A--High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Weapon Capability (HAAWC) Questions and Answers

All comments that were provided against the draft Request for Proposal (RFP) were reviewed and updates to the solicitation were made as deemed appropriate. The following are answers to specific questions that may increase offerors understanding of the intent of the solicitation. 1. The number of FTS units (CLIN 0024) of 40, POM assets (CLIN 0014) of 14, and Telemetry assets (SOW 3.5) of 0 do not seem to correlate to each other or to the intent of the SOW. Can the Navy provide guidance as to the usage profile of the 40 FTS units and the 14 POM units? Response: The quantities of the FTS, POM, and Telemetry assets have been updated. It is the intent of the Navy to use the assets in support of integration testing with the P-8A. 2. The Statement of Work (SOW) has a requirement that hardware provided under this effort shall be capable of fitment, load, and employment from the P-8A aircraft with no hardware changes to the aircraft or the MK 54. Does this requirement pertain only to the Warshot, Exercise, and Ballistic Air Test Vehicle configurations, or does it also preclude changes to the Fixed Wing Launch hardware? Response: This requirement does not preclude changes to the current fixed wing air launch accessories. 3. Within the ALA Performance Specification, the placement accuracy requirement lists four conditions. Item 3.3.1.3.1.(c) states “At max AUR Glide Range in a GPS aided environment?. Is the max AUR Glide Range identified in item (c) the same as the 35 nmi KSA Objective range defined in paragraph 3.3.1.2.4? Response: The max AUR glide range in item (c) is a reference to the max AUR glide range of a given HAAWC concept. The placement accuracy is independent of range, and the intent of the item (c) is to define the requirement at whatever maximum range a given HAAWC concept can achieve, whether this range is 25 nmi, 45 nmi, or some other range beyond the KSA threshold range. 4. Please clarify the intended verification requirements for those items that reference the P-8A. Response: Verification of those items that reference the P-8A will be accomplished during follow on efforts. However, it is the government’s desire to complete as much of the verifications as possible during this effort. 5. In order to reduce schedule risk and cost, is it acceptable to the Government to conduct the SFR and SSR as independent reviews on consecutive days? Response: The intent of discussion within the Statement of Work regarding the timeline of the System Engineering Technical Reviews was to define the required timeline to conduct the SRR, CDR, and PRR. All other reviews can be accomplished at any time within the program, including being held on consecutive days. 6. Within the HAAWC ALA Performance Specification, what is the range applicable to the 15K ft MSL time-to-water-entry (TTWE) requirement? Response: There is no applicable range for the referenced TTWE requirement. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that the HAAWC ALA can deliver the MK 54 lightweight torpedo within this timeline independent of any stand-off range requirement. 7. The specification contains requirements for AUR mass properties allowable variation. Some of the mass property characteristics listed for the AUR are not known for the MK 54 torpedo along with the associated tolerances. In order for the Contractor to determine AUR mass property variation, it is requested that the current MK 54 information be provided. Response: The Navy is currently in the process of determining the MK 54 lightweight torpedo mass property characteristics. This information will be provided as soon as testing is complete. 8. It is assumed that the MK 54 environmental capabilities as compared to the Appendix A requirements will be treated as-is without MK 54 hardware modifications or any attempt to re-assess the torpedo’s capabilities in the EMD requirements verification process. Is this the Government’s intention? Response: The MK 54 lightweight torpedo will not be modified as part of this development. It is not the Navy’s intention to re-assess any of the torpedo capabilities, whether it be environmental, operational, or other. There may be cases where the environmental requirements for the HAAWC ALA exceed the capability of the MK 54 lightweight torpedo; this is done to ensure that the HAAWC ALA can be safely jettisoned in those environmental concerns. There is no expectation for the MK 54 lightweight torpedo to operate in this case. 9. It is requested that the Government provide information regarding test ranges it desires the Contractor to use during EMD. Response: The Navy does not intend to provide the Contractor with a list of preferred ranges for use during HAAWC testing. The Contractor is provided with the lee-way to select test ranges that are most advantageous to the Contractor’s proposed test approach. 10. CLIN 0018 quantity is stated as one (same as Section F) but the comment indicates "four non-metric and one metric models''. Does that indicate the Government is actually seeking a total of five "small-scale (6.2%) models" where four are non-metric and one is metric'? Response: The requirement is for the Contractor to supply one lot consisting of one metric and four non-metric models. The RFP and SOW have been modified to clarify the requirement. 11. Will the small scale metric model be required to be configured with stowed wing/fins? Will there be a requirement for the metric model to include a deployed wing/fins configuration? Response: If wings or fins will be deployed or active during the separation event, the metric small scale model shall be able to be configured to represent each state of the wings and fins achievable during separation.