QA_MEC_Test_Stand.pdf

Questions for FA8125-16-Q-0041 - MEC Test Stand Purchase

Q1. Is a site map available?

A: Yes. There is a vicinity and project area map that can be provided at your request with proof of DD

2345 (for local security reasons, it is not being posted to FBO).

Q2. Is a supply duct to be provided by contractor? Is exhaust required?

A: To the extent necessary, supply duct is to be provided and installed by contractor. See SOW para.

3.1, primary bullet number seven (7). See revised SOW para. 3.1, for exhaust requirements.

Q3. Is a floor drain supplied by the Government?

A: Floor drain is located across the room from the install location of the MEC test stand. Requirements for calibration tank drainage, including revisions, are stipulated in revised SOW para. 3.1.

Q4. Is the stand replacing existing capability, or is this new capability?

A: The stand will provide additional MEC testing capability to the Air Force.

Q5. Regarding level of technologies required, does the new stand need to be the same as the old stands?

A: Required technologies, layouts and general configurations are detailed within the SOW and

Appendices H, I and J.

Q6. Is the layout of the console set?

A: Yes, as per SOW and Appendix H.

Q7. Is operator fume exhaust required?

A: Reference answer to Q2 above.

Q8. SOW paragraph 3.1.6 states "The Contractor shall furnish all chemicals required for the installation and start-up of the MEC test stand." We understood that contractor would provide MIL-PRF-7024 calibration fluid for use during factory acceptance and that the government would provide this fluid for test stand installation, start-up, and training at Tinker AFB. Please confirm?

A: See revised SOW para. 3.1.6.

Q9. Are MEC test stands manual or automatically operated?

A: The test stand is partially manual, partially automatic. Details are denoted in SOW and Appendices.

Q10. Are Strong Arms or Flat Panel monitors preferred?

A: Monitor requirements are detailed in SOW para. 3.5.4, primary bullet number six (6) and Appendix H.

Q11. SOW paragraph 4.8.1 states that only an F108 MEC shall be provided for acceptance at contractor facility. Would the government consider providing one each of all UUTs for acceptance at contractor facility in order to minimize risk and potential delays with the test stand once delivered?

A: Each of the four (4) remaining UUT’s will be available for testing at the Contractor’s facility, if requested. All factory testing shall be conducted by Contractor’s personnel.

Q12. SOW paragraph 5.5. Describes what sounds like commercial manuals in contractor format.

However, it also mentions an IPB. Can a sample of what format/content is expected be provided?

A: Appendix L, Sample Operations and Maintenance Instructions-Format and Appendix M, Sample IPB, T.O. 33D4-6-665-4 detailing the desired information required will be added to the revised SOW list of Appendices and will be made available upon request with proof of DD 2345.

Q13. 3.5.10.1 - Please clarify expectations for "self-test" functionality.

A: The intent is that the software should be developed to provide both confidence and functional testing to the largest extent possible without adding additional pieces of test equipment to the MEC test stand. Contractor should develop software to utilize an instrument’s built-in test (BIT) functionality, when possible, in order to query the instrument to verify hardware performance using only internal resources. Contractor should also develop software to perform functional testing, when possible, to verify test stand cabling continuity and integrity. Purpose of both confidence and functional testing is to have software that allows operator to diagnose faulty equipment/cabling and minimize troubleshooting/repair time. Also permits operator to establish a level of trust when attempting to determine if the test stand or a UUT is potentially at fault during test failures.

Q14. Due to the scope of the project and effort needed to produce a quality proposal, we request that the bid due date be extended by two weeks.

A: Amendment 01 extends the solicitation to 23 June, 2016.

Q15. Reference SOW paragraph 3.1.5 - Is the 80DBA noise level requirement with the LRU operational?

Please define "under load"?

A: “Under load” means any time the UUT or sub-component is undergoing a test procedure.

Q16. What is the approximate duration for PMEL to calibrate an MEC test stand?

A: Normal time to calibrate a MEC test stand, excluding flowmeters, is sixteen (16) hours. Normal calibration time for flowmeters is four (4) calendar days.

Q17. What is the approximate duration for 555 SMXS/MXDEF to perform the IVV?

A: Duration for 555 SMXS/MXDEF to perform the IVV is estimated at one calendar month.

Q18. During the Correlation process:

a. Will government operators be running the UUTs on the Master and New Stands?

b. I assume the contractor is required to gather data from the Master and New Stand, correct?

c. Can the Master data be obtained before the Factory test in order to have bench mark numbers?

A: See below:

a. Government operators will be assisting the Contractor by running the UUT’s on the Master and New MEC stand as a part of the correlation effort (2 UUT’s as per Appendix F) and functional checkout of remaining UUT’s at Tinker AFB. Factory Witness Testing will be conducted by Contractor personnel.

b. Contractor is required to gather all necessary correlation data from Master and New MEC stand.

c. Single run Master data for the F108 MEC can be provided prior to Factory Witness Test.

Q19. The SOW says "Contractor shall Coordinate all costs associated with this IVV with 555 SMXS/MXDEF? Does this mean that the cost the government (555 SMXS) will charge needs to be included in this proposal? If so what is that cost?

A: Yes, costs will need to be included in proposal. Cost to have 555 SMXS/MXDEF complete their IVV effort is twenty-two thousand dollars ($22,000). Please note that 555 SMXS/MXDEF personnel will not be available for contact purposes until after the solicitation has been awarded.

Q20. Would it be possible to get a 110/129 UUT for the factory test in order to make sure the "Closed Loop operating capability for testing 110-129 metering valves and governor system leakage loops (as per T.O. 6J3-4-120-3)? If not does the government have an metering valve xdcr that could be provided in order to at least make sure the new stand reads the same as the master?

A: Reference answer to Q11 above.

Q21. Is there any additional info on what PMEL wants for their software screens other than what is in the SOW? (i.e. minimum # of points for alignment, As Left reporting, summary of adjustments).

A: Reference revised SOW, para. 3.1.

Q22. Do you have more specific requirements on the "Self-Test" Software. Does full simulation hardware need to be provided so the Self-Test software can check each I/O point or will an internal diagnostic be sufficient?

A: Reference answer to Q13 above.

Q23. What is the Latest "Air Force approved Windows Enterprise version" if not Windows 7?

A: Windows 7 shall be utilized for hardware compatibility reasons.

Q24. If the SOW specified PC is not available rated C1D2 can a PC (that meets the SOW spec) be put in a purge box at the test stand??

A: Yes, as per SOW para. 3.1, primary bullet 7, purge air cabinets are allowed, however they must comply with all requirements listed in SOW.

Q25. The Honeywell Transducers called out in Appendix J are custom made by Honeywell and are not really COTS. Can these be substituted with a more available Honeywell P/N that is more available off the shelf and meets the same spec?

A: Substitute Honeywell Transducers are allowed but only to the extent they are currently listed in AFMETCAL as approved devices, as per SOW.

Q26. SOW paragraph 3.5.10.3 states: "Main Menu shall list each individual TP." Do you want the menu to navigate to the T.O. paragraph level or to the test point level? For example the 6J3-4-120-3 T.O.

shows a Power Lever Transducer Schedule of 10 points. Does there need to be a menu for each of the 10 points on the schedule or just a menu for the 10 test screens that make up the schedule?

A: The main menu should navigate to the T.O. paragraph levels.

Q27. The SOW and the dwgs appendix does not address the EIU (712AA) from the test stand that seems to be used in several of the tests in the UUT appendix. Will the 712AA requirement in the T.O.s not be needed for this new stand?

A: The intent, as stipulated in the SOW, is for the Contractor to provide a standalone test stand, including but not limited to all necessary equipment, fixturing, software and controls necessary to fully and successfully test every MEC listed in the SOW. Original designs included the use of an ‘EIU’, subsequent designs implemented a different approach. In this instance, the Government is not dictating what configuration shall be used to accomplish the required testing, this will be left to the Contractor.

Chosen configuration must nevertheless be in full compliance with the SOW and all associated documents.

Q28. If the new stand does need an EIU 712AA do you want it to be like the existing mounted on a panel or done in software on the HMI?

A: Reference answer to Q27 above.

Q29. Do Test Stand UUT results/reports need to be automatically uploaded to the existing LAN system?

A: Reference revised SOW, para. 3.1.

Q30. Does the Test Stand need to include a printer for test reports or will it just print to the existing LAN printers?

A: Existing LAN printers will be utilized for any and all printing requirements, no new printer required.

Q31. Can the motor starter pilot devices be on the HMI or do you want hardwired pilot devices like the existing stand?

A: Motor starter pilot devices may be on either the HMI or hardwired.

Q32. Is a current copy of TO 33D4-6-665-4, as referenced in the Purchase Description for FA8125-16-Q- 0041 (MEC Test Stand) available for review?

A: Reference answer to Q12 above.

Q33. Is a set of drawings labeled 3C3972G05 available for review?

A: A limited set of 3C3972G05 drawings will be made available upon request with proof of DD 2345 and will be labeled as Appendix N, 3C3972G05 Supplemental Drawings-Reference Only. However these drawings are not complete and the Government in no way endorses their accuracy or sufficiency.

Drawings will be for reference only.

Q34. Reference 5.1 - MIL-STD 31000A has a TDP Option Selection Worksheet incorporated into the document. Will the government fill this worksheet out so we have a clear understanding of the governments expectations with respect to the TDP?

A: Government will fill in a TDP Option Selection Worksheet or provide further guidance as to exact requirements and make available to Contractors once completed.

Q35. Can the government provide the flight components that are required in the fixture kits?

A: As per para 3.1, the new MEC test stand is to be a standalone unit with all necessary fixturing required to test each MEC listed. This includes the pressure regulator needle valves (PRNV) or ‘flight components’ referenced in this question. The required PRNV’s are part number 8909-114 and are available exclusively from Woodward, Inc. A total of four (4) PRNV’s are required and shall be provided by Contractor.

Q36. Reference 5.1 - MIL-STD 31000A - Will the government require drawing of all vendor parts? Will the vendor data/catalog sheets meet the requirements?

A: Vendor data/catalog sheets are acceptable.

Q37. IS THE DIRECTIVE THAT NO ACCESS TO PURGE BOXES FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE TEST STAND BE ALLOWED A FIRM DIRECTIVE? THIS IS GOING TO MAKE MANUFACTURING AND MAINTENANCE FAIRLY

DIFFICULT.

A: Reference revised SOW, para. 3.5.2.

Q38. IS IT REQUIRED FOR THE RESERVOIR EMERGENCY DUMP PUMPING SYSTEM TO BE ACTIVE

INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE TEST STAND CONTROL SYSTEMS?

A: Reference revised SOW, para. 3.1

Q39. Reference SOW Para. 3.3.1 - HOW FAR AWAY FROM THE TEST STAND WILL THE REMOTE ELECTRICAL ENCLOSURES BE LOCATED AND THEN DOES THE 200 FOOT POWER SOURCE DISTANCE

ESTIMATE STILL HOLD TRUE?

A: Reference revised SOW, para. 3.3.1.

Q40. DOES THE 200 FOOT DISTANCE ESTIMATE REPRESENT STRAIGHT LINE DISTANCE OR DOES IT TAKE

INTO ACCOUNT RISES, DROPS, AND CORNERS?

A: Reference answer to Q39 above.

Q41. WILL THE GOVERNMENT BE SUPPLYING THE PROPERLY RATED DISCONNECT SWITCH AND / OR

CIRCUIT BREAKER AT THE POINT OF THE POWER SOURCE?

A: Government will be providing properly sized/rated disconnecting means as required for test stand.

Q42. SOW Para. 3.5.3 DOES NOT ADDRESS UUT PANEL RECEPTACLES AND UUT PLUG CONNECTIONS.

HOW ARE THESE TO BE HANDLED?

A: Reference revised SOW, para. 3.5.3.

Q43. Reference SOW Para 3.6 - PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR RECOMMENDED ELECTRICAL CLASSIFICATION

AND PMEL SURVEY VENDOR INFORMATION.

A: Electrical Classification and PMEL Survey: There is no Government pre-qualified list of vendors. This paragraph has been removed from SOW section 3.6. Contractor will need to independently investigate and choose suitable options based upon the requirements/expertise stipulated in SOW para. 3.6.

Q44. WE SEE NO MENTION OF A FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM HOWEVER WE ARE AWARE THAT ALL PRIOR UNITS DID INCLUDE SUCH A SYSTEM. DOES THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM

EXIST FOR THIS TEST STAND?

A: Fire suppression system is not required for this test stand.