FA8125-17-R-0002_Q&A.docx
DOCX document 18 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Oven Control Upgrades Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8125-17-R-0002
About this file
Q&A Document
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SOW_Oven_Control_Upgrade_Revised.pdf | ||
| Appendix_D_Revised.pdf | ||
| A01_FA8125-17-R-0002.pdf | ||
| Compiled_FA8125-17-R-0002.pdf | ||
| Appendix_D.docx | DOCX document | |
| SOW_Oven_Control_Upgrade.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Oven Control Upgrades – FA8125-17-R-0002 Questions and Answers The following questions and answers are provided to clarify the published RFP and attachments for solicitation FA8125-17-R-0002.
In order to allow offerors to incorporate the information contained in these questions and answers, the due date for responses on this solicitation has been extended until 1:00 PM Central Standard Time on Friday 17 February 2017.
If you have additional questions or comments, please provide these inputs to Contract Specialist Carrie Brown (carrie.brown.8@us.af.mil) by 8 February 2017 at 1:00 PM Central Standard Time to allow time for review and response.
| Q1. | The published SOW reads within section 1.2 for each oven control upgrade (specifically in 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and 1.2.4): "Replace existing control panel with off the shelf equipment, add Johnson Controls FX60 JAVA Application Control Engine (JACE) and Johnson Controls I/O or equivalent (equivalent must be able to communicate with FX Supervisor) adjacent to the new control panel location. |
| The FX60 is a HVAC supervisory system. It is obsolete as of mid-last year. The offeror understands the hardware requirement can be met with equivalent hardware so it is a moot point. However, companies would need to purchase this hardware to do engineering ahead of time to develop the technology for the requirement to communicate with the FX supervisor. | |
| As an FYI, commercial vendors tell me that the system has since been replaced with the FX80. | |
| A1. | As the process started over 12 months ago, the FX80 is the current desired solution. The SOW will be revised to reflect the change to requirements. |
| Q2. | It (the FX60) is also not something that I would recommend using in an industrial oven application. It is designed for HVAC and building control systems.In my experience of (multiple) control system upgrades on autoclaves and ovens, I have not seen a requirement for communicating with the building management system (FX supervisor). It is an unusual request. |
| I am requesting that the Government remove the requirement for communicating with the FX supervisor altogether. | |
| A2. | The Government will not remove the requirement to communicate with the FX supervisor. The project must provide communication between the sensors to the FX supervisor software that is already deployed in our server. As long as the proposed system provides communication with this software, there is no specific requirement if you propose an alternate solution to the Johnson FX80 JACE and Johnson Controls I/O or equivalent to monitor the equipment. |
| Q3. | The offeror would like to understand the driver for the requirement. If the end user has a specific need that they believe the FX supervisor will fulfill, it is likely that organizations may already have a solution that will meet that need and can implement parallel to the upgrade. |
| A3. | The project is intended to provide communication from sensors to the FX supervisor software that is already in place in our server. We have a control on the ovens that cannot currently be controlled. We need a better system not only to control recipes, and personnel interaction with the Ovens, but also to monitor the oven performance. |
| Q4. | Nowhere in the Statement of Work does it call out any type of utility consumption monitoring, i.e. gas meter, electric meter. Was this indeed the intention? If monitored, software would be able to provide trending, cost analysis, projections, track engery conservation, etc. As these meters can be costly, inclusion will impact the provided bids. It appears that the oven temperature would be far more valuable information than simply monitoring the heating element. Is this indeed what was intended? Or would you prefer to see the actual oven temperature monitored and tracked? |
| A4. | This parameter was incorrect. See revised Appendix D for corrected parameters. |
| Q5. | Appendendix D also references Blower Fan 1 RPM as a way to monitor filter effectiveness. What filters is this referring to? I am not aware of an filters in any of these 6 ovens. |
| A5. | See revised Appendix D for corrected parameters. |
| Q7. | Basically, the parameters called out in Appendix D don’t necessarily seem to be collecting the most valuable information as far as oven performance is concerned, nor for preventive maintenance when it comes to blowers, fans, and motors. Do you know if these parameters can be clarified? | |
| A7. | See revised Appendix D for corrected parameters. | |
| 2 | 7 February 2017 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .