T56 Follow On Industry Day Slides Final (1).pdf

448th Supply Chain Management Wing

T56 Series 3.0/-15 & 3.5/-15A Follow-on Repair

Competitive Contract Virtual Industry Day 13 June 2024

Controlled by: 448 SCMW Controlled by: OMO CUI Category: BUDG, PRVCY Distribution/Dissemination Controls: FEDCON POC: Mr. Pat Nash (405) 734-8223

Randy Mikula Lead Logistics Officer

AFSC/421 SCMS/GUMF

COMM: 405-308-6814

randall.mikula@us.af.mil

Treva Billinger Lead PCO

AFSC/PZAAA

Work: 405-884-4637 treva.billinger@us.af.mil

Supplying Warfighter Dominance

Classification

“The classification of the brief is unclassified, and the discussion can go up to unclassified”

Agenda 0900 Welcome and Agenda – Attendees Rules of Engagement T56 Industry Day Purpose and Goals Compliance with Regulations USAF T56 Depot Repair History Proposed Repair Contract Description Bid Qualifications Acronyms Questions/Comments Received Concerning Draft PWS

Agenda(-cont) Plan for 10-minute break during morning meeting at 0950

1300 Breakout Groups Discussions:

1300 – 1345 Contractor A

1400 – 1445 Contractor B

1500 – 1545 Contractor C

Attendees Contractors:

Standard Aero, San Antonio, TX Segers Aero Corporation, Fairhope, AL Turbopower LLC, Opalocka, FL Aircraft Technology Inc., Hollywood, FL Pacific Sky Supply, Inc., Los Angeles, CA

Government:

USAF, Tinker AFB, OK

Supply Chain Management, Contracting, Engineering, Tech Services, FMS

USN

NAVSUP, Philadelphia, PA

Rules of Engagement Be present and attentive

Follow the agenda and stay on topic

Create an inclusive and respectful environment

Let everyone participate and listen actively (due to the number of people involved, please raise your hand in MS Teams, at least for the main meeting when you have a question/comment). Please keep Teams on mute unless talking.

Questions/Action items from basic meeting Industry Day meeting will be recorded and shared to all participants via SAM.GOV

There’s no such thing as a dumb question in this meeting

The contracting officer is the sole point of contact for presenting questions regarding this effort after this Industry Day.

T56 Industry Day

Industry Day is an event held by a Department of Defense (DoD) Program Management Office (PMO) to present the plans for a current or future procurement to representatives from industry.

It is usually held prior to a Request for Proposal (RFP) being released or any major changes in a program. It’s an opportunity for the government to expresses its goals, schedule, and solicit feedback about a procurement.

During industry day there is an opportunity for industry to sit down with program office personnel in a private one-on-one session to ask questions and give feedback.

Purpose & Goals of Industry Day Industry Day is a good opportunity for industry to get an understanding of what the government needs and gain a better understanding of recent industry developments.

Industry Day Goals:

• To ensure synergy between the DoD program office and Industry representatives

• Consider Industry comments in the RFP development process

• Provide opportunity for Industry to ask questions

• Communicate program requirements

• Provide updates to the Industry on future program developments and acquisitions

Clear Objectives and Purpose, Early and Transparent Communication, Engagement of Key Stakeholders, Structured Agenda, Interactive Sessions, Feedback Mechanism, Information Dissemination, Compliance with Regulations, Post-Event Documentation, and Follow-Up Actions

USAF T56 Depot Repair History

T56 whole engines, modules, and hundreds of associated Line Replaceable Units (LRUs)/ Shop Replaceable Units (SRUs), have been worked under various T56 umbrella contracts since Kelly AFB, San Antonio closed its organic maintenance lines as part of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)

In 1999 the 15-year Propulsion Business Area (PBA) contract awarded to Lockheed Martin, transitioned F100 to Tinker under OC-ALC/Lockheed partnership, while the T56 workload remained at Kelly

All T56 work remained consolidated in building 230 location at Kelly, with the only transition being from contract to contract: Lockheed Martin Kelly Aviation Center (KAC) and Standard Aero Depot Maintenance/Repair (DMC/DRC) contracts

T56 depot workload has never changed its physical location

T56 workload has always been worked on single all-inclusive contracts whole engine/modules/MISTR concept, managed by AFLCMC/LPK/LPS

Compliance with Regulations DoD policy is that personnel can and should engage in communication with industry. However, the policy also clearly states that such communications should be fair, even, and transparent and conducted in an appropriate manner, taking into consideration applicable ethics and procurement laws and regulations.

The following are statutory and regulatory limitations on communicating with any nonfederal entity, to include members of the defense industrial base:

• Conflicts of Interest (18 U.S.C. § 208)

• Procurement Integrity (41U.S.C. §2102 and 48 C.F.R. § 3.104-4)

• Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. §1905)

• Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.2) “FACA”

• Impartiality (5 C.F.R. § 2635.101 and § 2635.501-503)

• Use of Nonpublic Information (5 C.F.R. § 2635.501-703)

Proposed Repair Contract Description Current contract expires 21 Dec 2025, expect follow-on to award by Nov 2025 It is the Government's intention to issue a (10 year) services contract with a 5-year basic with 5 one-year options & and a -8 clause for up to 6-month extension of services. We estimate the pre-solicitation to be issued in the Nov- Dec 2024 timeframe and the solicitation to be issued in Jan-Feb 2025

Obtain best value through competition Maximize versatility

Air Force contract will also be utilized by Navy and FMS partners Flexibility of ID/IQ contract structure

FAR Part 15 Firm Fixed Price Contract Teardown, Test, and Evaluation (TT&E) CLINs for most modules and whole engines with CLINs for level of repair pricing.

Flexible use of Over and Above CLIN, to cover other T56 parts support/repair Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Blend of Contractor Furnished Material and Govt. Furnished Material (CFM/GFM)

Qualifications to Bid Must be either a Rolls-Royce Authorized Military Overhaul Facility (AMOF) or Rolls-

Royce Authorized Maintenance Center (AMC)

Source Approval Request (SAR) packages approval from the Air Force is required for 4 separate packages: Quick Engine Change Kit (QECK), Power Section, Torque Meter, and Reduction Gear Box

QECK SAR approval can be obtained from the C-130 System Program Office (SPO) at Robins AFB, GA the others are obtained from AFLCMC/LPS Tinker AFB, OK. Since these are critical safety items, SARs must be re-substantiated every three years.

Acronyms There are many thousands of acronyms across the different services, but there’s a few that are very important in terms of bidding on this USAF contract:

GFP – Government Furnished Property (includes two subsets used in this contract)

GFE – Government Furnished Equipment. These are the test stands, machinery, fixtures, tools, etc. that are owned by the Government and in most cases loaned or leased to the contractor to perform tasks required to accomplish repair/overhaul of

GFM

GFM – Government Furnished Material… has two subsets Government owned end items to be repaired: engines, modules, accessory parts, like fuel pumps, exciters, etc… the actual parts being inspected, repaired, or overhauled

Government owned piece parts provided “free” to contractor to be consumed in the repair/overhaul when job routed parts must be condemned. Table of Allowance (TOA) parts.

CFM – Contractor Furnished Material… piece parts or material the contractor is responsible for forecasting/sourcing/furnishing, providing (NOT CUSTOMER FURNISHED

MATERIAL) 13

Questions/Comments Received Concerning Draft PWS

1. Should predictive maintenance and Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) be added back into the PWS? This contract is for the repair of engines, modules, and MISTR items. Failure data collected during repair/overhaul shall be provided to USAF engineering. The supply chain is responsible for repairing damaged parts and returning them to supply in serviceable condition. It would be up to SPO/LPS to fund any RCM effort. Realistically, this is most likely the last repair contract for USAF T56.

2. Should Program Management CLINs be added to follow-on contract? Engineering analysis and parts supportability analysis should be rolled into pricing of parts repair.

Figure out the support needed and include it in the existing CLIN pricing. AFSC is working an effort to obtain 3.5/-15A Sustainment Kits; like the mod kits but refined to support repairs.

3. As part of obsolescence management, should access to AMARG, AKA the boneyard, be made available to harvest parts short in supply? Reclamation has always been a part of T56 sustainment, having been accomplished many times via O&A. We anticipate reclamation in a more increased and predictable fashion.

Concerning Draft PWS (-cont)

4. Anticipated timings for publication of DRAFT Solicitation and attachments, formal solicitation issuance, and award? We estimate the pre-solicitation to be issued in the Nov- Dec 2024 timeframe and the solicitation to be issued in Jan-Feb 2025, and award by Nov 2025.

5. Will this acquisition be a total or partial small business set aside that will result in a Single-Award Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract? What will be the Period of Performance? 5 years? We will know the small business set aside answer prior to pre-solicitation. This contract is planned to be a single award IDIQ contract. POP 5 base years with 5 option years and possible 6-month extension. Estimate award Nov 2025, estimated base years up Nov 2030, option years 2035, six-month extension could get into May 2036.

6. Will the USAF be seeking Past Performance as part of their bid evaluation? No

Concerning Draft PWS (-cont)

7. Is a DRAFT set of Bid Evaluation criteria available to share? Not yet

8. What are TAT targets for the USAF by module? When does the TAT time clock start and finish? TAT starts after induction of module or order whichever is later. What does USAF define as induction start? When you put it in work.

9. What condition will assets be received in? Will there be any Series 3.5 upgrades as part of this Scope? What condition will Accessories be received in? F Condition, Unserviceable Reparable Condition. Not for USAF, but quite possibly FMS 3.5 upgrades. Accessories should be in F condition as well.

10. Does each Line Item in Attachment 1 represent an individual CLIN with 225 CLINS total? Yes, along with O&A, transitional, etc CLINs

11. For Rows 13, 14, 15- what -15 Assets in Column D for USAF, USN, and FMS do these represent? Assembled engines (Power Section/RGB/TM), Power Sections, etc.- please define These are Best Estimated Over and Above shop hours for USAF, USN, and FMS

Concerning Draft PWS (-cont)

12. Is Attachment 2 USAF GFM list intended to be all-inclusive or does this represent only a portion of USAF GFM (and NAVAIR/FMS CFM) that will be provided to the Contractor? The USAF GFM list is expected to grow, with the availability of 3.5/-15A sustainment kits. From the latest we have, the Navy and FMS plan on any piece parts needed to be CFM.

13. How soon before Engines and Power Sections are provided, will USAF provide detailed Turbine configuration, LLP status and Operational/Failure history for each so to allow adequate time for planning, ordering, and stocking anticipated replacement material?

This would be in CEMS access, but when do you need it?

14. Will USAF provide RFI Engine Accessories if they fallout/are determined to be unserviceable during Inspection or during the Repair process (if these tasks are included in the Scope of Supply? Everything is Job Routed first and GFM for parts on the GFM listing that condemns will be provided… everything else is considered CFM

15. Will USAF provide Core Power Sections and QECK's from which to cannibalize material to improve TAT’s? No, but maybe yes FMS. We still have to nail this one down.

Concerning Draft PWS (-cont)

16. Will Val/Ver be required? Initial Product Evaluations (IPEs). Will defer to engineering, but understand validation/verification is usually for changes to equipment, TCTOs, or Tech Order changes.

17. Can the Navy provide now pre-bid the component failure rate history on NAVAIR T56- A-16 Power Sections and QECK's so that the Contractor can properly forecast Material failure rates in developing our bid proposal for Supply plan and anticipated Cost and Pricing? Ask Navy( Tony) and Mike Geary

18. Can we see DRAFT Attach K, K1, K2? Tony Trivarelli, Navy attachments

19. PWS 1 d) Potential 3.5 workloads are forecasts for fleet specific efforts. Should a Series

3.5 full C-130H fleet modification approval occur in the future, the Government retains the right to have full fleet workload performed via the best acquisition strategy for the Government and the modification requirements. Does this mean Workshare between 2 or more T56 AMC's versus a Sole Source award? USAF is almost complete with their 3.5/-15A mod program

Concerning Draft PWS (-cont)

20. Since the USAF's T56 Series III/Series 3.5 maintenance philosophy allows for mixing/matching modules, do the USAF mate overhauled/serviceable modules at the Little Rock I-level depot and perform bare-engine test before installing in QECK and install on aircraft? If not, how is performance/performance improvement measured?

No. Field units will test a whole engine with QECK and props installed. Outdoor engine test cell records this information in a trailer nearby.

21. Is the metric for 100% compliant QECK SAR tech data package submission or first tech data package submission? Question for Robins/C-130 SPO?

22. Would GFE supplied for repairs be parts or module for cannibalization ??? GFE is equipment… stands, fixtures, tools, test equipment, etc. not for cannibalization

23. When can we have DRAFT Versions of all PWS-referenced Attachments for better understanding of requirements? Soon

24. Will the USAF or RRC be releasing Series 3.5 component repair procedures or does the Contractor need to develop repair procedures on their own for USAF approval? Yes, no, maybe. Some procedures are in place, some are in work, and some parts have no repair yet. 19

Concerning Draft PWS (-cont)

25. "Please confirm specific Contractor responsibility for Engine Power Section, RGB, and Torquemeter Modules, Engine Accessories, and QECK Accessories and Components.

Question: Is the Contractor responsible for processing repairs for the RGB and Torquemeter modules, Engine Accessories or QECK Accessories and Components if they fallout/are determined to be unservicable during inspection or Repair (if within Contractor Scope of Supply)? Yes, all parts should be job routed repaired within the scope of tech data… if a piece part cannot be repaired it should be sent to Material Review Board (MRB) to determine final disposition. Contractor would need to procure replacement part if it is not designated as GFM. Is the Contractor responsible for all Common T56 Series III Power Section parts not part of the Series 3.5 kit? Yes, if not provided as GFM. Question: Can USAF please provide direction on how the Contractor should properly price unknown quantities of parts needed without knowing the current turbine configuration, time and condition of Series III baseline configuration for adopting the 3.5 kit as well as condition of Engine Accessories and QECK Accessories and Components if confirmed they are within Scope of Supply?“ Use of TT&E at the time of induction. Engine operation time in CEMS.

Concerning Draft PWS (-cont)

26. How are Supply Chain lack of part availability and extremely long lead times (a very real potential due to unknown detailed Series III engine parts, LLP's, and Engine Accessories impact / and tie into these performance metrics? Relief will be considered.

Parts that are deemed CFM should be forecasted by contractor.

27. DCMA rep will be available within three working days of receipt to comply Please clarify. Is this addressing DCMA QAR acceptance of parts repaired by contractor?

28. Will there be any Series 3.0 units expected to be upgraded to 3.5? If yes, will Series 3.5 kits be provided by the Air force? No for USAF. TBD for FMS. Not sure what Navy is doing, but it won’t be on this contract… though we were hoping it would.

29. What is MRB Disposition process? Will BER replacement material be supplied or contractor responsibility Non-conforming parts, out of tech data, sent to MRB for final disposition. Again, very common theme. Parts that fallout from repair for BER or BPR are either obtained by contractor CFM or provided to contract as GFM in accordance with the Table of Allowance (ToA)

Concerning Draft PWS (-cont)

30. a) Does the contractor require an approval to proceed with 3.5 repairs? Not for repairs in tech data b) Will the contractor be responsible to supply 3.5 upgrade kits if necessary? Not likely c) Will RRC have released unique Series 3.5 material for purchase by the time this contract is executed (versus as only being available in upgrade kit form today)? No, but USAF is working with Rolls to buy 3.5 Sustainment kits, as Rolls-Royce is not planning on making any 3.5 parts ahead of an actual order.

USAF has some series 3.5 components in stock, but not enough to cover all scenarios.

The plan is to have 3.5 sustainment kits in hand, and keep at contractor in a bond room type situation, as parts are available, and consumed, future buys can be accomplished

31. Standard internal audit program and AS recertification audits suffice? Engineering to discuss

32. Is there a list for non-government companies (vendors) that have contract with USAF?

Engineering to discuss

33. Will repairs to containers be an O&A or is there a separate CLIN for containers There is a separate CLIN for empty containers. Containers associated with NHA assets shall be repaired under the NHA CLIN.

Concerning Draft PWS (-cont)

34. How are we shipping? Are we liable for not shipping with 1 day? Are we responsible for contacting the freight forwarder? Contractor and DCMA

35. Talking about Export Licenses? Is USAF signing the EUC? Which countries are we shipping to? FMS to discuss

36. Would an active reservist be authorized to use their CAC Cards for access on the contractor's behalf? Yes, but they would still have to request access and get approvals for the appropriate systems.

37. 1.12.1 This appears to say that a subcontractor to a prime on the USAF contract, would not be reimbursed Travel Costs for any Program Review Meetings. Correct the Government will not pay for any additional cost (overheads, subcontractor costs/add-ons, bulks, fees, or profit associated with Travel).

38. 1.13.4. Is a TCTO upgrade with a cost classified as an O&A or contractor responsibility? It would depend on what the change of scope is. If there is an increased cost to the contractor, it could be considered an O&A.

Concerning Draft PWS (-cont)

39. 1.15.3 For what purpose are we providing fuel bills to DCMA? Is there a test fuel cost re-imbursement? FMS to discuss

41. 1.15.3 What is the expectation for GFE repairs, are these accessories or are these parts that will be provided to facilitate the repair but just in as removed condition? PWS needs to be worked

42. 1.15.5 What is the expectation for GFE repairs, are these accessories or are these parts that will be provided to facilitate the repair but just in as removed condition? PWS needs to be worked

43. 1.15.7 Are non CLIN items going to be considered over and above? Yes

44. 1.15.9 Do the USAF have the latest DoD instructions for part marking compliance? Or this is something we have to look into on our own? Engineering IUID

Concerning Draft PWS (-cont)

45. 2.0 Please provide examples of instances where this might apply. Service Summary The Contractor shall be aware that the absence of any contract requirement in the Service Summary (SS) does not detract from its enforceability nor limit the rights or remedies of the Government under any other provision of the contract. The Contractor shall ensure the SS requirements are accomplished.

46. 1.10 Confirm what is IN and what is OUT for Contractor responsibility- Engine Modules, Engine and QECK Components and Accessories Please clarify question.

Agenda

More Questions

Supplying Warfighter Dominance 27