9531BM20R00020001_Answers_to_Questions_Brake_and_Dynamometer_Testing.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a)By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE

DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

9531BM20R00020001

Summary of Changes

Header Information

Close Date is changed from 11-NOV-19 16:00:00 to 18-NOV-19 09:00:00.

Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits, and other Attachments

The following attachments are added:

File Attachments:

Title Description File Name Entity Reference Attachment 2 Answers to Questions Attachment 2-Answers to

Questions.docx Header

ATTACHMENT 2

Answers to Questions Combined Synopsis/Solicitation 9531BM209R0002 “Vehicle and Brake Dynamometer Testing Services”

1. Is there a possibility to extend the due date until 18 November 2019?

ANSWER: Yes, the proposal due date has been extended to 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) on November 18, 2019.

2. Would the NTSB consider dual-end inertia brake dynamometer testing to study brake fade performance?

ANSWER: Not at this time. However, the NTSB may consider this for a potential future requirement.

3. Exemplar Vehicle Questions:

a. It appears that all 2000-2005 Ford Excursions and F250 trucks use the same brake pad part numbers; could the exemplar vehicle range be expanded to include these vehicles?

ANSWER: The NTSB prefers a 2001 Ford Excursion be used; however, at the discretion of the NTSB, a similar vehicle may be used. This similar vehicle must have similar booster, master cylinder, brake pads, rotors and calipers. The VIN of the accident vehicle is

1FMNU40S51EB10299.

b. Were there any other vehicle modifications undertaken that may affect braking performance, e.g., tire size, suspension geometry, suspension springs/dampers, aerodynamic or high clearance fenders, etc.?

ANSWER: To the best of our understanding, only the 12-foot extension of brake line was added to accommodate the body extension. The tire size was the OEM recommended size however, the left front was actually a smaller size.

c. Which engine option was in the involved vehicle? Does the exemplar vehicle need to include the same engine for brake booster failure evaluation?

ANSWER: A V-10 engine. Yes, the brake booster shall be the same as the accident vehicle.

Contractors will be provided with the VIN (see 3a above) and will be able to verify with the dealership that parts are correct.

d. Does the exemplar vehicle need to be returned to NTSB or kept with test agency for any specified duration after completion of contract?

ANSWER: No.

4. Test Conditions Questions:

a. Which compliance options were initially selected by Ford for the Excursion?

ANSWER: The original compliance options were: FMVSS 105 < 10000 lb GVWR. The modified accident vehicle weighed somewhere in the range of between 13,000 lbs and 14000 lbs and therefore the compliance options outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW) are for the GVWR > 10,000 lbs.

b. Which version of FMVSS 105 should be used, current, 2001, or other?

ANSWER: The vehicle was originally manufactured in 2000, so the NTSB recommends the 2000 version of the CFR.

c. Assuming 2001 version of FMVSS 105, should the test be conducted to the 8,000-10,000 pounds GVWR sequence or the over 10,000 pounds GVWR sequence (1st effectiveness (7.3), 1st reburnish (7.6), parking brake (7.7), water recovery (7.16), and spike stops (7.17))?

ANSWER: As indicated in the SOW, the FMVSS 105 testing will be conducted using FMVSS 105 requirements for vehicles above 10,000 lbs (since the modified accident vehicle weighed more than 10,000 lbs). The optional brake fade requirements are required to be performed as part of the FMVSSS 105.

d. Sections 7.11-7.15 will be included based on the Statement of Work. Should stability and control test be conducted? This feature was required for GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds for vehicles manufactured after July 2005 or manufactured in stages after July 2006.

ANSWER: No.

e. What are the temperature requirements for warm and cold weather testing facilities?

ANSWER: A warm weather test facility is required since testing could take place during wintertime and there is concern that poor weather conditions could delay testing.

Weather conditions during testing should be whatever is required to comply with the FMVSS 105 test requirements and to accurately measure the brake cooling data.

f. Does the vehicle have to be driven in both warm and cold weather or can this be evaluated statically in an environmental chamber to meet the time schedule and period of performance?

ANSWER: See answer to question 4e.

5. Questions regarding the requirement for the testing using a 2001 Ford Excursion.

a. We can already presume that this is a rear wheel drive model since the crash involved a stretched version and converting from the 4x4 version is rarely never done.

ANSWER: The accident vehicle was a 2001 Ford Excursion 4X2.

b. This vehicle comes in various engine sizes 5.4 L V8, 7.3 L V8 diesel, 6.8 L V10 which do you prefer? Not sure is this alters the type of brake system because of increased towing and transmission types along with engine displacement.

ANSWER: The accident vehicle was equipped with a V10. As long as the brake system is the same as the accident vehicle (meaning the same booster, brake size, master cylinder caliper, pads and rotors) we don’t believe the engine matters.

c. Model type XLT or Limited ? Again, not sure is this alters the type of brake system because of increased towing and transmission types along with engine displacement ANSWER: Model XLT trim level. However, as long as the brake system is the same as the accident vehicle it doesn’t matter.

d. ABS brake system is presumed?

ANSWER: Yes

e. Title of owner ship of used vehicle and its transportation - Once the used vehicle is procured by the winning contractor or vendor, is the title of the vehicle transferred over to the NTSB at any time? Or is it under the ownership of the actual contractor or vendor performing the tests or the contractor that has won the bid? I only ask this because of local and state laws governing both owner ship and transportation of motor vehicles along with registration and insurance should the vehicle need to be driven to the test site. Would you prefer that the vehicle be transported to and from on a flatbed to protect it during transit?

ANSWER: The title will not be transferred to the NTSB and the NTSB will never assume ownership. The contractor is solely responsible for obtaining the vehicle and disposing of it.

f. After testing what will become of the vehicle? Will it be secured by the NTSB for further testing and study? Or deposed of by the vendor/contractor?

ANSWER: See above answer.

g. Because of the model year being a 2001, do you have any mileage parameters that are of concern? Typically, vehicles this old will have way over 100,000 miles on them.

ANSWER: Mileage would be inconsequential however testing would require that the brake system perform as near as practical to new Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) conditions. Since we require performance testing using OEM components there should be no vacuum or fluid leaks with the booster or master cylinder. The contractor should consider replacing calipers, pads and in the process, brake fluid. If there are doubts about the master cylinder or brake line condition, the NTSB expects the contractor to recommend a replacement for these as well.

h. Your condition - All testing must be performed at a test track facility or a test facility.

Does this mean, if the contractor or vendor does not have access to an actual track be it oval or straight, that using a static test bed would be sufficient? (held in place with a fixed brake dynamometer type system?)

ANSWER: The FMVSS 105 and measurements of cooling curve data are required to be performed on a test track or at a test facility. The contractor must have prior experience performing these types of tests.

490 L'Enfant Plaza East, SW Washington, DC, 20594-0003, US

AMD_ISSUING_OFFICE_LOCCODE: 9531BM