DRAFT CSS FA813225Q0002_Questions and Answers_FINAL.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE SUSTAINMENT CENTER (AFMC)

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA

22 November 2024

SUBJECT: Draft Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (CSS) – CSD Governor Test Stands Upgrade Questions / Answers

1. Will the Test stands need to be updated onsite, or can they be moved to our facility?

ANSWER: They must be updated in place, onsite.

2. What is the estimated timing of a site visit mentioned in the draft solicitation?

ANSWER: The site visit will be scheduled during the final solicitation period after the draft solicitation is complete.

3. Item #1 in the ROM Summary document states the modified test stands are to be “completely standalone units.” What is the intent of this phrase? Are they not currently standalone units?

ANSWER: They are already standalone units. This is just emphasizing they must remain that way.

The Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Summary referenced is not an official document for this draft CSS and should not be relied upon. The ROM Summary document is not included in this draft CSS. All documents related to the draft CSS for this requirement were attached in SAM.gov. Please reference the Statement of Work (SOW) and other attachments provided only.

4. Item #3 in the ROM Summary document lists items to be provided to connect other listed items to existing hydraulic circuitry. Are the listed “charge and scavenge pumps, pressure regulators, gauges, and transducers” part of the existing stands? Will they be provided by the government? Are they to be provided by the contractor?

ANSWER: There are requirements in section 3 of the SOW stating specifically some components that must be replaced (such as known obsolete items in 3.1.11, replacing/installing stainless steel hardlines in 3.1.21.1, and others). Besides the specific call outs, the contractor must examine all components and determine what are reusable in the upgrade to meet all SOW requirements.

The Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Summary referenced is not an official document for this draft CSS and should not be relied upon. The ROM Summary document is not included in this draft CSS. All documents related to the

5. Item #3 in the ROM Summary document ends by stating “…repair existing circuits as needed.” How is the contractor to determine what needs to be repaired (and estimate associated costs)?

ANSWER: There is more specific information in the SOW, the drawings of the existing configuration, and the TO showing the original configuration. Attending the site visit that will be held once the final CSS is posted will be necessary to see all three test stands and note differences.

The Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Summary referenced is not an official document for this draft CSS and should not be relied upon. The ROM Summary document is not included in this draft CSS. All documents related to the

6. Item #4 in the ROM Summary document states that any devices “that do not perform as required” are to be replaced – How is the contractor to determine the extent of devices to be replaced (and estimate associated costs)?

ANSWER: All the existing calibrated devices are meeting calibration requirements, but they are at least as old as the last upgrade. The governor drive motor will likely need replacement because the DC drive is obsolete and required to be replaced. The entire PLC system is obsolete and required to be replaced. The pump motor is probably original and likely needs replaced along with the pumps. The main pilot regulator and charge pressure regulator on OC4150 has recently been replaced. The temperature control is not consistent among the test stands and that is why cleaning of heater elements and manifold and heat exchanger is required. They are old so disassembly may cause them to need replacement. The mag and demag components do not work effectively to meet the TO test. Close inspections can be done at the site visit that will be held once the final CSS is posted. Contractor should use best judgement on items not specifically called out for replacement to meet SOW requirements. Close inspections and further questions can be done at the site visit that will be held once the final CSS is posted. Please reference SOW 3.1.11, 3.1.21.9,3.1.21.11 and Appendix E for magnetic trim and mag/demag test requirements.

Summary document is not included in this draft CSS. All documents related to the

7. Item #7 in the ROM Summary document states, “All construction and modifications shall be completed at Tinker AFB…” Would it be an option to decommission one stand at a time and ship it to the contractor for upgrade? This would allow work to be performed for a much lower cost with less interruption of Tinker’s production, and for validation to be performed prior to shipment back to Tinker AFB.

ANSWER: No, The work must be performed onsite with the test stands in place.

Summary document is not included in this draft CSS. All documents related to the

8. Item #10 in the ROM Summary document mentions “all other areas of concern.” How is the contractor to determine what these other areas of concern are?

ANSWER: This requirement is concerned with any leaks of the working fluid anywhere in the circuit. There are leaks at penetrations in the steel reservoir built into the stand (SOW 3.1.21.4) from penetrations to the reservoir that were not original. Other leaks could include any other connections in the circuit (SOW 3.1.21.7). Contractor can examine the test stands during the site visit that will be held once the final CSS is posted .

The Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Summary referenced is not an official document for this draft CSS and should not be relied upon. The ROM Summary document is not included in this draft CSS. All documents related to the

9. Item #15 in the ROM Summary document describes documentation standards to be met.

Is new documentation/drawings to be provided for the entire test stand, or only the modified aspects? [SOW 3.1.8] ANSWER: Section 5.4 goes into more detail on the new manuals and drawings.

Manuals and drawings must be created new to reflect the entire upgrade, even parts of the stands that were not affected by the upgrade.

Summary document is not included in this draft CSS. All documents related to the

10. Paragraph 3.1 in the SOW document states, “the final product must display obvious and verifiable improvement over equipment prior to upgrade.” Obvious can be subject to interpretation. However, verifiable is more objective. So, are all specifically expected improvements clearly described within the SOW?

ANSWER: Yes, the SOW will be updated and posted with the final CSS.

11. Paragraph 3.1.11 in the SOW document lists three (3) obsolete components to be replaced. Are these the only three to be replaced?

ANSWER: These components are listed for replacement because they are obsolete, but this does not mean they are the only components that may need to be replaced to meet the requirements in the SOW.

12. Paragraph 3.1.20.3 in the SOW calls for the ability to “…communicate externally for machine monitoring and data collection purposes via Ethernet (RJ45 port) Interface using industry standard communication protocols.” While having the equipment accessible via Ethernet is not a problem, it will not be possible to include provisions for “machine monitoring and data collection” without additional details from the government provided during the solicitation phase, rather than after contract award.

ANSWER: For this test stand, the main concern will be to collect usage information.

This could be done with a simple software routine to record usage hours by monitoring the relevant devices.

13. Paragraph 3.1.20.5 in the SOW calls for “All sensors and sensor components shall be integrated into the machine control system.” Please clarify what is meant by “integrated into.” Are existing sensors and sensor components to be reused?

ANSWER: For this test stand, all sensors and sensor components would be monitored by the control system by its very nature. The idea is that any of these sensors could be selected for monitoring over the network. Sensors can be reused if they meet performance requirements stated in the SOW.

14. Paragraph 3.1.21.1 in the SOW – Please clarify why stainless-steel tubing needs to be secured to the test stand frame. This may not be practical in all cases.

ANSWER: The lines should be secured so they do not vibrate excessively. The original configuration had all lines securely mounted. Please reference SOW 3.1.21.1.

15. Paragraph 3.1.21.2 in the SOW suggests that some existing test stand circuits may no longer be needed – can these circuits be identified by the government?

ANSWER: The leakage cylinder circuit will be kept. The auxiliary pressure circuit is not required. The intent of this phrase is to remove any components that are not needed to meet the requirements of this SOW. Please reference Appendix H and I.

16. Paragraph 3.1.21.7 in the SOW suggests that all connections to components in the fluid circuit will need new seals/fittings to ensure there will be no leaks. Is this a correct interpretation?

ANSWER: Not all connections are leaking, but we want to ensure there are no leaks when the project is complete.

17. Paragraph 3.1.21.8 in the SOW suggests that some or all sensor pick-off points will need to be relocated closer to the UUT. Is this a correct interpretation?

ANSWER: This is a best practice. If the sensing needs to be improved according to other requirements stated in the SOW, then this should be done.

18. Paragraph 3.1.21.10 in the SOW identifies pressure gauges to be installed – where are these gauges to be located/mounted?

ANSWER: They will be mounted on the front of the console as shown in IPB Manual 1TL32-6652-4 Figure 5. One of the stands does not have them and we would like to add them.

Please reference Appendix H

19. Paragraph 3.1.21.11 in the SOW – Are the listed capabilities currently functional in the existing test stands, or is work needed to make them so?

ANSWER: The magnetic trim works, but the mag and demag function do not work effectively. Work will need to be done to correct the issue such as replacing the old components with new.

20. Paragraph 3.1.21.13 in the SOW – How many door latches need to be replaced?

ANSWER: There are 8 doors per stand with latches. An estimate is 3 per stand need repaired or replaced but this can be confirmed at the site visit.

21. Paragraph 3.1.21.15 in the SOW – Is the printer to be installed within the test stand or on a government-provided desk in the test stand area?

ANSWER: The printer will be installed on a contractor provided small table. SOW will be updated to include requiring contractor to provide a table and will be included in the final CSS.

22. Paragraph 3.1.22.1 in the SOW – Can the government provide more detailed expectations with regard to “perform the readjustment of governor.”?

ANSWER: It just means the software needs to allow the tester to repeat the initial step as part of the troubleshooting procedure if needed. See the test in TO 9H6-3-44- 3 provided in Appendix E. The tester needs to have the freedom to rerun individual tests as needed per 3.1.22.3. The intent is to prevent the software from being too strict in stepping automatically through the steps.

23. Paragraph 3.1.23.1 in the SOW calls for maintaining +/- 1°F oil temperature. However, most test stand temperature sensors have an accuracy of only +/- 2°F. Please confirm the +/- 1°F control requirement.

ANSWER: The calibration accuracy requirements for temperature devices as shown in Appendix G are ±2°F. The ±1°F requirement is referring to the stability of the setpoint. The existing test stands display a consistent temperature reading within ±1°F after stabilization. The purpose of the test stand is to compare the change in governor speed with change in output oil pressure, but changes in temperature affect the change in pressure. The more stable each parameter is, the easier it is for the tester to discern the quality of the governor. There may be digital filtering of temperature display. Differences in temperature control between the stands cause variability in the governor testing process which needs to be minimized.

24. Paragraph 3.1.23.2 in the SOW – Does the existing equipment provide the ± 0.05 Hz of the speed setpoint control? Can the government describe the existing equipment that is performing this?

ANSWER: The existing equipment does appear to provide a steady speed control after reaching the setpoint. The governor drive motor is DC/3HP/2500 RPM controlled by a Saftronics DC400 drive. The motor gear is mated to the governor drive gear through a toothed belt at 3.6 ratio. The RPM is converted to the Hz equivalent and displayed on the screen. There may be digital filtering of the speed control. The tests require the tester to adjust governor speed and observe change in output pressure and discern speed in 0.1Hz increments related to the pressure.

Please reference Appendix E for TO tests that require 0.1Hz resolution, Appendix H for existing configuration, and Appendix I for how the original configuration achieved 0.1Hz resolution using a frequency counter.

25. Paragraph 3.1.23.5 in the SOW – Does the government know to what extent the governors under test cause pressure fluctuations?

ANSWER: An A-condition governor will not fluctuate more than ±0.5PSI according to the digital display and even on the analog gauges. We do not have any data besides what we can see on our existing test stands. It is important to minimize any fluctuation due to the test stand system. The differences in pressure fluctuation can be seen on the analog gauges where a new governor is smooth, and a worn governor is not. However, the analog gauges are 5 PSI increments. The extent of digital filtering is not clear and that is the reason for the SOW requirement 3.1.23.4.

26. Paragraph 3.1.24.1 in the SOW – Can the government provide details of the control piston assembly they plan to provide?

ANSWER: Figure 4-2 in TO 33D2-5-38 shows a cross section. One of the existing test stands has the control piston already installed and can be shown at the site visit during the final CSS. Figure 14-1 shows how it is configured in the hydraulic system. The control pistons were purchased new from the OEM of the original test stand. Control piston can be shown at site visit.

27. Paragraph 3.1.25.1 in the SOW – While we recognize the value of observing governor testing, doing this after contract award to identify issues to be addressed in the design will likely result in work scope changes (efforts not anticipated during the solicitation phase).

Would a two-phase approach to this project be considered, where phase 1 is a detailed site evaluation of the equipment (including observing governor testing) and phase 2 is the upgrade itself based on phase 1 finding? If not, how can issues be identified during the solicitation phase?

ANSWER: A two-phase process will not be accommodated for this effort.

Schematics of existing and original configuration have been provided in Appendix H and I. Contractor should incorporate estimated costs for evaluation IAW SOW

3.1.25.1 into their quote.

28. Paragraph 3.1.25.2 & 3.1.25.3 in the SOW – The amount of time needed to iteratively work with government engineers and operators to identify desirable and undesirable software features, and then to understand them in the existing source code will be almost impossible to estimate with the amount of information currently available. See suggested phased approach described under 3.1.25.1.

ANSWER: See answer to 27. Please reference SOW 3.1.22, 3.1.24, 3.4.8.3, 3.4.9, 3.4.10, 4.6, 4.8.5, and 5.5 for specific and general software requirements.