Updated QnA for FA8132-20-Q-0019 10 June 2020.pdf

1. Question – Can you please, in as few words as possible, provide an overview of the evaluation method for this RFQ?

Answer – Yes, but please note that this is a high-level overview and does NOT cover every detail of the evaluation procedures; the complete evaluation process is found in the addendums to FAR Provisions 52.212-1 and 52.212-2.

The evaluation method chosen is a three-gate method that evaluates the following in order:

1. Technical Acceptability of the system quoted;

2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP); and

3. Conformance to all of the solicitation requirements, including all stated terms, conditions, representations, and certifications.

This method was deemed the best method to ensure the government receives a high-quality machine that meets its needs at a competitive price

Again, this is a high-level overview and does NOT cover every detail of the evaluation procedures; the complete evaluation process is found in the addendums to FAR Provisions 52.212-1 and 52.212-2.

2. Question – We do not possess an ISO 9001 certification or equivalent for our equipment company.

Two of our other companies are certified in NADCAP AC7004. Is the ISO 9001 certification requirement or certification in an equivalent Quality Management Standard (QMS) an absolute necessity for quoting?

Answer – No: it is not a necessity for quoting, but it is essential the successful quoter have this in order to receive the award. The lack of certification in ISO 9001, AS 9100, or other equivalent QMS will render a quote technically unacceptable, and therefore, ineligible for award.

3. Question – Will the Government consider alternate machine configurations in addition to a compliant base offer?

Answer – The machine submitted must be compliant with the solicitation and SOW. Any alternative configurations that are not technically acceptable IAW the criteria established in the solicitation will not be eligible for award.

4. Question – Section 3.2 will the government provide a copy of Air Force T.O. 2-1-111

Answer – SPOP 501, the steel shot peening portion of 2-1-111, shall be provided.

4a Question – The answer to Question #4 stated that T.O. 2-1-111 (SPOP 501) would be supplied. When will this be supplied?

Answer – T.O. 2-1-111, General Peening Requirements, is available upon request. This includes

SPOP 501.

5. Question – Table II Please explain the Axis Perpendicularity requirement between X and A.

Answer – The perpendicularity will be measured on the nozzle holder by moving the X axis with the A axis at 0°. The tolerance of the nozzle holder shall be 0.005”/ft as the X axis is jogged in the positive or negative direction.

6. Question – 3.2.4.2 Sections A & D are in conflict with each other. Please further define the home positions.

Answer – A is referring to the physical location for home of the gantry robot, which must be the furthest away from the spindles. D is referring to the midpoint of the axes in reference to the peening nozzles can be used for reference to the home position. For example, when the midpoint of the nozzles are the furthest away from the spindles and blades, that can be considered the home position.

7. Question – 3.2.4.2.2 C. does this requirement apply to ball screw bearing surfaces or linear bearing surfaces.

Answer – This applies to all ball screw bearing surfaces and all linear bearing surfaces.

8. Question – Many of these requirements can only be inspected during the machine assembly, is documentation of conformance required? If so please provide a list of required documents for each section. For example 3.2.4.2.2 C.b

Answer – This can be discussed during the Preliminary Design Review, and the Origin Examination can be performed prior to final assembly.

9. Question – 3.4.6 Please clarify

Answer – 3.4.6 Blade Fixtures and Masking.

• The machine shall include mounting plates that are compatible with current government blade fixtures and masks. All mounting plates shall be designed to meet or exceed the following characteristics:

A. When the blade fixtures are mounted to the blade rotational axis, the axis/shaft shall be compatible with fitting a 6” round plate with a 1.002” center through hole with a 0.251” square alignment notch in it.

B. The outside edge of a square alignment key in the alignment notch will protrude 0.625” outward from the center of the 1” hole.

C. A drawing of the blade fixture described above will be provided after contract award.

D. Where the blade fixtures are mounted to the blade positioning system, the axis/shaft shall have canisters for protecting air foils while the blade roots are peened.

• The canisters shall be designed to accommodate a blade with an airfoil 7” wide and 36” long, and be able to peen the blade root corresponding with that size of blade and smaller.

10. Question – 4.2 Can the government provide Isle width and door opening dimensions at the facility.

Answer – The roll up door opening to the shop floor is 9’5” high, and 9’9” wide. The tightest spot in the shop is 9’3” between an existing machine and a shelf, but the shelf can be moved if needed. The lowest spot in the shop, besides the door, is 10’1” tall near where the machine will be placed.

11. Question – 4.4 are all wear items or consumables exempt from the warranty

Answer – All items listed below are considered wear/consumable items per Tinker:

1. Rubber lining inside the cabinet

2. Window film

3. Air hoses

4. Media screens

5. Blast hoses

6. Nozzles

7. Wear Plates

8. Blast hose couplings

9. Timing Belts

10. Orifice plates

11. Dust house filters

12. Gaskets/seals with the exception of any seals and gaskets for the gantry arm ball screws

13. Fuses

All other items shall be covered under the 2 year warranty.

12. Question – 5.9.2 air pressure evaluation. Per the brand name pressure regulator justification and the requirement in table III do you have past performance documentation of these products verifying they meet the requirements listed.

Answer – Proportion Air spec sheet will be provided (please see answer below in 12a for further discussion), as well as previous performance data on machine with the same Proportion Air regulator set

up. An exception shall be made under 10 psi, in which the percent difference can be up to 2% difference between the set point, actual measurement and the pressure gauge reading.

12a. Question – The answer to Question #12 stated that the Proportion Air spec sheet and performance data would be supplied. When will this be supplied?

Answer – The Proportion Air specification sheets are available upon request. Upon further discussion, it has been decided to not release past performance data associated with the Proportion Air system as it may potentially disclose proprietary information. The Government believes that the Proportion Air specification sheets adequately show that the system exceeds the requirements as specified in the SOW.

13. Question – 5.10.11 0.125” deflection under 25lbs load is a high tolerance for a laser calibration, Will you accept an NIST certified dial indicator test.

Answer – No, laser calibration equipment shall be required per the SOW

14. Question – Paragraph Installation Responsibilities PG 62. The government is listed as responsible for performance testing at government facility, does this material include gauging? For example Almen gauge, sound meters, light meters and other testing equipment.

Answer – There is an error in the SOW. Under the Installation Responsibilities section, the wrong check box was selected. The contractor shall provide material for performance testing at the Government facility. The contractor shall provide all material handling, rigging equipment and qualified personnel for performance testing.

14a. Question – We have a concern/question over the answer to question 14. The answer refers to a mistake in the scope of work. We fully understand the answer and the error. However we are wondering if the government and other bidders understand the implications of this error. If the contractor is supplying all the test equipment then the contractor must also bring in the laser testing equipment to the site. This cost could/will be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Would it make sense to add a line item for the on-site testing?

Answer – We understand the laser verification is very expensive, but it is a necessary test to prove the machine is functioning the same as it during the origin test. Many machines, including CMMs and automated welders, are laser verified by the contractor or sub-contractors after installation at Tinker AFB. The current partnership engines are requiring higher and higher level of precision on all equipment, and they are asking for more proof that our machines are capable of handling the requirements. Having this data stating the machine meets AMS 2432 will be very important moving forward with our partnership workload.

Regarding a separate line item for testing – the Government does not believe it necessary to have a separate line item for testing. The price quoted should take into consideration and be inclusive of all requirements in the Statement of Work (SOW).