QAs (Rev.10Apr25) - UFATS FA812525Q0037.pdf

Q & A s : U F A T S P a g e 1 | 3

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE SUSTAINMENT CENTER (AFSC)

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS (REV.10APR2025)

FA8125-25-Q-0037, UNIVERSAL FUEL ACCESSORIES TEST STAND

Q1. Are the following documents available? They are listed in the appendix notes.

Appendix F Note –

1. MXG-6-670-1

Appendix G Note –

1. FATS General Test Station, D-3035-000 thru D-3035-013 2. FATS TS04-02 Test Station, D-3035-001-0402 thru D-3035-013-0402 3. FATS Original Test Station, H0305901 thru H0305918

A1. These documents are compiled in Appendix F and G. Documents could be named differently.

Q2. We noticed that there is a component missing from the solicitation that was included in the ROM.

We wanted to make sure that component wasn't dropped accidentally. Should this be included or was it excluded intentionally?

F16 Cooler 1583M13 6J15-7-56-3

A2. This component is still in the solicitation. The original ROM had the component listed with the wrong TO number, the correct TO number is 7J1-96-3.

Q3. Would you please confirm that for the coolers (heat exchangers), only testing with MIL-PRF-7024 (“fuel”) is required?

12 F16 Cooler 9338M23P04 7J1-91-3 13 F16 Cooler 1583M13 7J1-96-3 14 B2 Cooler UA538973-3 15A4-122-3 16 RC135 Cooler 301-779-401-0, 301-779-402-0 7J1-85-13 17 B1 Cooler UA538411-3 7J1-84-3 18 WC135 Cooler 794589 2J-TF33-53-11 WP18 19 RC135 Cooler 301-779-502-0 6J24-10-13

A3. For this project, the listed end items only require tests and the portions of tests that use MIL-PRF-7024 or are stated in the T.O. to be operable with either oil or solvent. The required test paragraphs are listed below for reference.

a. 7J1-91-3:

i. 7.2.c (Proof Pressure)

ii. 7.2.d (Pressure Drop, Oil circuit tested using solvent)

b. 7J1-96-3:

i. 7.2.h (Fuel Circuit Pressure Drop)

Q & A s : U F A T S P a g e 2 | 3

ii. 7.2.i (Fuel Circuit Proof Pressure)

c. 7J1-85-13:

i. Paragraph 3.D (Fuel Pressure Drop)

ii. Paragraph 3.E (Fuel Pressure Relief Valve Operation)

iii. Paragraph 3.F (Fuel System Pressure)

iv. Paragraph 3.G (Oil Pressure, performed with solvent per T.O.)

d. 7J1-84-3:

i. 7.2.4 (Fuel Circuit Pressure Drop)

ii. 7.2.5 (Fuel Circuit Proof Pressure)

iii. 7.2.7 (Oil Circuit Proof Pressure, performed with solvent)

e. 6J24-10-13:

i. Paragraph 3.B (Fuel Side Proof Pressure)

ii. Paragraph 3.C (Oil Side Proof Pressure, performed with solvent per T.O.)

iii. Paragraph 3.D (Fuel Side Pressure Drop)

f. 15A4-122-3:

i. 7.6.5.1 (Proof Pressure)

ii. 7.6.5.2, Steps f-l (Pressure Drop, fuel side only)

Q4. Also, the SOW states only a sample of components will be available for factory acceptance (FAC). They want to perform FAC using only:

• F101 IGVA

• F110 IGVA

• F110 VSVA

• F108 Main Fuel Nozzle

• F110 Main Fuel Nozzle

They also want to perform full correlation at Tinker on this same group of UUTs. They also want to do what they are calling a “functional correlation” (single test run), on all the remaining UTs. This means that we will not have the opportunity to verify TPS’ work correctly prior to shipment and running the majority of the UUTs for the first time at Tinker.

While it will make for a longer FAC phase, I would ask if Tinker can provide ALL listed UUTs so that we can verify proper testing PRIOR to shipment.

A4. We will not be able to send items other than those listed to the contractor’s facility for TPS proofing, as that would require borrowing/removing an end item from the supply chain side and those parts would be needed for aircraft. The parts listed are CMXG-owned gold units we can send without any issue.

Q5. Referencing 14, B2, AMAD Heat Exchanger, UA538973-3, 15A4-122-3:

7.6.5.1 Proof Pressure Test requires the use of a hydrostatic test stand to provide water pressure up to 1555 PSIG. Can you please confirm this test is not to be performed on the UFATS?

A5. The end item will need to be run using the above listed tests. In our context, the “hydrostatic” test stand used for the testing uses solvent and not water, so this test will be required on the new stand.

Q & A s : U F A T S P a g e 3 | 3

Q6. SOW section 3.2: the new UFATS should be equivalent or superior in construction to the existing FATS. Does the government have documentation that describes the existing FATS in sufficient detail such that we can make sure our UFATS rig design would meet this SOW stipulation?

A6. All information about the existing test equipment is found in the SOW appendices. As a note,

3.2 specifically states that the quality of materials used in construction of the UFATS shall be equivalent or superior, not the UFATS itself. It might be a semantic issue, but I want to make sure there’s a distinction between using equivalent and superior materials in construction and having the stand itself be equivalent or superior. The new design must not be a carbon copy of the old one.

Q7. In section 3.7.2, all utilities are run within 25 ft. except the electrical. With the price of copper so high, it is critical to know how far away the electrical service is so that we can accurately price it. Can they please provide this information.

3.7.2 Utilities Interconnection: The Government will provide the required utilities, except for the electrical, to within twenty-five (25) feet of test stand location.

A7. The electrical lines are in the catwalk bay above the test stands, coincidentally around 25ft from where the top of the stand would likely be.

Q8. Are we on the hook for the insulation resistance testing?

A8. The insulation resistance testing portions of end item TOs are not required.

Q9. There is a mention of door switches with lights. Does that mean they want the interior lights to come on when the doors open?

A9. That is correct.

Q10. Are they providing a dry contact to signal us to close the dampers in case of a fire? Fire/flame detector is not specified.

A10. There is no dry contact.

Q11. Can we provide a remote switchgear? This will be necessary to have the dump pump drain the reservoir in case of a fire when the test stand is off.

A11. Remote switchgears are acceptable as long as the rest of the SOW requirements are not interfered with.