United States Special Operations Command, Directorate of Procurement (SOAC-KB), 2418 Florida Keys Ave., MacDill AFB, FL 33621-5316

A -- C130 ENGINE INFRARED SUPPRESSION (EIRS) SYSTEM REQUEST FOR INFORMATION POC Scott Bowles (813)828-9482 WEB: SOAL Website, www.socom.mil. E-MAIL: Technical Industiral Liaison Officer (TILO), bowlesr@socom.mil. Background & Objective of this Request for Information (RFI): The United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has a requirement for a C-130 engine infrared (IR) signature suppression system to provide Special Operations Forces (SOF) C-130 aircraft with an IR signature reduction equal to or better than existing systems at a lower cost of ownership. This IR suppression system will be used on AC-130H/U, MC-130E/H/P, and EC-130E aircraft. The key requirements for the Engine IR Suppression system are: (a) improved reliability and maintainability over existing systems to result in lower total cost of ownership; (b) IR signature suppression levels as good as the current engine shield system (a.k.a. Tubs); (c) no adverse impacts to aircraft performance and ability to accomplish SOF missions; (d) complete interchangeability between engine positions and identified aircraft types (variation acceptable in "Group A" mounting provisions). The USSOCOM Acquisition Executive has identified the EIRS program as a prototype acquisition program to investigate and infuse acquisition reform ideas. As a prototype acquisition reform program, USSOCOM is seeking industry partners who will embrace this opportunity to employ acquisition reform ideas to result in fielding an operational IR suppression system to our Special Operations warfighters faster, cheaper and better. To commence this acquisition effort, an "Industry Day" is scheduled for 28-29 October 1998 at MacDill AFB, Tampa, Florida. During this "Industry Day, USSOCOM intends to hold a general (open to all) discussion of the C-130 EIRS requirements, development, production and sustainment strategies and overall programattics including funding and schedule discussions. Open discussions will be followed by a series of one-on-one discussions with industry offerors or teams who request one. During the one-on-one sessions, we seek a frank exchange of ideas to include how, as it is currently understood, the unique approach of potential offerors might meet the needs of the program. Industry day is intended to be a pre-solicitation forum. The following ground rules shall apply: (1) one-on-one sessions will be available to any potential offeror who requests a session; (2) the offeror's or potential offeror's own proprietary information may be discussed during the one-on-one session; (3) the Government will document matters discussed during one-on-one sessions in a memorandum for record; (4) information disclosed by the Government during the one-on-one sessions may be released to all potential offerors if, at the Government's sole discretion, such information is either necessary for the preparation of proposals, or, in fairness, ought to be disclosed to all offerors or to the general public in order to avoid the perception of an unfair competitive advantage; (5) an offeror or potential offeror need not have participated in a one-on-one session in order to receive Government information that ought to be disclosed to all potential offerors under (4) above; and, (6) a contractor's participation in the one-on-one session constitutes agreement with these ground rules. To attend Industry Day, request attendance information, and to schedule a one-on-one discussion session, contact the Technical Industrial Liaison Officer (TILO), Mr. Scott Bowles at (813) 828-9482, FAX (813)828-9488, e-mail bowlesr@socom.mil. For planning purposes, our intent is to limit one-on-one discussion to 2 hours per team or company. Please respond to the TILO no later than 23 October 1998. The goal of this RFI, and subsequent Industry Day discussions, is to explore the technical dimensions of this requirement (providing the SOF fleet of C-130s with an upgrade to their current IR suppression system), as well as industry thoughts and ideas on strategies (development, production, sustainment efforts) and program execution (including contract type, incentives, schedules, funding). We are seeking industry input to assist in identifying constraints, opportunities, and meaningful trade space. Toward this end, we seekyour thoughtful consideration of the questions raised in this RFI. To assist you in addressing the questions we raise in this RFI, we will place relevant unclassified technical documentation on the USSOCOM website (www.socom.mil). Some issues for industry consideration in preparation for Industry Day include: 1. The primary difficulties with present suppressor systems are low reliability and poor maintainability. Design approaches with lower cost of ownership, without sacrificing current achieved suppression levels are sought. 2. We believe the ability of the SOF C-130 fleet to perform its mission would be substantially improved if the mean time between maintenance of the EIRS were 500 hours or more. What cost, performance and/or maintenance impacts would result to achieve this level of reliability? 3. Maintenance on the current "Tubs" system requires use of 2 B-1 stands and from three to four technicians. Are there system designs or supportability concepts that improve this resource mix? If so, would this require special support equipment? 4. Our goal is to have the new EIRS Group "B" be interchangeable among all SOF aircraft regardless of MDS or engine position. A. USSOCOM desires to understand if there are benefits or tradeoffs that make total "interchangeability" an unnecessarily restrictive goal. Specifically: (1) Are there aircraft design complications, build standards, or other technical challenges that would preclude Group "B" interchangeability? (2) Are there production or support cost savings associated with less than complete interchangeability? (3) Are there aircraft performance, signature suppression, or maintenance/support benefits or impacts associated with less than complete interchangeability? B. Please be prepared to provide rationale supporting the potential benefits that could be realized through tradeoffs relative to the interchangeability goal. 5. IR Suppression is a key performance attribute of the EIRS system. A. How would you propose to demonstrate the suppression capability of the EIRS? B. Are there differences among the six C-130 MDS in terms of the challenges they present relative to suppressing their engine IR signature? C. Are there differences among the properties of each engine position in terms of the challenges presented relative to suppressing the signature of the engine in that position? 6. We anticipate establishing threshold conditions for drag, thrust and weight. Installation of the EIRS must have minimum impact on aircraft performance. Therefore, we are considering establishing the following thresholds: (1) Maximum added drag count of 20, (2) Maximum allowable thrust reduction of 1%, and (3) Suppressor and mounting provision weight per aircraft of 800 pounds. What cost, schedule, performance, or support challenges do these thresholds present? 7. Is it realistic to expect initial EIRS installations to be done as a field modification at the home base of each aircraft? If yes, what type of down time would we experience for total system (Group A and Group B) installation? If you believe that initial installation must be done at a depot or at some other separate, central facility, what type of down time would we need to plan for from the time an aircraft landed to when it was ready to return to service? Is it realistic to expect production installs as a field modification? 8. Given your assessment of the technical challenges required to develop and prototype the EIRS system, we are interested in understanding the schedule-planning horizon that you believe to be necessary to execute your concept. A. Overall, what degree of risk do you associate with the EIRS development task? B. How many months should we anticipate allowing from contract award to completion of prototype testing? C. What do you believe to be a reasonable production lead-time from "go-ahead" to delivery of the first production unit? D. What would you consider to be a reasonable production rate to support production of 50 EIRS systems? 100 EIRS systems? 9. We intend to make use of Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV) throughout the performance of this program. For planning purposes, assume a total of $5.0M is available to fund the EIRS program development phase with two competitive contracts (This translates to two contracts valued at $2.5M each). For the production phase assume a total of $26M is available to fund a single production contract (assumes production installs, initial spares, and one year contractor support included). In your estimation is the program executable? If not, why? What CAIV goals would you establish for development? Average unit production cost? Cost of ownership? Given your current understanding of the needs of the EIRS program, will the funding support a competitive development strategy? Will the profile support your CAIV goals for 93 EIRS systems installed on 93 SOF C-130 aircraft? If not, what is the best mix of Group "A" and Group "B" to support 93 airplanes? Why? What might be some tradeoffs you view as necessary to ensure a sound development and production program meeting CAIV goals? 10. Would a head-to-head fly-off competition be feasible? What would you consider adequate discriminators? How would you recommend the Government verify performance? 11. Are there any environmental impacts that must be considered? 12. What would be the most advantageous way (for both industry and the Government) to monitor execution of program funds? What are the risks? 13. What "Business Deal" would you like if you were selected to develop, produce and support the EIRS system? A. What will incentivize you to compete for the EIRS program? B. What will incentivize you (if selected) to meet cost, schedule, and performance goals of the program? All offerors are asked to provide written responses/comments to the above questions to ensure your interests are represented in the development of the program acquisition strategy, programmattic execution requirements and draft Request for Proposal (RFP) preparation. Posted 10/09/98 (W-SN260993). (0282)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0001 19981014\A-0001.SOL)