Loren Data's FBO Daily™

fbodaily.com
Home Today's FBO Search Archives Numbered Notes CBD Archives Subscribe
FBO DAILY ISSUE OF MAY 15, 2005 FBO #1266
MODIFICATION

A -- Personnel Recovery Vehicle (PRV)

Notice Date
3/28/2005
 
Notice Type
Modification
 
Contracting Office
1895 5th Street, Bldg. 46 Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 45433-7200
 
ZIP Code
45433-7218
 
Solicitation Number
FA8629-05-R-2350
 
Point of Contact
Noah Oliver,937.255-2379
 
E-Mail Address
SOF.PRV@wpafb.af.mil; Noah.Oliver@wpafb.af.mil; Donald.Fisher@wpafb.af.mil
(SOF.PRV@wpafb.af.mil; Noah.Oliver@wpafb.af.mil; Donald.Fisher@wpafb.af.mil)
 
Small Business Set-Aside
N/A
 
Description
PERSONNEL RECOVERY VEHICLE AMENDMENT 030 (28 MAR 05) – Capabilities Development Document (CDD) A current version of the Personnel Recovery Vehicle CDD is available for industry review and comment. Please note this documents falls under “DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT D: Distribution authorized to Department of Defense (DoD) and DoD Contractor’s only to protect technical or operational data…” To request a copy of the CDD, please send an email request to SOF.PRV@wpafb.af.mil, stating your name, organization, and CAGE code (Contractors only). It is requested that comments be forwarded to ASC/LUH, Attn: Donald C. Fisher by COB 08 April 2005. PERSONNEL RECOVERY VEHICLE AMENDMENT 029 (18 MAR 05) – Logistics response to Industry Questions 1. Question: Will helicopter bed down be at the same 11 bases currently supporting the HH-60? Answer: AFSOC intends to utilize the same bases currently supporting the HH- 60. However, AFSOC can not speak for USAFE or PACAF assets, and BRAC may affect basing strategy as well. 2. Question: Will helicopter bed down be an even distribution of aircraft or in the same proportion as the HH-60s in the field? Answer: It is currently planned to be a one-for-one replacement, and some squadrons will be larger with 141 PRVs vice the 102 HH-60. 3. Question: Will a squadron be stood up and fully equipped before sending H/Cs to the next squadron or will there be mixed squadrons, e.g., HH-60s + PRVs? Answer: Based on the previous answer there will be mixed squadrons. AFSOC intends to stand up a full squadron with PRVs before giving assets to the next unit. 4. Question: Will two level maintenance concept be a true two level or perhaps three level where the capability already exists, e.g., engines, hydraulics, aircraft electrical and two level for the mission equipment (avionics)? Answer: It is envisioned to maximize a two level maintenance approach. Engines will be the only consideration of a back shop if the MAJCOM wishes to continue in that fashion. PRV is to make maximum use of the Condition Based Maintenance (CBM). The CBM approach will eliminate the need for such shops. 5. Question: In regards to two level maintenance concept, are there different concepts at FOL vs MOB/Support Service Center? Answer: The PRV will need to be self sustainable at the FOL with the limited RSP they deploy with, and their Support Equipment (SE) deployment package. It is the responsibility of the bidders to determine how, based on the FOL posture what PRV systems will be required to function in a deployed scenario. 6. Question: Please specify Total System Performance Responsibility (TSPR): indicate a total “TSPR” or just for the aircraft, aircraft systems, and mission equipment; parts, Supply Chain Management, and Field Service Reps (FSR)? Answer: TSPR is not planned; anticipate Performance Based Logistics (PBL) approach. For parts, Supply Chain Management, and Field Service Reps (FSRs) a Contractor Supported Weapon System (CSWS) is appropriate. 7. Question: Please address maintenance/updates to simulators/trainers; maintain/update curriculum, and providing instructors. Answer: Sustainment is based on decisions from Training Systems Requirements Analysis (TSRA) and developed Training System (TS). Maintain/update curriculum and provide instructors will be part of overall TS sustainment package. 8. Question: Regarding flight hours per aircraft, utilization rate of 50 hours (T) + 65 hours (O): Is this actually the operations tempo that is planned? This is a somewhat high tempo that drives sparing, maintenance, man- hours (MMHs) and Life Cycle Cost (LCC). Answer: It’s the user’s requirement. Availability is noted as one reason for replacement of the HH-60’s. If reliability is designed effectively into the system then this should not be a factor. 9. Question: Will Training System Requirements Document (TSRA) be provided with the draft RFP, final RFP or contract award? Answer: Required to be developed by the successful bidder. 10. Question: TSRA is a big cost driver! The CDD states “All test participants will receive training using the operational training concept and systems identified in the ILSP and TSRA prior to IOT+E.” Should this be deferred to LRIP/Production? Answer: No 11. In regards to simulator/trainer locations, are full suite MOB/Support Service Center only, and do limited suites at other locations include Virtual Flight Simulator and Part Task Trainers? Answer: Both full suite and limited suite will be derived from the TSRA. 12. Are there existing Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs) supporting the HH-60? Answer: Due to the highly integrated systems there are now AFSCs that address this. To date, the most current use of these AFSCs is on emerging platforms. It is anticipated the AFSCs will be based on the new Integrated Systems AFSC. PERSONNEL RECOVERY VEHICLE AMENDMENT 028 (08 MAR 05)- Correction of Capt Thompson+s phone number (reference: Amendment 027) Phone: 937-255-4560 Email: Gary.Thompson@wpafb.af.mil PERSONNEL RECOVERY VEHICLE AMENDMENT 027 (07 MAR 05) - Draft SRD An updated version of the draft Systems Requirement Document (SRD), Rev 3, dated 7 March 2005 is available for review and comment. Please note this document falls under "DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT D: Distribution authorized to Department of Defense and DOD Contractors only to protect technical or operational data..." To receive a copy of the SRD, please send an email request to SOF.PRV@wpafb.af.mil, stating your name, organization, and CAGE code (Contractors only). It is requested that comments be forwarded to ASC/LUH, Attention Capt Thompson, by COB 18 March 2005. For those prime offerors that request a "face-to-face" discussion of the draft SRD, we encourage you to contact Capt Thompson at 937- 255-4600 to make the arrangements. We plan to hold these sessions 29 March through 1 April at Wright Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio. PERSONNEL RECOVERY VEHICLE AMENDMENT 026 (28 FEB 05) - PRV LIBRARY DOCUMENTS See below documents for Integrated Risk Management Plan (AFMCP 63-101 dated 9 July 1997; and Risk Management Guide, dated June 2003). PERSONNEL RECOVERY VEHICLE AMENDMENT 025 (28 FEB 05) - Request for Information (RFI) 1. The Personnel Recovery Vehicle (PRV) is currently required to be fielded in FY10 with IOC in FY 11. This schedule includes a 2 year Government flight test program. For Block 0, the current PRV acquisition strategy has changed to allow a two-year development program. In order to meet various AFSOC requirements, a Link-16 capability will be required in Block 0. 2. Provide the following information: a. Identify if you will be able to develop a Link-16 capability in the shortened development timespan. b. Identify what Link-16 hardware would be integrated. c. Identify if you would be re-using software developed on another program. If so, please identify program source. d. Identify what Link-16 messages you believe is required for PRV and which messages you would be able to provide in Block 0. e. Identify Block 10 migration plan to transition your proposed Link-16 implementation to a MIDS-JTRS implementation. f. What is your assessment of the risk of this effort and your proposed mitigation plan? g. Would you be integrating Common Link Integration Processing (CLIP) in Block 0 for GIG and/or Airborne Network communication? Explain why or why not. 3. Provide your response not later than 4:00 PM, EST, 7 Mar 05. PERSONNEL RECOVERY VEHICLE AMENDMENT 024 (11 FEB 05) - UPDATED PRV LIBRARY DOCUMENTS The below attached file as of 11 February 2005 is updated to include: AFI 63- XXX, June 2003, Reformed Supply Support; Mil-HDBK-514, 28 March 2003, DoD HDBK, Operational Safety, Suitability, + Effectiveness for the Aeronautical Enterprise; Mil-HDBK-516A, 5 February 2004, DoD HDBK, Airworthiness Certification Criteria. PERSONNEL RECOVERY VEHICLE AMENDMENT 023 (11 JAN 05) – SRD RFI extension and Q+A on SRD RFI SRD RFI as shown in Amendment 20 has extended the deadline for response from 11 Jan 05 to 26 Jan 2005. Clarification on SRD RFI: Question: Requirements of sections 3.3.7.8, 3.3.9.3.4, 3.3.9.3.5, and 3.3.9.4.1.4 appear to exceed the CDD. We just wanted to confirm the intent, understanding that this is certainly your prerogative. Response: With respect to 3.3.7.8., the SRD does not necessarily exceed the CDD but rather reflects the use of this capability for night missions and reducing crew workload. (Ref CDD: "Night missions and crew workload require the use of artificial aids to enable night operations. Night operations include the use of Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) goggles, infrared detection set (IDS), and helmet mounted displays (HMD) or other technologies.") However, at this point in time we do not know the full extent to which HMDs will be used. Question: "The PRV attributes needed to support Initial Operational Capability (Block 0) are addressed by Section 3 statements without symbol markings and those that are followed by "T", unless specifically marked as Block 10 (defined as full capability). ..." This essentially says that anything with no markings or a "T" is a Block 0 requirement, which means nearly everything is a Block 0 requirement. Is this correct? Response: Yes, items with no markings or a "T" are Block 0 requirements as stated by the User. PERSONNEL RECOVERY VEHICLE AMENDMENT 022 (07 JAN 05) - Request for Information See below attached file for RFI (MS word document) and CDD-RFI (MS Excel document). Responses are due NLT 1600 EST, 13 Jan 05. PERSONNEL RECOVERY VEHICLE AMENDMENT 021 (14 DEC 04)- Risk/schedule reduction efforts The Air Force intends to issue four contracts in support of risk/schedule reduction efforts in support of the planned competition for the Personnel Recovery Vehicle (PRV). These contracts will be issued to the contractors who have currently expressed interest in proposing for the PRV program. The goal of the contracts will be to enable the acceleration of the performance of the PRV program after award. The four contracts are planned to be issued to Northrop Grumman, Bell-Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Sikorsy at an estimated value of $1.25M each. PERSONNEL RECOVERY VEHICLE (09 DEC 04) – Archived solicitation/synopsis information See below attached file for archived PIXS soliciation synopsis information (initial through Amendment 20). For more information on PRV--Personnel Recovery Vehicle (PRV) please refer to http://www.pixs.wpafb.af.mil/pixslibr/PRV/PRV.asp NOTE: THIS NOTICE MAY HAVE POSTED ON WWW.FEDBIZOPPS.GOV ON THE DATE INDICATED IN THE NOTICE ITSELF (28-MAR-2005). IT ACTUALLY APPEARED OR REAPPEARED ON THE FEDBIZOPPS SYSTEM ON 13-MAY-2005, BUT REAPPEARED IN THE FTP FEED FOR THIS POSTING DATE. PLEASE CONTACT fbo.support@gsa.gov REGARDING THIS ISSUE.
 
Web Link
PRV-Personnel Recovery Vehicle (PRV)
(http://www.eps.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/ASC/FA8629-05-R-2350/listing.html)
 
Record
SN00808000-F 20050515/050513215500 (fbodaily.com)
 
Source
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

FSG Index  |  This Issue's Index  |  Today's FBO Daily Index Page |
ECGrid: EDI VAN Interconnect ECGridOS: EDI Web Services Interconnect API Government Data Publications CBDDisk Subscribers
 Privacy Policy  © 1994-2014, Loren Data Corp.