Q_and_A.pdf

Q & A Session AF32A-18 Demountable Noise Suppressor System

FA3047-15-R-0034

1) Paragraph 1.2.2 of the SOW states, "In addition, all electrical cables shall be Ethylene Propylene Rubber (EPR) and installed inside a concrete encased duct bank. We assume this to apply only to any applicable underground wiring. Is this a correct assumption?

Yes, this statement only applies if the conduit or electrical must be run underground.

2) In conjunction with question #1, based on site visit observations, the electrical pole which will be the source of electrical power is located in the paved area. Consequently, we understand that the power feed for the new suppressor will come from this pole, and consequently can be run on top of the concrete in accordance with paragraph 1.2.2, and no underground runs will be necessary. Is this a correct understanding?

Yes, this is a correct understanding, providing it is a total concrete run.

3) Paragraph 1.2.2 of the SOW requires the installation of "one (1) ground in accordance with the attached conceptual requirements (Appendix A)." However, we did not see any conceptual requirements for this ground shown in Appendix A. Will you provide a supplement or should we defer to Figure B11-12. Air Force Static Ground, in UFC 3-260-01?

Yes, per review of UFC 3-260-01 (Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design) you will defer to this publication.

4) The Delivery Date for CLIN 0003 (TDP) is shown on page 14 of the solicitation document as 230 days ADC. However, page 2 of Attachment 3 - Milestones, indicates a desired delivery of Final Reproducible Paper Data 90 days from contract award. Given that Paragraph 1.2.3.2 of the SOW requires an Engineering Data Guidance Conference be scheduled within 60 days after contract award, prior to origination of the Technical Data Package, and paragraph 1.2.3.3 requires an In- Process Review of the TDP when the data has reached 50% completion with a 30-day notice prior to conducting the IPR, it is unlikely that the final reproducible paper data can be provided within the 90 days from contract award per the milestone schedule. In our proposal, are we to propose a new delivery based on the aforementioned requirements and the information provided in the CRDLs?

Yes, you may propose a new date providing the other milestones are met.

5) In Appendix A (on page 13) of the SOW, an example of an Aircraft Anchor Block is provided. It is our understanding this is meant to be, as stated, an example, and not a prescriptive drawing or

Q & A Session Page 2 of 5 specification, and that the new anchor blocks are not required to be designed for F-15 aircraft or 60,000 lb pull force. Is this a correct understanding?

Yes, that is a correct understanding. New anchor blocks are not required and the Aircraft Anchor Block in Appendix A is merely just an example.

6) 1.2.1 Equipment: SOW states, the exhaust suppressor shall have bolted connections to allow for thermal expansion to minimize pre-mature failure of stud bolts and bolted connections.

a) Has consideration been given for airflow velocities and thermal temperatures related to increased size of engines tested since OEM design in the 70’s?

Consideration has been given to the increased sized engines and that is why the SOW specifically states that the exhaust suppressor must allow for thermal expansion.

b) Are Bidders to assume current AF32A-18 configuration is adequate to handle engine types used today? The question includes secondary intakes, exhaust augmentor, and exhaust stack.

Note: OEM design was based on water cooling, later converted to air cooled.

The current AF32A-18 is still in use today but it has been noted that there is increased failure of bolts and bolted connections thus the stipulation that the exhaust suppressor must allow for thermal expansion.

7) 1.2.2 Installation:

a) Is contractor or local activity responsible for crane permitting if required?

We the local activity will handle the crane permit if required.

b) SOW identifies 2 aircraft thrust anchors for restraining aircraft, while Drawing submitted for reference indicates a 20’L x 20’W x 2.8’ thick pad having a single 60,000 lb aircraft anchor block w/tandem bridle which differs, Bid sketches and drawings.

Drawing notes: holdback embedment shall accommodate a F15 aircraft thrust capacity. The location for embedment in relation to aircraft is not identified. What embedment style should contractor assume for bidding purposes, SOW reference (2ea) or bid sketches/drawing reference (1ea)?

The SOW shall be used.

c) Should contractor install the thrust pad (20’x20’x2.8’) as shown on drawing?

No concrete work to the pad is required; the existing ramp has been tested and is capable of allowing the installation of aircraft thrust anchors and ground or grounds required.

d) If the SOW two embedded design is used, Who is responsible for providing embedment drawing details, location details, size of embeds, and thrust block required. The government or contractor?

Q & A Session Page 3 of 5

The contractor is responsible for the above requirements.

e) What are the load requirements for aircraft hold back embedment and concrete thrust block?

Does USAF have this information, or is it up to contractor to design? Is a load test to aircraft hold back before aircraft testing?

The contractor has to refer to UFC 3-260-01 (Airfield and Heliport Planning & Design).

f) Who is responsible to develop drawings and criteria for the embedded aircraft hold back?

Govt. or contractor?

It is up to the contractor to develop both the drawings.

g) Who provides aircraft restraint harnesses that connect between aircraft and embedded aircraft hold back, Govt. or contractor? If Govt., will cables be available before equipment installation for proper placement of wheel chocks and guide rails? If contractor, are drawings available for manufacturing and bidding purposes? Or is it up to contractor to develop drawings for restraint harnesses?

The contractor is expected to provide both the drawings and the restraint harnesses. There are no drawings available but the guiadance is provided in the UFC 3-260-01 (Airfield and Heliport Planning & Design).

h) Infrastructure, the location of utility pole was identified during site walk, is contractor to assume ample power is available. 220v 1phase 60hz @100amp service?

Yes.

i) Should contractor assume mounting the electrical panel w/riser, weather head, and cabling to pole? And local base CE perform “tie in” connection?

Yes.

j) Existing pavements appear “in place” for some time. Has anyone confirmed thickness, strength, or other for aircraft testing? Do drawings exist for concrete apron? Concrete specs?

Existing ramp is fully capable of allowing the complete installation of a new Noise Suppressor.

k) For bid purposes, will pavement chaffing or loose debris, loose joint sealant, uneven surfaces be addressed by local activity when relocating temp shelters? Or should Contractor assume concrete repairs suitable for aircraft testing in estimate?

Local activity will handle relocating of temp shelters and any concrete repairs if required after movement.

8) 1.2.3 Engineering data:

Q & A Session Page 4 of 5

a) Who will be the managing authority for TDP?

Robins, AFB

b) Where will submittals be sent, who will review and comment?

Robins, AFB

c) What is the anticipated turn around process and routing for submission of data? Could impact schedule?

Managing Authortity for PRODUCT DRAWINGS/MODELS AND ASSOCIATED LISTS is AFLCMC/LZPEM, Robins AFB, as per CDRL 0003. AFLCMC/WNZEC and AMXS/CLEAE will be assisting with the technical review content.

d) Where will the IPR’s be conducted? Will travel be required for meetings other than San Antonio area? This could impact travel estimate.

TDP reviewers are at Robins so it would be reasonable to assume that some meetings may be held there.

e) Understanding drawings are to be developed in accordance with AF specification drawing

9579776, which will take time to get all drawings developed and formatted. Will contractor be allowed to start work with manufacturing at design completion, but before TDP is completed?

The schedule will be impacted based on approach selected, if overlapping is allowed? To explain, Drawings will be delivered in steps and stages for approval. After design concept and layout is confirmed drawings move to next step, AF formatting, tagging, Mega data file , Master BOM for IBP, and level III details developed.

Yes.

f) Does the Govt. have existing drawings of all systems for the AF/32A-18 which are releasable for bidding and editing as referenced in 1.2.3.5.4?

All drawings will need to be revised and developed.

If so, when will they be available and what format, PDF or CAD? Or is it up to contractor to develop all A18 drawings, which include modernized design request? The answer to this question will impact price estimate.

It is up to the contractor to develop all drawings. There is a limited number of drawings generated by contractor. They are currently in contractor format and may not be representative of the latest configuration found in the field; these drawings are provided for reference (see drawings package attachment).

Q & A Session Page 5 of 5

9) 1.2.3.2 Tech Order Updates:

a) Are the TO’s 33D4-6-442-1 and 33D4-6-442-4 available for bid purposes, what is the format contractor will be working with?

These TO’s are not available for bid purposes.

b) Have TO’s been converted to work package format per TMCR requirements TM-86-01N. Will both TO’s be released for review before bid packages are due? Should contractor include both, update and changes to existing TO’s and converting manuals into electronic Work Package format per TMCR, TM-86-01N? Or will the conversion be done by others based on contractor edits to exiting manuals?

The intention of the TMCR is for the contractor to develop and deliver a new Technical Manual in accordance with the new A-18 Noise Suppressor to be fabricated and installed and in accordance to the Engineering Data to be developed by contractor. This technical manual will be exclusive to the new A-18 Noise Suppressor and will not have information pertinent to older configurations.

The existing TOs can be relased to the contractor to be used as reference to populate the new manual. The existing TOs are in PDF format. The new Technical Manual will be in SGML/Work Package Format, as per TMCR requirements.

10) Site visit Jun 15th :

It was noted at the site visit and contract sketches issued, that the AF32A-18 will be adjacent to several active facilities, there was also mention of a new child care center located directly aft of the A-18 site location. Has any noise studies been performed or consideration given to frequencies generated with Aircraft testing. Please note: The current AF32A-18 design does not have acoustical treatment in the after sections. Ie; turning vanes and stack. Are Noise related frequencies anticipated to be an issue for those working nearby?

This project took approximately one year to receive official siting, studies have been done measurements have been taken and the complete project has been authorized and approved to be built in the location specified.