Q A.docx

F108 Engine Turbine Clearance Control Valve (TCCV) Responses to Questions from Industry a1. QUESTION: Given the fact that upgrading from different configurations (i.e. G01, G02, G03, G04) to the G05 configuration requires significantly different parts input, a more competitive quote can be provided if we have an understanding of the current mix of the valve configuration in your fleet.

RESPONSE: The United States Air Force (USAF) does not have an accurate accounting of the sub National Stock Number (NSNs) in the inventory. The USAF will provide an estimate for proposal purposes only which will not become a part of the contractual document or Performance Work Statement (PWS). The estimate will be provided in FedBizOpps (FBO).

2. QUESTION: Would it be possible for the USAF to provide an estimate of the number of TCC valves which would require upgrade from NSN: 4810-01-139-2205PN or NSN: 4810-01-392-5278PN to NSN: 4810-01-460-3279PN?

RESPONSE: The United States Air Force (USAF) does not have an accurate accounting of the sub National Stock Number (NSNs) in the inventory. The USAF will provide an estimate for proposal purposes only which will not become a part of the contractual document or Performance Work Statement (PWS). The estimate will be provided in FBO.

3. QUESTION: Units requiring upgrade will be shipped under a DO for CLIN 0002 as there is no need to check and test them upon receipt; we can go straight to the upgrade/overhaul, correct?

RESPONSE: Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.1.2 of the PWS will be rewritten to specify whether or not units requiring upgrade can go direct to overhaul without passing through check and test. An amendment to the solicitation will be issued incorporating the revised PWS.

4. QUESTION: CLIN 0001 shows PACRN AAA which corresponds to "No Packaging Data Required" on the AFMC 158. CLIN 0002 has no PACRN identified. Should PACRN AAB be applicable to both CLINS 0001 and 0002?

RESPONSE: PACRN AAB is applicable to CLIN 0001 for units that pass check and test and are sent back to the USAF. PACRN AAB is applicable to CLIN 0002. An amendment to the solicitation will be issued for clarification.

5. QUESTION: Will the units arrive packed in accordance with the SPI?

RESPONSE: Units arriving at the contractor’s facility should be packaged IAW the Special Packaging Instructions (SPI). If units are not packaged IAW the SPI then Supply Discrepancy Report (SDR) procedures specified in PWS paragraph 1.1, and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL A005) should be used.

6. QUESTION: On Page 4 of the PWS, section 1.5 addresses condemned assets. Who bears the cost of such a condemned asset? Is there a certain BER (Beyond Economical Repair) threshold with which this is associated or is a condemned asset only a condemned asset because it does not meet "present and inspection limits?" To state it another way, if an asset in whole or in part (i.e. all parts of the TCCV or just the 5th or 9th stage housing for example) fails "present and inspection limits" per CMM 75-21-30, does the contractor bear the burden to replace this part with new? If so, is there a BER limit?

RESPONSE: Condemnations are considered to be part of the overhaul cost and are not separately priced. The PWS will be rewritten to include the BER paragraph. An amendment to the solicitation will be issued.

7. QUESTION: We understand that the government is taking, as a precaution against premature failure, and in lieu of near-impossible omniscience regarding each piece part's effect on the overall TCCV reliability, the action to replace all items that fail inspection with new parts rather than serviceable. However, if the CMM 75-21-30 indicates that a new or used item is acceptable for continued service, what is to say that the serviceable item will not last as long as the new item or that the effectiveness and longevity of the TCCV may not be more, or at least as, dependent upon assembly as it is upon the level of acceptable wear? Might we suggest that, rather than eschew the use of serviceable parts to replace parts that fail inspection, that the government allow the use of serviceable parts, but tighten the inspection criterion? This should allow the government to accomplish its goal of reliability and longevity, while allowing prospective contractors the opportunity to provide substantially better cost savings to the government over new. After all, the items that pass inspection in accordance with CMM 75-21-30 that are reused are, in fact, themselves, serviceable and not new. If the CMM 75-21-30 indicates that a new or used item is acceptable for continued service, what is to say that the serviceable item will not last as long as the new item or that the effectiveness and longevity of the TCCV may not be more, or at least as, dependent upon assembly as it is upon the level of acceptable wear?

RESPONSE: The USAF has reconsidered the use of serviceable parts in the overhaul process. The use of new and/or serviceable parts will be acceptable. PWS paragraph 1.2.1 will be rewritten to clarify this requirement and state the required documentation. This PWS rewrite will be provided in an amendment to the solicitation.

NOTE: An amendment to the solicitation will be issued with the changes to the PWS and the solicitation. The response date will be extended.

23 Sep 14