Questions_Answers_FA8122_19_R_0001.pdf

Remanufacture of F108 Module 13/15 Questions and Answers Related to Draft Documents Posted with Synopsis FA8122-19-R-0001

Question 1:

The draft SOW currently specifies compliance with amongst others the following SBs, Reference SOW section (1.12 Remanufacture Procedures)

SB 72-0525 Accident Involved Hardware

SB 72-0745 Replacement of Stage 1 LPT Blade 301-330-114-0 and 301-330-115-0

Since both SBs are S/N specific, if a S/N from these SBs was to be encountered during a Module visit, would the required replacement part be considered as an O&A CLIN?

Government Response Question 1:

No; there will not be an Over and Above (O&A) CLIN on this contract.

Question 2:

Will a Module records package containing LLP cycles remaining be sent at contract award? Reference SOW section (1.12 Remanufacture Procedures), since all LLP’s are to be new and unused, and returned to the Module they were removed from if they comply with the min cycle requirement, for the LLPs that do not comply. If new inventory is unavailable, lead time for the OEM to manufacture new LLPs can be extensive making it impossible to comply with the 30 day Module TAT.

Government Response Question 2:

Yes, Comprehensive Engine Management System (CEMS) data will be provided for the modules prior to shipment.

Question 3:

Will PMA / Counterfeit parts, & parts having previously performed DER repairs be replaced with Government furnished GFP?. Reference 1.16 Designated Engineering Representative (DER) Processes and Procedures & 1.17 Parts Not Listed in the Illustrated Parts Catalogue (IPC): & 1.25 Counterfeit Prevention Plan (CPP).

Government Response Question 3:

No, PMA / Counterfeit parts and parts with previously performed DER repairs will not be replaced with Government Furnished Property.

Question 4:

Will the SOW be updated with a list of previously approved DER repairs being approved on Module 13/15? Reference 1.16 Designated Engineering Representative (DER) Processes and Procedures

Government Response Question 4:

A list of previous Request for Variance details will not be provided.

Question 5:

Reference SOW section (1.18 Re-installation of LLP) “The remanufacture source should expect a 1.6% replacement rate for all LLP’s”

If the 1.6% replacement factor of the min Cycle remaining of 3,500 is exceeded will an O&A CLIN cover the added cost?

Government Response Question 5:

No, there will not be an Over and Above (O&A) CLIN on this contract.

Question 6:

If the answer to Q. 5 is No;

Will an equitable adjustment be considered for LLP replacement over the 1.6% replacement rate forecast for parts that do not comply with a minimum of 3,500 Cycles remaining?

Government Response Question 6:

No adjustments or Over and Above (O&A) will be considered.

Question 7:

Does BER apply to the entire Module, or individual parts found within each Module, or both?

Reference, 1.23 Beyond Economical Repair (BER):

Government Response Question 7:

Beyond Economical Repair (BER) applies to the entire module.

Question 8:

What will the cost of the end Item be based on for individual BER parts? Reference, 1.23 Beyond Economical Repair (BER):

Government Response Question 8:

Not Applicable; Beyond Economical Repair (BER) applies to the entire module

Question 9:

When a part is found to be non-repairable, will the part value be taken into consideration and have an effect on BER status for the module? Reference, 1.23 Beyond Economical Repair (BER):

Government Response Question 9:

No.

Question 10:

If the ACO/PCO authorizes work over the 75% BER limit will an O&A CLIN or equitable adjustment be applied? Reference, 1.23 Beyond Economical Repair (BER):

Government Response Question 10:

No, there will not be an Over and Above (O&A) CLIN on this contract.

Question 11:

Will the imbedded files provided within the SOW be made available? Reference 1.30 Reporting:

Government Response Question 11:

Yes, the embedded files will be available.

Question 12:

Would historical scrap rates be available?

Government Response Question 12:

Historical scrap rates will not be provided.

Question 13:

What is the average cycle accumulation on the modules that will be part of this program?

Government Response Question 13:

Average cycle accumulation data will be provided at the pre-proposal meeting.

Question 14:

What is the average annual cycle forecast per year?

Government Response Question 14:

Average annual cycle forecast data will be provided at the pre-proposal meeting.

Question 15:

The US Navy requires a minimum of 5100 remaining cycles for LLPs in this Module (same P/N for both the -100 & -200 configurations). Has the USAF considered refurbishment of removed US Navy assets that do not meet the 5100 remaining cycle requirement to be used on this project?

Government Response Question 15:

This will be considered on a case by case basis

Question 16:

It is not clear what is to be done with LLPs that do not meet the USAF 3500 cycle requirement. Would the USAF allow LLPs with less than 3500 cycles remaining to be refurbished and used for MRO of other military operator CFM56-2 engines that have a lower LLP remaining cycle limit (i.e, exchange based on credits)?

Government Response Question 16:

No, the USAF will not allow life limited parts (LLPs) with less than 3500 cycles to be refurbished and used for MRO of other military operator CFM56-2 engines. LLPs that do not meet the USAF 3500 cycle requirement shall be condemned on site per SOW 1.24.

Question 17:

According to RFP Addendums to FAR 52.212-1 - ITO & FAR 52.212-2 - Evaluation Factors for Award, price is the only evaluated factor and contract award will be made to the Offeror with the lowest total evaluated price (TEP). It appears that no criteria is specified for a technical proposal nor does it appear that a technical proposal will be evaluated for award. Since award will be made to the approved source with the lowest TEP, please confirm that a technical proposal is not required.

Government Response Question 17:

A technical proposal is not required. As stated in the synopsis, paragraph 16(b), sources must be qualified prior to being considered for award. See RQR-PSD-1, attached to Synopsis FA8122-19-R-0001, for qualification and/or re-substantiation requirements.

Question 18:

Will the government provide Special Packaging Instruction (SPI) for the reusable containers (Referenced as SPI F000003XA6)?

Government Response Question 18:

The SPI will be included in the contract information for shipping.

Question 19:

Will the government provide Module 13/15 historical part replacement factors?

Government Response Question 19:

Replacement factors will not be provided.

Question 20:

Will the government provide a list of DERs that have been accepted by the USAF?

Government Response Question 20:

A list of previous Request for Variance details will not be provided.

Question 21:

SOW Section 1.1

“The Contractor shall perform remanufacture of engine components at a Federal Aviation Administration Part 145 facility rated for CFM56-2B engine components.”

Item 23 in the synopsis states that foreign participation is permitted. Will the above sentence be modified to add “or equivalent” after FAA to clarify other agency approved shops are acceptable i.e.

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA)?

Government Response Question 21:

The Statement of Work (SOW) will be updated to include “or equivalent” to the sentence referenced in Question 21 above.

Question 22:

Does the USAF envision a possible Multiple Award Contract (MAC) for this work?

Government Response Question 22:

No, this contract will not be a multiple award contract

Question 23:

Would the USAF reconsider a Mod 13/15 award decision based on Best Value (versus Low Price – Technically Acceptable) to address performance excellence?

Government Response Question 23:

The USAF is not, at this time, considering a change in source selection strategy for this acquisition.