Attachment_32_Question_and_Answers.pdf

Question 1: According to the engineering instructions for repair, RQR‐10, Rev E (attachment 8) the coating requirements are restricted to PWA 256‐1, 701HE or AMS 2447‐8. On table 6 we understand that PWA 53 can be used as alternative to the plasma wear coating (referred to on table 5). Please advise if PWA 53‐1 can be used as an alternative to PWA 256‐1, 701HE, or AMS 2447‐8.

Answer 1: AMS 2447‐8 and PWA 256‐1 are the preferred coatings. However, they require

Helium to spray. Vendors cannot obtain Helium right now. We've approved RFV's to allow 53‐1 until they can obtain Helium. The preferred coatings are denser and thinner which makes for a better wear surface.

However, 53‐1 will perform sufficiently to last a full interval and only requires Argon to spray.

Question 2: The Estimated Quantities don't seem consistent between the solicitation and the RPOW listing

(attached) from the SASPO Website. The quantities per year definitely affect manpower requirements and we just wanted to check to make sure the estimated quantities in the solicitation were correct.

Answer 2: The quantities on the solicitation are correct.

Question 3: We were also wondering if parts that get condemned that have had work put into them (for example stripping the coating and FPI) will be reimbursed through the Over & Above CLIN?

Answer 3: For the USAF CLINs the scrap rate should be included into the Firm Fixed Price. For the FMS

CLINs the Government will negotiate based on the operation that the parts scrap to cover incurred cost and will be paid via the Over & Above CLIN.

June 10, 2021 Questions & Answers: Convergent Nozzle Assembly FA8121‐22‐R‐0014