Questions_ _Answers_Regarding_Draft_RFP_Questions_and_Answers_25JUL14.docx

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING

DRAFT RFP – FA8122-14-R-0002

Please note that this acquisition will utilize Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures, without formal technical proposals in accordance with FAR 15.101-2. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability.

Also, to be eligible for award, an Offeror must be determined responsible. A Determination of Contractor Responsibility will be conducted in accordance with FAR 9.1 which includes but is not limited to the following:

· FAR 9.104-4 – General Standards

· FAR 9.104-3 – Application of Standards

· FAR 9.104-4 – Subcontractor Responsibility

· FAR 9.104-5 – Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters

· FAR 9.104-6 – Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System

· FAR 9.104-7 – Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses

1. Page 5, Paragraph 2, Request the inclusion of “paragraph 3.E” All Modules returned to service will meet the inspection criteria established in T.O. Reference CFM56-2B Engine Shop Manual Task 72-00-54-200-001-D, paragraph 3.E LOW PRESSURE TURBINE ROTOR/STATOR MODULE-INSPECTION and must comply with Service Bulletin 72-0365.

Answer: The words, Paragraph 3.E has been added to Page 5, Paragraph 2, first sentence.

2. Page 4, Sub-Paragraph 1.11 Remanufacture Procedures, Paragraph 2: “or commercial inventories approved by the USAF and/or OEM” Contractor shall acquire all component parts from Air Force approved vendors, Government inventory, Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) approved vendors, or commercial inventories approved by the USAF and/or OEM.

· Request the listing of approved commercial inventories be provided at your earliest to ensure adequate analysis of available replacement stock.

Answer: The Government does not have a list of approved commercial inventories, therefore one will not be provided.

3. It appears Non-LLP components commercial components are authorized, still, but could you please clarify the first sentence in para 2 under 1.11 (part in bold/underline for emphasis):

“Contractor shall acquire all component parts from Air Force approved vendors, Government inventory, Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) approved vendors, or commercial inventories approved by the USAF and/or OEM.”

Answer: The Government does not have a list. If there is an approved PMA source in the past, then the Government can get it from them. The contractor would have to show that they have been approved before.

4. Page 4, Sub-Paragraph 1.11 Remanufacture Procedures, Paragraph 3: “either brand new or fully restored” The Contractor shall ensure all four stages of LPT blades are either brand new or fully restored to “as new” condition.

· Confirm brand new OEM blades are not required to be inspected and/or reworked to meet the minimum pre-twist angles stated on Page 5.

Answer: Yes, that is correct.

5. Page 6, Sub-Paragraph 1.12 FAA Form 8130-3, “shall provide a completed FAA Form 8130-3…rework/remanufactured…”:

The Contractor shall provide a completed FAA Form 8130-3, Airworthiness Approval Tag, with each assembly or component part that has been Reworked/Remanufactured with the intent of approval for returning these assemblies or components parts to service.

· Request revision to include or Certificate of Conformance.

The FAA Form 8130-3 Maintenance Release Tag is derived from FAA Order 8130.21 for use in the FAA regulated commercial aero industry. As military components are not “FAA regulated,” the issuance of a Certificate of Conformance is applicable. All technical data supplied on the Certificate of Conformance is basically the same as the FAA Form 8130-3.

Answer: The Government will not include a Certificate of Conformance. A completed FAA Form 8130-3 shall be provided. The FAA Form 8130-3 will be used as the Certificate of Conformance.

Questions 5-8 in red are additional questions that are based on the questions and answers from Industry Day

6. Do you accept deviations, Engineering Support Activities that are already approved in the commercial world? Answer: Repair deviations are considered “Reverse Engineering” and require separate CAT IV SAR submittals. This can add a significant amount of time to the approval process.

Supplemental question: Are there approved LLP DER repairs, in addition to, non-LLP DER repairs approved by the Government for Module 13 / 15?

Answer: The Government does not have DER Repairs that can be provided. All DER Repairs will have to be submitted and approved ahead of time before being used.

7. Service Bulletins (SB) or Airworthiness Directives through the Comprehensive Engine Management System (CEMS) – When you get a module how do you know what needs to be done?

Answer: CEMS and part number (some SBs change P/Ns).

Supplemental Question on SOW paragraph 1.12 FAA Form 8130-3: If the SOW Input and Output P/Ns are the same, could some SBs NOT change the P/Ns?

Answer: Yes, some SBs do not change the output P/Ns.

8. The Performance Work Statement has scrap rates on the parts non LLPs or LLPs at a rate of .16%. Is there any more information that can be given such as history? Will it be a requirement in the next solicitation?

Answer: No scrap rate can be provided.

Supplemental Question on SOW paragraph 1.11 Remanufacture Procedures: Can the Government provide LLP Time Since New (TSN) and Cycles Since New (CSN) data for accurate provisioning and pricing?

Answer: This information is provided through CEMS Reporting.

9. If it falls below .16% would it be over and above?

Answer: No, it is not considered over and above.

Supplemental Question on SOW paragraph 1.11 Remanufacture Procedures: Will LLP replacement be considered as Over and Above if the rate exceeds .16%?

Answer: This requirement is for remanufacture and the use of over and above CLINs will not be used.

10. Question on SOW paragraph 1.11 Remanufacture Procedures: It is unclear what the statement “Non-LLP used serviceable commercial components shall be from used commercial inventories acquired originally from an Air Force or OEM approved vendors” is trying to say. Can an example be provided of “commercial inventories acquired originally from an Air Force approved vendor”?

Answer: Parts Manufacturing Authority (PMA) source has been approved by the Air Force.

11. A contractor has inventory of CFM56 components were originally manufactured by and acquired from the OEM; and according to trace documents were not from supplier sources that have been subject to any violation, penalty, or disciplinary actions leading to FAA disapproval of its aircraft, engine maintenance or operations (such as Emery). Component trace documents also show that the components were not subject to OEM-mandated restrictions relating to submersion, operation in volcanic ash, or exposure to radiation.

Will a contractor that has CFM56 inventory be authorized for this effort as it has under other F108 procurements?

Answer: If these facts can be documented and there were no other facts and circumstances deemed relevant by the AF that would affect the decision process, the answer may be yes. You would have to submit an FAA 8130-3 documenting everything, then the government would be able to make a factual decision rather than this hypothetical response.