, specifically change "500" to "SOW" and remove "Block" requirement.

A: The word "SOO" will be changed to "SOW" in Section L, para 4.6.6.4.1.10 and the word "BLOCK" will be added to Para 4.6.6.4.1.7. The Government will revise the RFP for clarity.


Q: RFP Extract: 3.5.1.8.4 "The KC-X shall take off, land, and refuel, as a tanker (boom and drogue) and receiver while in an NVlS environment."

3.5.1.8.5 "The KC-X shall operate in all flight and ground regimes in a NVlS environment." (MANDATORY)

Definition of "Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) Environment: "An environment in which primary vision is provided with NVIS. If visual spectrum lighting is provided, it does not degrade the visual acuity of Type I 1 Class B/C NVlS goggles as compared to a dark ambient environment."

In addition to normal overt operation, is the [KC-X] required to take off, refuel, receive fuel and land as an NVlS friendly illuminated aircraft, or as an NVlS covert illuminated aircraft, or both?

Recommendation: Clarify if takeoff and landing is required in an NVlS friendly environment, an NVlS covert environment, or both environments.

A: The KC-X is required to "take off, refuel, receive fuel and land" using covert lighting and in covert-illuminated environments. Covert lighting is defined as: Lighting provided to enable the use of Type II Class B/C NVIS. Light provided primarily by IR

sources in the 660 nm to 900 nm wavelength. Visible content is undetectable to the unaided eye beyond 500 feet from the light source.

The Government will revise the RFP for clarity.

Q: RFP Extract: 4.5.2 The offeror shall provide a time phased approach to transition from ICS to organic depot level maintenance. The depot transition approach shall reflect the Air Force's Programmed Depot Maintenance plan to return KC-X to the depot for C-Checks every two years based on an eight year scheduled (Cl-C4 Check) cycles.

Is it the government's intent to mandate a two year C-Check cycle despite the technical attributes of the proposed aircraft which may allow for a longer frequency?

Recommendation: Change instruction 4.5.2 to the following: The offeror shall provide a time phased approach to transition from ICS to organic depot level maintenance. The depot transition approach shall reflect the Air Force's Programmed Depot Maintenance Plan and account for the scheduled maintenance requirements for the proposed aircraft.

A: The Air Force KC-X PDM approach is based on a 2-year C-Check cycle to be performed at organic depot. This approach aligns with the Air Force's High Velocity Maintenance Program


Q: RFP Extract: Section J Attachment 7 -Variation in Quantity Matrices for Interim Contractor Support and Section J, Attachment 9 -Option Matrix

Currently, Section J, Attachment 7 and 9 are not consistent in the quantity of Aircraft for ICS. For example, ICS Year II has no quantity listed in Attachment 9 but a quantity of 4-7 in Attachment 7. ICS Year II has a quantity of 12-22 in Attachment 7 but a quantity of 4-11 in Attachment 9.

Recommendation: List consistent quantities for ICS in Attachments 7 and 9.

A: The quantities will be updated in Attachment 9 to match those in Attachment 7.

Q: RFP Extract: 52.232-16 Progress Payments (July 2009) 52.244-06 Subcontracts for Commercial ltems

To enable the contractor to include in i t s proposal commercial advance and commercial interim payments for i ts commercial subcontractors.

Recommendation: Please add the following FAR clauses:

FAR 52.232-31 Invitation to Propose Commercial Contract Financing FAR 52.212-4 Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses FAR 52.232-29 Terms for Financing of Purchases of Commercial ltems

A: The RFP includes Customary Progress Payments as the method of Government financing and this is deemed to be appropriate for this solicitation strategy.

Q: 52.229-10 State of New Mexico Gross Receipts and Compensating Tax This clause relates to services and cost-reimbursement contracts.

Recommendation: Request the Government remove this clause

A: Until proposals are received, the Government does not know where performance under the contract might be accomplished. This clause will be removed prior to contract award if not applicable.

Q: 52.219-09 Small Business Subcontracting Plan

The Government has issued the (Apr 2008) Alt II (Oct 2001) clause for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, however, there is a note in the FAR referencing a DoD Deviation, 2008- 00008, that is effective from 12 February 2009 until incorporation into the FAR, modified, or rescinded. Suggest the Government issue the latest FAR clause.

A: The RFP will be updated with the latest clause, which is: "52.219-9 -- Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DEVIATION)."


Q: 252.229-7002 Custom Exemptions (Germany) (Jun 2002).

The subject clause is not applicable to this solicitation

Recommendation: Please delete DFAR 252.229-7002 as the clause is not applicable

A: Until proposals are received, the Government does not know where performance under the contract might be accomplished. This clause will be removed prior to contract award if not applicable.

Q: 52.223-03 Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data Sheet (Jan 1997).

This clause requires a MSDS for hazardous material to be delivered under the contract.

Recommendation: Contractor requests removal of this clause as hazardous material delivery is not applicable.

A: FAR 23.303 requires this clause if offerors propose to deliver hazardous material. This clause will be removed prior to contract award if not applicable.

Q: 52.246-18 Warranty of Supplies of a Complex Nature (May 2001) -Alternate IV

Alternate IV (Apr 1984). If it is anticipated that recovery of the warranted item will involve considerable Government expense for disassembly and/or reassembly of large items, add a paragraph substantially the same as the following paragraph (c) (6) to the basic clause.

(6) The Contractor shall be liable for the reasonable costs of disassembly and/or reassembly of larger items when it is necessary to remove the supplies to be inspected and/or returned for correction or replacement.

Recommendation: Request the government clarify what is considered to be large items

A: The Government does not believe any further definition or clarification of the FAR is required.

I


Q: RFP Text: 4.8.1.1 .... Categorize the information in the following areas: 1) meeting technical requirements; 2) meeting schedule requirements; 3) controlling contract costs; and 4) managing the contracted effort .....

4.8.2 Format Present and past performance information shall be provided in "Fact Sheets" for each referenced contract. Attachment 9 provides an example format. In lieu of the attachment 9 sample format, the offerors must use the past performance information tool at https://pixs.wpafb.af.mil/PPUemplate/dIPPl.asp to the maximum extent possible ....


We plan on using the downloaded Access tool as required by 4.8.2 to submit present and past performance information but the tool has pre-defined sections with specific instructions that do not allow the information to be categorized as stated in 4.8.1 above.

Since the required information is not presented in the tool, is it acceptable to present an introductory section to the past performance volume which will address the above 4.8.1.1 requirements?

A. The offeror shall load the information required by Section L, 4.8.1.1 into the 2nd block of the Program Details tab of the on-line Fact Sheet.

Q: RFP Text: B036 Data ltem Description in Block 16 states that subcontractor or vendor data "may be provided directly to the Government if rights limitations preclude their being provided by way of the prime contractor." Comment/Request for Clarification/Recommendation: Data ltem B036, "Product Drawings/Models and Associated Lists," is listed in Section J, Exhibit B "OMIT CDRLs," which we understand are required to be delivered with at least the OMIT rights set forth in Special Contract Requirement H007. However, the B036 Data ltem Description in Block 16 states that subcontractor or vendor data "may be provided directly to the Government if rights limitations preclude their being provided by way of the prime contractor." Per H007, the Contractor is unsure how to verify the asserted rights or necessary license rights required, if the data is being provided directly to the Government. Please clarify.

A: Special Contract Clause H007 paragraphs d. and e. address requirements for validation and verification of asserted data rights when data from subcontractors or vendors is provided directly to the Government.



Q: RFPText: CLlN 0509 Descriptive Data: The contractor also hereby grants or obtains for Government use the license rights for the FAA Type Certification data delivered under this ltem as indicated in Section J, Attachment 23 "Identification and Assertion of Restrictions on Technical Data and Computer Software" Attachment 3 Production SOO, Paragraph 8 states, "The offeror shall deliver all FAA-approved type design and substantiating data (technical and computer software) for the KC X System and equipment to include the non military baseline aircraft, engines, components and modifications." It also states, "The offeror shall provide engineering technical support needed for the USAF to establish and maintain non FAA based military type certification. (Dl SAFT 80901, E001)" Section H010, Paragraph 4 states, The production facilities of the aircraft Contractor and the engine subcontractor shall be Federal Aviation Administration approved in compliance with 14 CFR 2 1 (FAR Part 21) or i ts European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) equivalent. Compliance is evidenced by the Production Certificate and the approvals of the designated FAAIEASA representative. The Contractor shall also clearly identify any delegations between certification agencies for purposes of validation of design, cognizance over each other's facilities, and approval of traveled certification work. Comment/Request for Clarification/Recommendation: Do the full requirements of CLlN 0509 and the Production SOO, Paragraph 8.0 also pertain to EASA Type Certification Data as well as FAA Type Certification Data? Recommended Wording Change: Recommend this language be applicable to FAA Type Certification Data related to military type certification as well as applying to EASA Type Certification Data. Please include the following clarifying language:

CLlN 0509- .... The contractor also hereby grants or obtains for Government use the license rights for the FAA or EASA "Amended Type Certificate" and/or "Supplemental Type Certificate" of the end item deliverable data under this ltem as indicated in Section J, Attachment 23 "ldentification and Assertion of Restrictions on Technical Data and Computer Software." Section J, Attachment 3, Production $00, Paragraph 8: FAA/EASA Type Certification Data: The offeror shall deliver all FAAIEASA "Amended Type Certificate" and/or "Supplemental Type Certificate" of the end item deliverable, coupled with any military qualification/certification data

Page 16 of 47

~ for the KC-X System. This shall include a statement of the associated license rights as set forth ....... I CDRL E001- Block 16- Tailor DID Dl-SAFT-80901, Paragraph (3)- Description/ Purpose as follows: All items delivered shall be limited to the FAAIEASA "Amended Type Certification" and/or "Supplemental Type Certificate" of the end item deliverable, coupled with any military qualification/certification data for the KC-X."

A: CLlN 0509 also pertains to EASA type certification data. The RFP will be revised to clarify.

Q: RFP Text : The offeror shall develop, implement, and maintain a serialized item management (e.g. serial number tracking, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), automatic identification technology, and unique identification) plan IAW Mil-Std-130N in such a way as to not invalidate FAA certification. (Dl-MGMT-80177B/T, A028)


Mil-Std-130N establishes guidance for the marking of military property. I t provides guidance on marking of items designated for IUlD marking IAW DFARS 252.211-7003. RFID is addressed in MIL- STD-129 related to marking of packaging which can be addressed in a comprehensive plan on item marking management for both product and packaging. CDRL A028 doesn't address requirements for such a plan, but for lUlD marking data for end-items and embedded lUlD marked items at the time of delivery. The SEP Guide includes an Appendix C (IUID Implementation Plan) that is applicable to the SEMP CDRL A012 (SEMP) and CDRL A017 (Contractor CDMP) is an alternative for documenting this plan. Clarification is required as to the desired vehicle, and related CDRL, to document and submit the plan.

A: The offeror shall include the lUlD Implementation plan as part of CDRL A012 submittal. The Government will revise the RFP to clarify.

Q: RFP Text: 2.5.1.1 Specification Tree: The offeror shall prepare a specification tree that follows the contract work breakdown structure (CWBS). Provide requirements traceability from the System Specification to the lowest level specifications in the tree and from the lowest level back up to the System Specification. (Dl-CMAN-80858BIT, A017) 2.2.1 Systems Engineering Program: The offeror shall develop, implement and maintain a Systems Engineering program, documented in a program Systems Engineering Plan (SEP), addressing the overall approach to the integrated contractor/Government technical management of the program, to include Modular Open System Architecture (MOSA) and all topics in the Government KC-X SEP. (Dl-MGMT-810241T, A012)


CDRL A017 is the Contractor's CM Plan which generally is process focused rather than documenting specific artifacts such as the specification tree; however, since the Government's draft CMP includes a notional specification tree it can be interpreted that the CMP is intended to be where the specification tree is documented. CDRL A012 is the Contractor's SEMP which IAW the applicable DID requirements includes the specification tree. Request clarification related to the A017 reference in 2.5.1.1 vs. A012 in 2.2.1.

A: The offeror's specification tree must appear in the Systems Engineering Plan per CDRL A012 and in the Configuration Management Plan per CDRL A017. The Government will revise the RFP to clarify.


Q: RFP Text: SRD 3.4.2.7: The KC-X shall have a weighted average fuel usage rate of no greater than five (5) percent above (gallons per hour) when performing the mission profiles and using ground rules in Table A 10. Blank to be filled in by offeror. (MANDATORY)

I I Comment/Request for Clarification/Recommendation:

The current range of acceptability based on a "five percent" margin of error above the offeror's defined fuel burn favors an aircraft with higher fuel burn, since i ts "five percent" margin will be larger (more gallons per hour) than an aircraft with a lower burn rate. Recommend the Government consider a fixed gallon per hour margin of error as opposed to a "five percent." margin of error.

Recommended Wording Change:

SRD 3.4.2.7: The KC-X shall have a weighted average fuel usage rate of no greater than 75 gallons per hour above (gallons per hour) when performing the mission profiles and using ground rules in Table A 10. Blank to be filled in by offeror. (MANDATORY)

A: The 5% tolerance is consistent with current USAF procedures and aircraft performance manuals.


Q: RFPText: Section I, FAR 52.223-03 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION AND MATERIAL SAFETY DATA (JAN 1997) Para (b), Material Identification No: 'TBP' Section I, AFFARS clause 5352.223-9000 ELIMINATION OF USE OF CLASS I OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES (ODs) (APR 2003) Para (c), List of Class I ODSs. 'None (TBD Gov)' Section L 4.4.3.3: Describe how the offeror will prohibit the use of all class I and class I1 ozone depleting substances (ODs). 4.4.3.4: Identify proposed alternatives to the prohibited ODSs that are economically and technically feasible, commercially available and do not increase environmental, safety or occupational health risks and costs. 4.4.3.4.1 The Air Force has designated HFC-125 as the preferable replacement agent for Halon 1301 in aircraft engine nacelle and auxiliary power unit fire suppressant applications, Ref: AFI 32- 7086, "Hazardous Materials Management," 1 Nov 2004, paragraph 4.9.4.2. Therefore, for these applications, if other commercially available and FAA-certifiable halon alternatives (which are becoming an aircraft industry halon replacement) are proposed, the offeror must demonstrate that any other halon replacement, does not increase environment, safety, or occupational health risk and costs. For each of these three areas, the contractor shall address risk and cost separately. System Requirements Document 3.4.3.5 Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) and Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs) 3.4.3.5.1 There shall be no additional KC-X ODSs beyond the non-military baseline aircraft. (MANDATORY) 3.4.3.5.3 The KC-X shall utilize a FAA certified non-ODS fire suppression system. (MANDATORY)


The Section L instructions and SRD seem to have contradicting requirements. There currently exists no FAA-certified, economically and technically feasible, commercially available alternatives to Halon 1301 for cargo and engine/APU fire extinguishing systems. Although used on military aircraft, HFC-125 is not an FAA-certified fire suppressant and is not used on current commercial aircraft. Its use as a fire suppressant for KC-X would seem to conflict with the requirement in Section L, paragraph 4.4.3.4 to identify alternatives to prohibited ODSs that are economically and technically feasible and commercially available and also seems to conflict with the requirement in the SRD to use an FAA certified system. Further, currently there are no FAA certified non-ODs fire suppression systems available for implementation on any aircraft, making compliance with paragraph 3.4.3.5.3 problematic. In Section I, AFFARS 5352.223-9000, the Government has tailored paragraph O to state that no Class I ODs will be used on the KC-X weapon system. The Section I clause at FAR 52.223-03 allows the contractor to list ODSs that will be proposed (namely Halon 1301). Please clarify what appears to be conflicting requirements within both the SRD and FAR clauses. For example, is it required that the commercial aircraft be redesigned to utilize a non-ODS fire suppression system or is the requirement for non-ODs utilization only applicable to military modifications?


A: The commercial aircraft is required to utilize a non-ODS fire supression system that is also FAA certified by the end of EMD. The requirement for non-ODs utilization is applicable to military modifications.


Q: RFP Text: 3.5.1.4 Ballistics Protection 3.5.1.4.1 The KC-X shall provide integral flight deck floor and sidewall (at least 1 foot up from the floor) protection from small arms or AAA fire (7.62 millimeter (mm) armor piercing incendiary (API) round at velocities up to muzzle velocity), not adding more than 8 pounds per square foot of coverage, such that no single shot incapacitates a primary aircrew member. (MANDATORY) 3.5.1.4.1.1 The KC-X should provide integral flight deck floor and sidewall (at least 2 feet up from the floor) protection from small arms or AAA fire (12.7 mm API round and armor piercing incendiary - tracer (APIT) round at velocities up to muzzle velocity), not adding more than 10 pounds per square foot of coverage, such that no single shot incapacitates a primary aircrew member. (NON-MANDATORY) 3.5.1.4.3 The KC-X should provide integral floor and sidewall (at least 2 feet up from the floor) protection for all aircrew positions from small arms or AAA fire (12.7 mm API round and APIT round at velocities up to muzzle velocity), not adding more than 10 pounds per square foot of coverage, such that no single shot incapacitates any aircrew member located at their seat. (NON- MANDATORY)

Definitions

Term : Definition Additional Aircrew Member: A position on the flight deck in addition to Aircraft Commander, Pilot, ARO and the flight observer.

Basic Aircrew: Aircraft Commander, Pilot, ARO

Flight Deck: The flight deck includes all primary aircrew positions. The ARO station is considered part of the flight deck regardless of actual location.

Primary Aircrew: The aircrew with permanent seats on the flight deck. The number of occupied seats at any one time depends on mission needs. Note: This does not include the ARO observer.


The referenced requirement specifies integral flight deck protection for primary aircrew. The flight deck is defined to include the ARO station. Based on the aircrew definitions we consider the primary aircrew members to include the aircraft commander, pilot, flight observer and ARO. The commercial aircraft flight deck provides seating for these four crewmembers.

During taxi, takeoff and landing we expect the ARO to be seated in the commercial flight deck to assist with clearing during taxi, and when the aircraft is below 10,000 ft, as described in AFI11- 2KC-135V3: 5.6. Outside Observer/Jump Seat Duties. Available crewmembers will assist in clearing during taxi operations, and any time the aircraft is below 10,000 feet AGL.

Since the primary ballistic threat is likely to occur in ground and low altitude environments, and the ARO is seated in the commercial flight deck during these periods, is ballistic protection required for the AROS if protection is provided on the commercial flight deck

KC-X Draft RFP Questions and Answers 11/13/2009 Page 2 1 of 47

Q: RFPText: SRD 3.5.2.1 The KC-X shall include a three (3) turret Large Aircraft Infra-Red Counter Measures (LAIRCM) (AN/AAQ-24B (V)12) system (without the turrets installed) that meets the mandatory performance requirements described in the IR protection section herein when installed with turrets. (MANDATORY) 836 AESG/HO11 CERTIFICATION OF MISSION EQUIPMENT (JUL 2009) The Contractor shall obtain FAA certification of the aircraft covered by this contract, including mission equipment installations. Certain mission equipment functions and installations may not be fully FAA certifiable to the Limited FAA Approval level defined in FAA Order 8110.101 and will therefore constitute a nonconformity with the aircraft's FAA approved Type (or Supplemental Type) Design. The request for authority to install such equipment shall be submitted to the Government for approval "after all possible solutions to resolving Federal Aviation Regulation issues have been exhausted" (AFPD 62-4) prior to Contractor design commitment or 120 days prior to being listed on FAA Form 8130-31 (whichever comes first) for review and approval by the FAA and USAF. The request shall include a safety risk assessment, an assessment on the ability of FAA certifiable design alternatives to fulfill specification requirements, and a FAA statement on why the design cannot be certified, to include, as applicable, through a FAA Equivalent Level of Safety Finding or Special Condition. The request shall also include the results of an analysis and/or test to ensure the functions/installations do not interfere with essential aircraft systems and will meet USAF airworthiness certification requirements. The Contractor shall obtain FAA certification of the provisions (e.g., wiring, brackets, cooling) for such equipment installations. In cases where the FAA approves "provisions for" equipment or furnishings installations, the Contractor shall include a complete Interface Control Document (ICD) to include all mechanical, electrical, environmental, EMI, EMP and any other critical interfaces relating to the non-FAA approved equipment or furnishing. The resulting ICD shall define the FAA approved limitations associated with the USAF approved installations.

Cornment/Request for Clarification/Recommendation:

The Government has directed a system by part number that may or may not be FAA certified (SRD 3.5.2.1). By the underlined text in HOll, allowance is made for systems that may not be certifiable. Is it the intent of the Government that contractors pursue certification of the LAIRCM system on KC-X even though this may have adverse impacts on already established LAIRCM support systems (e.g. common spares pools) on other USAF platforms?

A: The aircraft will be flown in both configurations (with and without LAIRCM); therefore, the contractor is responsible to deliver an aircraft that is FAA type certified for both configurations. Note: production aircraft will be delivered without LAIRCM turrets. If there is a reason why the KC-X design with LAIRCM installed cannot be FAA type certified, clause HOl l applies.


Q: RFP Text: 3.5.2.2 The KC-X LAlRCM defensive system (DS) shall successfully counter an aggregate average of X percent of available and exploited Tier I Group I missile engagements at all threat aspects and to an adequate miss distance with no individual missile type's average less than XX in accordance with classified Appendix B, Table B-2. (MANDATORY)


Please define what is meant by "adequate" and explain why the specific requirements from the LAIRCM Operational Requirements Document (ORD) are not included in classified Appendix B, Table B-2 (Threat Appendix). Please clarify if it is the intent of USAF that all KC-X competitors must re-validate LAIRCM system performance?

A: "Adequate" is part of the complete term "adequate miss distance" which is defined in SRD classified appendix B. The contractor is responsible for installed LAIRCM performance consistent with the LAIRCM specification and the KC-X System Specification.

Q: RFPText: 3.5.2.6 The KC-X LAIRCM OS [sic] shall successfully counter simultaneous engagements in accordance with classified Appendix B, Table B-2. (MANDATORY)


Please define "successfully". Is it some percentage of missile engagement effectiveness defined in 3.5.2.2? Please clarify how the government intends to distinguish failures in the simultaneous engagement flight tests between directed LAIRCM system shortcomings and aircraft integration shortcomings.

A: "Successfully" is part of the complete term "successfully counter," which is defined within the SRD classified Appendix B. The specific approaches to verification consistent with SRD Section 4

are the offeror's responsibility. The contractor is responsible for integrated LAIRCM performance consistent with the LAIRCM specification and the KC-X System Specification.


4: RFP Text: 3.1.1.13 The KC-X shall aerial refuel all fixed-wing receiver aircraft compatible with the KC-135, complying with the following: (1) ATP-56 Part I, Part 2, Annex ZA, Annex ZE (KC-135) and Annex ZB (centerline drogue) procedures, (2) no modification to existing receiver aerial refueling equipment, (3) no additional restrictions (beyond KC-135 restrictions) to the receiver aircraft aerial refueling airspeed and altitude envelopes, and (4) Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 3447. (MANDATORY)

3.1.1.24.3 The KC-X shall include all necessary systems and equipment, excluding wing-mounted drogue refueling systems, for simultaneous multi-point drogue aerial refueling and perform drogue aerial refueling operations as specified in section 3.1.1 and paragraph 3.5.1.8.4 when wing-mounted drogue refueling systems are installed. (MANDATORY)


Paragraph 3.1.1.24.3 of the SRD requires the KC-X to perform drogue refueling operations as specified in section 3.1.1 when wing mounted refueling systems are installed. Paragraph 3.1.1.13 of the SRD invokes ATP-56B, Annex ZE (KC-135), which provides tanker-receiver specific refueling data. ATP-56B, Annex ZE includes Figure ZE-1-2 (KC-135 AAR Mission Planning and lnflight Data (BDA)) and Figure ZE-1-3 (KC-135 AAR MSN Planning and lnflight Data (MPRS)). Figure ZE-1-2 provides refueling airspeeds for a KC-135 using the Boom Drogue Adapter (BDA). Figure ZE-1-3 provides refueling airspeeds for the KC-135 using the Multi Point Refueling System (MPRS) pod. The airspeeds and altitudes in these two tables are different. It is our interpretation that with wing mounted refueling systems installed, the KC-X must be able to perform aerial refueling only at the airspeeds and altitudes defined in Table ZE-1-3 since this is the KC-135 drogue refueling configuration that utilizes wing mounted refueling pods. Please confirm this interpretation is correct.

ATP-560, Annex ZE also includes Figure ZE-1-1 (KC-135 AAR Mission Planning and lnflight Data (Boom) that defines refueling airspeeds for the KC-135 when conducting boom refueling. It is our interpretation of the SRD that the boom refueling airspeeds and altitudes defined in Figure ZE-1-1 must be achieved for boom refueling but that Figure ZE-1-1 does not apply to a configuration that has the wing mounted refueling systems installed. Please confirm this interpretation is correct.

ATP-56B, Annex ZB refers to Annex ZE for refueling airspeeds and altitudes. Annex ZE (KC-135) does not clearly specify centerline drogue refueling airspeeds and altitudes. Please clarify the refueling airspeeds/altitudes applicable for centerline drogue refueling.

A (1) & A (2): ATP 56 Figure ZE-1-2 is not applicable; the KC-X will not use a BDA. The KC-X shall conduct boom and centerline refueling with wing pods installed at the same speeds and altitudes required for refueling when wing pods are not installed. The Government will revise the RFP to clarify.

A (3): The KC-X will use the centerline procedures of ATP 56 Annex ZB including ATP 56 Annex ZE Figure ZE-2-2 for centerline drogue refueling. The Government will revise the RFP to clarify.

KC-X Draft RFP Questloris and Answers 11/13/2009 Page 24 of 47

Q. RFP Text: -The required number of KC-135R aircraft generated by the model will be divided by the number of proposed KC-X aircraft required to meet the same scenario. This ratio is the "fleet effectiveness value" ["FEV"] for the offeror's proposed aircraft.

Comments:

IFARA is constructed as a comprehensive assessment of KC-X tanker fleet mission effectiveness across a robust set of mission scenarios representing a futuristic peak demand day. The USAF further provides a method of determining and evaluating the tanker tails required to satisfy mission demands for this peak day. The computer model and the scenario analysis used in IFARA, however, also provide significantly more analytical findings that are not being considered by the RFP. For example, it is possible for the USAF to further challenge these demanding scenarios by running excursions from the analytical baselines of the scenarios, such as Base Denials where tanker bases are denied one at a time and mission capability is determined based on remaining tankers available, and Runway Interdictions where all Employment scenario runways are shortened to 8,000 and 7,000 feet in length to assess potential KC-X tanker's ability to meet mission demands under these circumstances. Many more excursions are possible to test each KC- X offering's ability to provide a flexible and robust replacement for the KC-135R tanker, but are not being conducted under the RFP. Using a powerful assessment, such as IFARA, it is possible to identify all key drivers relative to tanker mission effectiveness and compare all offerings within this robust set of parameters. Using excursions, each offering could further be analyzed as to its ability to meet USAF's needs when real-world constraints challenge the baseline mission definition. Only through a careful inspection of all analytical findings can the strongest offering be determined. Factors such as the number of tanker bases required, the amount of tanker parking space required, the number of tanker flight hours required, the amount of tanker fuel burned and each offerings "robustness and flexibility" available to meet mission demands when the baseline scenarios are challenged should be considered and evaluated in IFARA. This comprehensive approach would capture the mission effectiveness and resources required to provide a balanced best-value assessment of candidate KC-X tankers to replace the KC-135R in wartime.

Question:

How does the Air Force plan to generate and evaluate all analytical findings that can be yielded by the IFARA assessment?

A. The Government will evaluate IFARA in accordance with Section M sub-paragraph 2.3.2.1 and Section L attachment 8 of the RFP.


Q: RFPText: The offeror shall describe its approach, documented in the tailored Technical Manuals Contract Requirements (TMCR), in developing and delivering all technical data required to support operations and maintenance of the KC-X system in accordance with the Government's organic two-level maintenance and sustainment concept.

I


In the TMCR, it states SlOOOD lssue 4.0 SGML IETMs. For clarification, does the customer require Class 1-3 (Type I) ETMs delivered in XML or Class 4-5 (Type II) IETMs delivered in XML (S1000D lssue 4.0 and subsequent will only deliver in XML - SGML is not an option)?

A: Technical Order, TO 00-5-3 (1 Aug 09), states all new major acquisition programs acquire techical orders in a Type 2 Integrated Electronic Tech Manuals database format in accordance with AIA SlOOOD and the Air Force XML Business Rules. Therefore, maintenance manuals must be Type II IETMs with final delivery in XML-tagged (extensible Markup Language) digital format in compliance with current Technical Manuals Specifications and Standards (TMSS). The RFP will be revised to clarify.

Q: RFP Text: The offeror shall describe i ts approach, documented in the tailored Technical Manuals Contract Requirements (TMCR), in developing and delivering all technical data required to support operations and maintenance of the KC-X system in accordance with the Government's organic two-level maintenance and sustainment concept.


In the TMCR, paragraph 2, states, "Therefore, the government intends to leverage off existing commercial SlOOOD, lssue 4 formatted 0-level maintenance lnteractive Electronic Technical Manuals (IETMs) to the maximum extent in support of maintenance for both the aircraft and engines at the beginning of this program. What is meant by "commercial maintenance IETM"? To what existing 0-Level maintenance lnteractive Electronic Technical Manuals does the above reference?

A: Commercial maintenance lETMs are the pre-existing technical manuals in use for the baseline non-military aircraft. The existing 0-Level maintenance lnteractive Electronic Technical Manuals referenced in paragraph 2 of the TMCR are the commercial maintenance IETMs.


Q: RFP Text: The offeror shall describe i ts approach, documented in the tailored Technical Manuals Contract Requirements (TMCR), in developing and delivering all technical data required to support operations and maintenance of the KC-X system in accordance with the Government's organic two-level maintenance and sustainment concept.


In the TMCR, paragraph 11.2. SGML-Tagged Files for Use with the eTO Viewer: There are several companies that produce viewers. The contractors' effort changes depending on the viewer developer. Who is the S1000D eTO Viewer commercial developer?

A: The Air Force uses multiple commercial products as eTO viewers (such as PTC Productview, SDL XySoft Contenta, etc). There are no viewer requirements. The offeror must comply with the IETM requirement as outlined in the TMCR.

Q: RFP Text: 5.6 IOT&E Familiarization: The offeror shall provide access to no less than two aircraft for a minimum of 45 days prior to the start of IOT&E at the IOT&E Main Operating Base (MOB) for aircrew, maintainer, aerial port and base support familiarization with the aircraft.


Is the Air Force providing the familiarization, or is the contractor expected to provide the familiarization course? If the contractor is expected to provide the training, please provide the skill sets, levels, and number of students. Will the aircraft be available during the 45 day period to conduct aircrew and maintenance hands on flight and ground training?

A (1): The offeror shall provide Aeromedical Evacuation familiarization training IAW EMD SO0 paragraph 4.5.6 .

A (2): The aircraft will be made available; however, all activity must be coordinated and scheduled with the Integrated Test Team.


Q: RFP Text: 3.1.1.25.3 The KC-X shall provide receiver aircraft with visual indication(s) of tanker aerial refueling system operational status for both covert and normal lighting modes. 3.5.1.8.4 The KC-X shall takeoff, land and aerial refuel, as a tanker (boom and drogue) and receiver while in an NVlS environment.

Comment/Request for Clarification/Recommendation

The SRD provides definitions for both "Covert Lighting" and "Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) Environment". Based on these definitions, "NVIS Environment" does not necessarily imply "Covert". Is the KC-X expected to operate under covert lighting conditions as a tanker for both hose/drogue and boom aerial refueling? Is the KC-X expected to operate as a receiver under covert lighting conditions?

A: The KC-X is required to operate using covert lighting and in covert-illuminated environments. Covert lighting is defined as: Lighting provided to enable the use of Type II Class B/C NVIS. Light provided primarily by IR sources in the 660 nm to 900 nm wavelength. Visible content is undetectable to the unaided eye beyond 500 feet from the light source,

The Government will revise the RFP for clarity.


Q: RFP Text: "3.1.1.23.9. The KC-X shall deliver fuel to all receptacle equipped receivers at a maximum rate of at least 1,200 gallons per minute (GPM), at delivery pressures no greater than 55 pounds force per square inch gauge (psig) measured within three (3) feet upstream of the boom nozzle ball joint. (Mandatory)." USAF response to KC-X Draft RFP Questions and Answers: "The requirement was and still is 1200 GPM. In the previous source selection this was a tradable requirement and any value less than 1200 GPM could have been offered and received partial credit. The previous SRD required the boom flow rate to 'not be the limiting factor' during aerial refueling. To meet this requirement, the maximum boom flow rate must be at least 1200 GPM to meet the C-5 receiver capability. The new SRD clarifies this requirement by specifying maximum boom flow rate of at least 1200 GPM."

Comments:

ATP-56, Annex ZE, Figure ZE-2-1 indicates that the C-17 has a receive rate of 8,400 Ibs/minute from a KC-10 refueling aircraft, which translates to approximately 1,235 GPM ( 1 gallon = 6.8 Ibs.).

ATP-56, Annex ZE, Figure ZE-2-1 indicates the receive rate for C-5 is 7,300 Ibs/minute which translates to approximately 1,075 GPM (I gallon = 6.8 Ibs.).

Question:

If the USAF's intent is to establish a KC-X boom offload rate that does not compromise the receiver aircraft's maximum fuel onload capability, such that the KC-X is not the "limiting factor" in a refueling mission, why has the USAF settled on 1,200 GPM as the mandatory requirement, since 1,200 GPM is less than the C-17's fuel onload rate capability.

A: Several receiver aircraft onload rates were used to establish the KC-X 1,200 GPM requirement, including: C-5 (1,073 GPM), 8-52 (1,073 GPM), C-17 (1,176 GPM), and VC-25 (1,176 GPM).

The C-17 maximum rate of 1,235 GPM (8,400 Ibs/min) in ATP-56B Table ZE-1-2 (refueling from a KC-10) is in error and the office responsible for ATP-56B has confirmed the error; the C-17 error in ATP-56 will be corrected. The actual C-17 maximum rate is 1,125 GPM (7,650 Ibs/min) when refueling from a KC-10, as stated in the C-17 flight manual (TO 1-1C-1-35). Further, the C-17 flight manual T.O. 1C-17A-1-1 states the maximum onload rate from any tanker is 8000 Ibs/min (1,176 GPM). The KC-X 1200 GPM requirement called out in SRD requirement 3.1.1.23.9 remains unchanged.


Q: RFP Extract: The KC-X shall be painted in accordance with an AMC approved paint scheme including meeting current military aerospace applications for advanced performance requirements (Military Performance Specification (MIL-PRF)-32239, Type 2, Class 1). (MANDATORY)

MIL-PRF-32239 states in Section 3.0, Qualification, "The coating system furnished under this specification shall be products which have been tested and have passed the qualification tests specified herein and have been listed or approved for listing on the applicable qualified products list (QPL) at the time of award of contract (see 6.2). Changes shall not be permitted in the formulation of an approved product unless specific, written approval of the qualifying activity is obtained." There is a high probability that no product will be listed or approved for listing in time of anticipated contract award. MIL-PRF-32239 states in Section 1.2, "Systems are qualified for use on external surfaces of military aircraft but are not limited to such application. If the coating systems qualified to this specification are to be used on other than external surfaces, further testing will be required for the specific application."

Is the intent of this requirement only to apply to the exterior?

Recommendation: The KC-X shall be painted in accordance with an AMC approved paint scheme including meeting current military aerospace applications for advanced performance requirements (Military Performance Specification (MIL-PRF)-32239, Type 2, Class 1) or products recommended by the governing agency for the qualification to MIL-PRF-32239 for exterior surfaces. (MANDATORY)

A: The paint system is intended for exterior surfaces. The Government will revise the RFP to clarify. Z

Q: RFP Extract:3.5.3.2.6 The KC-X defensive system shall use terrain data to automatically plan a selectable terrain-masking, optimized-threat-avoidance route(s) (for quickest time back to previous course) and provide associated maneuvering cues to the Aircraft Commander and Pilot within X seconds after a threat has been identified, in accordance with classified Appendix B. Table 0-8, to safely avoid new threats as they are identified and located. (MANDATORY) Table 0-8 in classified Appendix B does not include the required time parameter "X seconds" for 3.5.3.2.6. Request the government provide this classified time parameter for the SRD requirement.

Recommendation: Add required missing time parameter (X seconds) for 3.5.3.2.6 in the classified Appendix B.

A: This classified information is available and will be provided under separate cover upon request to the PCO. The Government will revise the RFP to clarify.


Q: RFP Extract: 5.1.1 The Cost/Price volume, which shall consist of only the completed worksheets in Section L, Attachment 3, the completed worksheets in Section Lf Attachment 7, and a Fuel Rate Data Package (consisting of information required per Section L, paragraphs 5.3.3.2 through 5.3.3.5), shall be submitted in three, three-ring, loose-leaf type binders (one for each completed Attachment, and one for the completed Fuel Rate Data Package). Each binder shall include tabs that separate each Attachment worksheet. Font size for the contained pages shall be no smaller than 12 point, and 8.5" x 14" foldout pages are permissible.

Can the offeror submit the completed government issued forms on 11" x 17" foldout pages for hardcopy submittal as opposed to the 8.5" x 14" specifications above?

Recommendation: Font size for the contained pages shall be no smaller than 12 point and 11" x 17" foldout pages are permissible.

Can the offeror submit the completed government issued forms on 11" x 17" foldout pages for hardcopy submittal as opposed to the 8.5" x 14" specifications above?

Recommendation: Font size for the contained pages shall be no smaller than 12 point and 11" x 17" foldout pages are permissible. Can the offeror submit the completed government issued forms on 11" x 17" foldout pages for hardcopy submittal as opposed to the 8.5" x 14" specifications above?

Recommendation: Font size for the contained pages shall be no smaller than 12 point and 11" x 17" foldout pages are permissible.

A: For Attachment 3 of the Cost Price volume: This attachment can be no larger than 8.5" x 14" because of the established page breaks. For the cost/price volume, an 8.5" x 14" will only count as 1 page. Any sheet of paper larger than 8.5" x 14" will be counted as 2 pages per Sec L, para 2.11. However, for attachment 7, since the Government copies the data and inserts it into the CMARPS model, the page break is irrelevant; however, minimum font remains 12 point. The offerors are also reminded that "The spreadsheet (Atch 7) has four (4) tabs: Basic Data, Takeoff Data, CAN, and Climb and Cruise. All mandatory fields (highlighted in green) in all four tabs must be populated." Any sheet of paper larger than 8.5" x 14" will be counted as 2 pages per Sec L, para 2.11. The Government will revise the RFP for clarity.


Q: RFP Extract: For each Lot, offerors shall propose two Aircraft Unit Price amounts. One will be an aircraft complete with engines; the other shall be an aircraft without engines (i.e., engines to be GFE)."

USAF needs to have A/C unit delivery in Section B of the Contract with pricing for both scenarios .... with Engines and without Engines (i.e. to be provided as GFE). GFE Engines and need/delivery dates should be proposed to support USAF rights to provide engines as GFE. To that end where should the needldelivery dates for GFE engines be proposed?

Recommendations: 1. Add A/C unit delivery to Section B with and without engines. 2. Add GFE listing for engines with customer required delivery dates.

A. Section J, Attachment 7, of the DRFP negates the need for separate Option SubCLlNs for aircraft with or without engines. If the Government chooses to furnish engines as GFE, a no cost contract change proposal will be requested at that time to precisely identify the engine delivery schedule. The RFP will be revised for clairity.

Page 32 of 47 KC-X Draft RFP Questions and Answers

Q: RFP Extract: Ref Blk l l c : Any classified generated in the performance of this contract shall require the contractor to apply derivative classification and markings consistent with the source material. Special considerations apply. Security classification guidance will be provided under separate cover. See addendum.

ADDENDUM TO DD FORM 254 (Block 10j) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO) (Reference DoD Regulation 5400.7/Air Force Supplement, 24 June 2002)

2. MARKING c. Within a classified document, an individual page that contains both FOUO and classified information shall be marked at the top and bottom with the highest security classification of information appearing on the page. Individual paragraphs shall be marked at the appropriate classification level as well as unclassified or FOUO, as appropriate. An individual page that contains FOUO information but no classified information shall be marked "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY" at the top and bottom of the page, as well as each paragraph that contains FOUO information. NOTE: For "production efficiency" the entire document may be marked top and bottom with the highest level of classification contained within it, as long as every paragraph is marked to reflect the specific classification of the information it contains. Ref Blk l l c : Any classified generated in the performance of this contract shall require the contractor to apply derivative classification and markings consistent with the source material. Special considerations apply. Security classification guidance will be provided under separate cover. See addendum.

Please provide SCG as referenced in Blk 11C "Provided Under Separate Cover".

Recommendation: Please provide the SCG marking guide as this will remove ambiguity as to what data is required to be protected and to what level it needs to be protected and the appropriate marking of the classified data (including derivative classification statement).

A: The KC-X SCG draft is in coordination and will be provided before RFP release.

Q: From the Options Matrix - LRlP Lots 1 & 2 are authorized following Milestone C while concurrent development (EMD Phase) continues - Why doesn't the USAF plan on conducting an SRA and Cost Evaluation on EMD? - Why doesn't the USAF plan on conducting an SRA and Cost Evaluation on LRlP Lots? (Assume LRlP is FPI) - the program before FRP to include evaluation of cost and schedule of achieving RAA? Recommendation: LRlP 1 and LRlP 2 as FPI Recommend LRlP 1 and LRlP 2 as FPI.

A: An offeror's schedule will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable with risk inherent in the evaluation as described by the definitions of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" consistent with Section M, Table 2-1. The Government believes the risk associated with KC-X Low-Rate Initial Production, Lots 1 and 2, is reasonable to be accomplished on a firm-fixed price basis. Price Reasonableness will be determined in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.


Q: This Program requests firm and NTE pricing for deliveries to FY26. While there is an EPA clause to establish pricing, there is no accommodation for future fluctuations in business conditions that would greatly impact program cost and risk to both the Government and the contractor

Recommendation: H-XX PROJECTED BUSINESS BASE

a) The Government and the Contractor agree that the business base hours and total direct material dollars identified in paragraphs c and d below have been used for establishing the indirect rates used to estimate the cost of the CLIN(s) established in Section B FA8625-10-R-6600. The Government and the Contractor further recognize that the actual business base hours and total direct material experienced during the period of performance of this contract may vary.

B) The Contractor and the Government agree that in the event the Contractor's actual business base hours and/or total direct material dollars fall below those included within paragraphs c and d below, in any calendar year on an annual basis, notwithstanding any other provision or clause of this contract to the contrary, the Contractor shall be entitled to a contract adjustment to the Target Cost, FCCM and Target Profit of CLlNs associated with the indirect rate impact. If the actual business base hours and/or total direct material dollars exceed those included in paragraphs c and d below, in any calendar year, notwithstanding any other provision or clause of this contract to the contrary, the Government shall be entitled to a reduced cost change to the Target Cost, FCCM and Target Profit of CLlNs associated with the indirect rate impact.

C) The Business Base hours included below will encompass the following categories of hours:

1) Engineering, Logistics & Technology 2) Manufacturing Operations 3) Program Management 4) Global Supply Chain 5) Business Management 6) Other Direct Labor

Projected Total Business Base Hours (In Millions)


d) The Business Base total direct material dollars included below are projected Business Base Total Direct Material Dollars (In Millions)


e) Within 30 days after the end of each calendar year, the Contractor shall submit i ts calculation to the Government Procuring Contracting Officer for review. These calculations will include the actual business base hours recorded against each of the categories identified above in paragraph c and the actual total direct material dollars per paragraph d during the prior year. The Contractor shall provide the computation of the indirect cost adjustment resulting from the change in the bases. Upon verification of the Contractor's calculations, the contract Target Cost, FCCM and Target Profit of CLlNs affected shall be adjusted by a bi-lateral contract modification.

A: The Government has included the EPA clause to protect both parties from extraordinary inflation/deflation in relevant sectors of the general economy. The questioner's recommended clause would inappropriately transfer cost risk to the Government.


Q. RFP Extract: Paragraph 4.6.10.1.8 states "Contractor's support of and interaction with the Government conducted Live Fire test & evaluation (LFT&E) program as detailed in the TEMP dated 18 Dec 07, version 2.1.2 Annex. The Government has supplied the Contractor with Section J attachment 10, Live Fire Assets, however, in Section L "Information to Offerors", paragraph 4.6.10.1.8 states "Contractor's support of and interaction with the Government conducted Live Fire test 7 evaluation (LFT&E) program as detailed in the TEMP dated 17 Dec 07, version 2.1.2 Annex". The required test assets listed in the Section J attachment 10 is not consistent with the LFT&E test assets listed in the TEMP.

Recommendation: Clearly identify requirements for LFT&E test assets.

A. Section J Attachment 10, Live Fire Assets, takes precedence over the TEMP. The offeror should use Section J, Attachment 10. The TEMP will be adjusted prior to Milestone B.

Q: RFP Extract: 3.5.3.1.14 The KC-X RF detection system shall provide at least X degrees RF detection coverage in elevation, in accordance with classified Appendix 0, Table 8-7 (MANDATORY)

3.5.3.1.14.1 The KC-X RF detection system should provide at least Y degree RF detection coverage in elevation, in accordance with classified Appendix B, Table B-7 (NON MANDATORY)

Should the SRD 3.5.3.1.14 KC-X RF Detection System Elevation Field of View (FOV) coverage requirement, (identified in the classified Appendix B, Table B-7) specify a different value to determine mandatory and non-mandatory numbers for the KC-X flight environment? This different value would be the current one divided by two in the context of defining a typical upper and lower Elevation Field of View requirement used in other platforms. The requirement above uses a value that is larger than a typical fighter requirement for FOV coverage in elevation that operate in manner that is significantly different than a wide-bodied refueling aircraft.

A: The SRD requirement 3.5.3.1.14 and 3.5.3.1.14.1 state the correct coverage values


Q: RFP Extract: Section L, 5.1.4 Attachment 3 price inputs shall be in Then-Year (TY) Dollars. TY Dollars are dollars that have been escalated into the time period of the performance of the contract. They are sometimes referred to as "escalated dollars" or "inflated dollars". The RFP Attachment 3 worksheets will automatically convert an offerors TY Dollars to discounted, Present Value dollars when required for the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) evaluation. For the purposes of this evaluation the Government will apply the appropriate USAF inflation indices, dated 17 June 09 for the fuel and MlLCON calculations. The Government will apply the appropriate Office of Management & Budget (0MB)-Issued Nominal Discount Rate, dated December 2008. These rates are captured in Section L, Attachment 3 and will not be changed for this evaluation.

Section L, Factor 5, Volume Ill: Cost/Price: Please clarify why the USAF is discounting funding year dollars and not the period of performance of the contract dollars.

A: Section L, paragraphs 5.2.1.1 (EMD) and 5.2.1.2 (Production) require offerors to phase their funding requirements according to DoD Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R, paragraphs 010214 and 010202, respectively. By complying with this instruction, the proposed dollars an offeror provides in Section L, Attachment 3 will automatically be discounted consistent with how the Department manages i ts appropriations; therefore, EMD funds will be discounted in the year of expenditure and procurement funds will be discounted in the year of obligation.

Q: RFP Extract: Volume Ill, Cost/Price 5.1, General Instructions - 5.1.1 The Cost/Price volume, which shall consist of only the completed worksheets in Section L, Attachment 3, the completed worksheets in Section L, Attachment 7, and a Fuel Rate Data Package (consisting of information required per Section L, paragraphs 5.3.3.2 through 5.3.3.5) shall be submitted in three, three-ring binders (one for each completed Attachment, and one for the completed Fuel Rate Data Package). Each binder shall include tabs that separate each Attachment worksheet. Font size for the contained pages shall be no smaller than 12 point, and 8.5" x 14" foldout pages are permissible.

Due to the Formatting requirements and page limitations within Volume Ill (Section L 5.1.1), we request that the offerors be permitted to submit Section L, Attachment 7, IFARA Data lnput Package, via electronic copy (database) only or that Section L, Attachment 7, IFARA Data lnput Package, be excluded from the page count limit for Volume Ill.

A: Section L, Attachment 7 will not be excluded from the page count and shall be submitted in paper format with the proposal. The offeror is permitted to use 8.5" x 14" size paper and it will count as only 1 page. Anything larger will count as 2 pages. The Government will revise the RFP for clarity.


Q: FAR prescription 42.709-6 indicates use of FAR 52.242-03 "...in all solicitations and contracts over $650,000, except fixed-price contracts without cost incentives ...." accordingly, the Firm Fixed Price Contract CLlNS should not be subject to FAR 52.242-03 Penalties for Unallowable Costs Recommendation: 52.242-03 Penalties for Unallowable Costs, Applies to Fixed Price lncentive (Firm TargeTO CLIN's only)

A: Clause 52.242-03 applies to only the fixed-price-incentive CLINs. The Government will revise the RFP for clarity.

Q: RFP Extract: "In any event, the Contractor shall proceed with completion of the contract, subject only to the Limitation of Government Liability Clause."

Does the Government mean to say "...subject only to the Limitation of Government Funding Clause" or "subject only to the Limitation of Government Obligation Clause?"

There is no Limitation of Government Liability Clause called out in the Draft RFP.

Recommendation: "In any event, the Contractor shall proceed with completion of the contract, subject only to the Limitation of Government Obligation Clause."

A: SCR H013 paragraph 5 is correct as-is. FAR 52.216-24 "Limitation of Government's Liability" will be included in the contract and the appropriate amounts established in the contract should the contracting officer exercise and fund a Production Option on an NTE basis as contemplated by paragraph 4 of H013.

. .... ........ . .

Q: The Government does not identify which CLINs are subject to Progress Payments which is required for the MOCAS payment system. Request the Government identify this information. Request the Government confirm that the FFP CLlNs with multiple quantities and separate delivery dates are billable at Progress Payment rate and full liquidation occurs upon delivery of each aircraft. Recommendation: Please add the following information to the applicable CLlNs in Section B under Descriptive Data: "Progress Payments are authorized in accordance with 52.232-16"

A: In Section I, following the clause titled "52.232-16 Progress Payments", is the statement "Applies to Firm-Fixed-Price CLIN(s), Fixed-Price lncentive (Firm Target) CLIN(s) only." There is no need to duplicate this information in the CLlN data description. Progress payments and liquidation will occur as specified in 52.232-16.


Q: RFP Extract: 1.3.2El [Section M, 2.3.21 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): An offeror's TEP is the offeror's proposed TTP (PV) less any adjustments that may result from the IFARA, FURA and MILCON evaluations.

To calculate an offeror's TEP, the Government will first validate that an offeror has correctly calculated their TPP (PV) proposed in accordance with Section L, Attachment 3. Then, the Government will subtract from an offeror's TPP (PV) any IFARA, FURA, and MILCON adjustments as described in paragraphs 2.3.2.1, 2.3.2.2, and 2.3.2.3 respectively.

The offeror's will propose and be awarded a contract at TPP in then-year dollars. The evaluation for award will be based on TEP, which is based on the offerors TPP (PV) less the adjustment elements. Without a defined schedule element that establishes a common start point for the program schedule, the offerors proposed schedule will be used to establish the TPP (PV). A schedule that has later deliveries will result in a lower TPP (PV).

How will the USAF ensure a later delivery schedule is not rewarded by a lower evaluated TPP (PV) and result in an award to a higher TPP bidder that offers a later delivery schedule?

Recommendation: Suggest the USAF establish an RFP requirement for the Government Fiscal Year in which Milestone C will be accomplished and LRlP Lot 1 awarded.

A: The KC-X RFP requires all offerors to meet Required Assets Availability (RAA) within 78 months after contract award. The RFP requires offerors to complete Section L, Attachment 3 using target quantities and this Attachment does not allow offerors to skip production years.


Q: RFP Extract: 4.6.6 lntegrated Master Schedule (IMS): The offeror shall provide an lntegrated Master Schedule that meets all requirements as described below:

4.6.6.1 The offeror shall provide an IMS limited to no more than 650 non-summary tasks and milestones for proposal evaluation purposes only. Government directed tasks/milestones are not counted against the 650 task/milestone limit, but shall be included and appropriately linked in the schedule. Summary tasks, either Government directed or offeror determined, are not counted against the 650 task/milestone limit. The proposal shall include no more than one IMS that covers the period from Contract Award (for the Proposal IMS assume a contract award June 2010) through Required Assets Available (RAA), as specified in Section F.

4.6.6.2 The IMS should focus primarily on the key processes, risk drivers and key milestones of the program as outlined in the offeror's IMP and Government provided IMP Template. The tasks included in the IMS should be sufficient to succinctly complete RM requirements. The IMS shall reflect key lntegrated Master Plan (IMP) events, accomplishments and criteria and associated entry and exit criteria. Additionally, the IMS shall correlate to other proposal documentation.

Paragraph 4.6.6.1 imposes a 650 task limit in the proposal IMS. Paragraph 4.6.6.2 implies that not every IMP criterion needs to be included in the 650 task IMS ("The IMS should focus primarily on the key processes, risk drivers and key milestones of the program as outlined in the offeror's IMP and Government provided IMP Template. The tasks included in the IMS should be sufficient to successfully complete RAA requirements.")

Does the 650 task limit apply to the tasks required to represent the government provided criteria or does the 650 task limit apply only to criteria that may be added by the contractor?

A: The 650 task/milestone limit applies to contractor key processes, risk drivers and key milestones as outlined in Section L, paragraph 4.6.6.2


Ql: Clause is punitive in nature and penalty of 40 years is immediate and full term while non- conformance may not be full term. Provides no provision for subsequent conforming retrofit correction (credit back to contractor) i f occurring before the 40 year estimate life. Q2: Clause does not provide any explicit opportunity for discussion or negotiation preceding unilateral price reduction.

Recommendation: 1. Delete clause, or modify paragraph a as follows:

a. The parties agree that achievement of the fuel usage rate utilized in the fuel usage efficiency value set forth in System Specification paragraph TBP (to be proposed consistent with SRD paragraph 3.4.2.7) shall be an acceptance criterion pursuant to FAR 52.246-2 paragraph (f) and Section E, E001. Aircraft presented for delivery that are not demonstrated by the contractor to have achieved the required fuel usage rate shall be considered non-conforming pursuant to FAR 52.246-2(f). If the contractor is not able or willing to make the necessary corrections or adjustment to the configuration or design of the aircraft to achieve the required fuel usage rate, the parties agree to bilateral price reduction in accordance with paragraph b. of this clause. If after good faith efforts, the parties are unable to reach agreement within a reasonable time, the contracting officer may, at his/her sole discretion, accept the non-conforming aircraft after making an equitable price reduction, subject to the disputes provisions of this contract.

A: The achievement of the fuel usage rate is a material requirement of the contract. Therefore, this clause acts as an incentive for the contractor to meet the specified fuel usage rate and preserves the fundamental benefit contained in the offer leading to award.

Q: RFP Extract: 52.215-20 Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data (Oct 1997)) Alt IV Para (b), Insert description of the information and the format that are required; 'as specified in Paragraph 2.10 of this section.'

Since Section L, Paragraph 2.10 is Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms the contractor is to provide, the reference to 2.10 does not seem appropriate.

Please identify the applicable RFP paragraph that should be inserted in 52.215-20, Alt IV, para (b).

A. The clause insert for 52.215-20 Alt IV will be corrected to read "as specified in Paragraph 2.13 of this section." The Government will revise the RFP for clarity.


Q: RFP Extract: "The contractor shall delivery a KC-X Simulator Data Package as identified in Section J, Exhibit B...."

Please specify the quantity of Simulator Data Packages to be delivered or required rights to XXX simulators. Item 0005, Simulator Data Package, is for 1 Lot.

Recommendation: The Contractor shall provide XXX Simulator Data Packages or right to build XXX simulators.

A: A single Simulator Data Package and a single data rights package are identified in CLlNs 0005 and 0007 respectively. Special delivery requirements are contained in Exhibit B, item 8027. The data and data rights will be used throughout the life of the program and will be applied tho all simulators, regardless of the quantity of simulators.


Q: RFP Extract: 4.6.5.1 The offeror shall build an event-based IMP for the entire KC-X development and production program using DoD lntegrated Master Plan and lntegrated Master Schedule Preparation and Use Guide. The IMP shall identify "mandatory Contractor and Government events," accomplishments, and criteria, to meet the requirements of the contract and includes all events, accomplishments and criteria (or subject areas where indicated) identified in the Government provided IMP template, Section J, Attachment 6. The IMP shall identify and describe interdependencies, impacts and shared resources among and between program events, activities, and processes. The IMP shall link all critical processes and activities identified in the SOWs to appropriate IMP events and CWBS. The IMP shall include process narratives that adequately describe and substantiate the integration of Government and contractor critical processes and identify key interfaces. The IMP shall demonstrate the offeror's approach within the lntegrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) framework. The IMP shall identify a hierarchy of all key program events and accomplishments (Contractor, Government, or others) using the Government provided template, that are necessary and sufficient to deliver and field a fully operational KC-X and effectively transitions to full rate production and support of the KC-X Required Assets Availability (RAA) requirements. The IMP shall correlate to the KC-X IMS, CWBS,

EMD and Production SOWs, Model Contract, Earned Value Management System (EVMS), offeror's organizational structure and specification tree.

The proposed IMP can be in offeror format, but shall contain, as a minimum, the events, accomplishments and criteria outlined in the Government IMP Template. The Government IMP Template is intended to provide a skeleton of required entries and, in no way should inhibit the scope and flexibility for integrationloptimization of existing/ emerging/proprietary/ best practice(s) processes and systems within the offeror's enterprise. The offeror shall also address each criteria identified in the government IMP template. In the event the offeror deems any of the Government identified criteria to be not applicable, justification shall be provided to substantiate such rationale. The offeror may identify additional events and/or accomplishments and/or criteria to those identified in the Government IMP template. The offeror should also align all entrance and exit criteria with the appropriate events and accomplishments which coincide with the offeror's specific design, development and manufacturing approach.

Paragraph 4.6.5.1 stipulates that the IMP can be in offeror format.

Question:

1. Assuming that the IMP will "contain, as a minimum, the events, accomplishments, and criteria outlined in the Government IMP Template", does the latitude in using "offeror format" include reordering and re-lettering events in the Government template? 2. Does i t include moving accomplishments from one event to another? 3. Does i t include moving criteria from one accomplishment to another? 4. Does it include combining events, accomplishments and/or criteria, where, for instance, an event and its associated accomplishments and criteria might be folded into another event?


A(1): No, using "offeror format" does not include reordering and re-lettering events in the Government template.

A(2): No, using "offeror format" does not include moving accomplishments from one event to another.

A(3): No, using "offeror format" does not include moving criteria from one accomplishment to another.

A(4): No, using "offeror format" does not include combining events, accomplishments and/or criteria.

Q: RFP Text: Attachment 3 Production 500, Paragraph 8: "The offeror shall deliver all FAA-approved type design and substantiating data (technical and computer software) for the KC X System and equipment to include the non military baseline aircraft, engines, components and modifications. This shall include a statement of the associated license rights as set forth in DFARS 227.7202, DFARS 252.227-7013, DFARS 252.227-7014, and DFARS 252.227-7015 and Section J, Attachment 23, in accordance with Special Contract Requirement H024. The offeror shall provide engineering technical support needed for the USAF to establish and maintain non FAA based military type certification. (Dl SAFT 80901, E001)"


Please clarify what is meant by the term "components" within the context of this requirement. Our interpretation of this requirement is that it applies to information or data used to substantiate the Amended Type Certification (ATC) and Supplemental Type Certification (STC) of the tanker. Is this interpretation correct?

A: Section J, Attachment 3 Production SOO, Paragraph 8 requires the offeror to provide all FAA and EASA (if applicable) information or data used to substantiate the Type Certification, Amended Type Certification (ATC), and Supplemental Type Certification (STC) of the KC-X. "Components" include prime, subcontractor, or vendor parts included in the type certification (e.g., radios, hydraulic actuators, pumps, generators).


Q: RFPText: HOOl (a) states: "All ECPs and CCPs whether submitted at the Government's request or upon the Contractor's own initiative, shall be submitted in accordance with this clause and Section J, Exhibit A and C Contract Data Requirements List items titled "ECP" and "CCP," respectively." HOOl (d) states: "The Contractor shall accomplish any data changes and data deliveries associated with Class II changes at no increase in contract price. Production cut in of Class I1 changes shall also be accomplished at no increase in contract price." HOOl (g) states: "Service Actions are an OEM notification to applicable operators of a change which impacts aircraft configuration, part numbers and support services. Service Actions shall be proposed and authorized in accordance with paragraph (a) above and any other applicable requirements of the contract." H002 states: "The KC-X system (comprising the air vehicle, personnel, support and training configuration baselines) shall be managed as follows: The functional performance, allocated requirements, and product configuration identification and baselines shall be defined and documented in accordance with the contractor's Configuration Management Plan using MIL-STD- 61A and EIA-649 as guidance documents. . . . The final product baseline shall be defined by the initial product baseline, Software Product Specifications (SPSs), other CI Detail Specifications, lnterface Control Documents (ICDs), lnterface Requirements Specifications (IRSs), and other documentation required to define the final production configuration of the system (e.g. technical data package (TDP), vendor data sheets, and software code listings). The SPS(s), other CI Detail Specifications, ICD(s), IRS(s), and other final production configuration documentation shall be managed by the contractor through completion of PCA at which time the Government will control this documentation. Changes to this baseline shall require Government approval through an ECP." MIL-HDBK-61A, Paragraph 6.1.1.2: Change Classification. Change classification is a shorthand method for indicating the change processing and/or approval method. ECPs required to be submitted to the Government are classified as either class I or class 11. A class I ECP is approved by the Government's Configuration Control Board and authorized with a contract modification. A class I1 change, on the other hand, is typically reviewed for concurrence in classification by the local government representative, unless otherwise specified in the contract. Unless a government representative is identified in the contract (normally a person from the procuring activity), the Contractor (or ECP originator) is responsible for assigning change classification.


Paragraph HOOl (a) requires that ECPs and CCPs be submitted in accordance with CDRLs A007 and C003. These CDRLs require that ECPs be approved by the USAF. Additionally, paragraph H002 defines that ECPs shall be required for changes to the product baseline and shall be submitted to the government for approval. However, paragraph H002 also references MIL-STD-61A (recommend this reference be corrected to read MIL-HDBK-61A) for configuration management guidance. MIL-HDBK-61A identifies that Class I1 changes are typically processed for concurrence in classification by a local government representative rather than processed for formal government approval.

Question:

Q (1): Is it the USAF expectation that all Class II changes be processed for USAF approval or does


the contract clause language requiring USAF ECP approval only apply to Class I changes? Additionally, is an ECP process required for FAA mandatory changes or is compliance with the FAA direction sufficient?

A (1): Government approval of Class II ECPs is not required. Class II ECPs shall be processed and approved through the offeror's CCB. Government concurrence of ECP classification is required prior to Class 1 1 change implementation.

Q (2): Additionally, is an ECP process required for FAA mandatory changes or is compliance with the FAA direction sufficient?

A (2): H002 defines when Government disposition of ECPs is required. H O O l and H O l O require an ECP or CCP for all service actions including FAA mandatory changes.


Date post:	27-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dinhlien
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times