Questions Answers - SITE VISIT.pdf
PDF 157 KB Posted
- Attached to
- CSD Governor Test Stands Upgrade Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA813225Q0002
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document from the Department of the Air Force regarding a site visit for CSD Governor Test Stands Upgrade project at Tinker Air Force Base, dated January 14, 2025. The Q&A addresses technical specifications and requirements for upgrading test stands used for testing governor subassemblies.
Key clarifications include: there is no $1M cap on the project; the contract will remain Firm Fixed Price and cannot be converted to Cost Plus under FAR 12 Commercial Acquisitions; the rooms housing the equipment are not rated as hazardous locations; cooling water temperature range is 45-55°F; contractors may use non-HART protocol pressure devices and non-PLC devices if they meet performance requirements; direct drive motors can be used as alternatives to belt-driven systems if they don't require modification of governor adapters; and typical oil release during testing is 1-2 quarts per test, with one model leaking 0.5-1 quart per minute. Temperature control requirements of ±1°F are needed to reduce pressure variations during testing.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 18
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
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE SUSTAINMENT CENTER (AFMC)
TINKER AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA
14 January 2025
SUBJECT: SITE VISIT – CSD Governor Test Stands Upgrade Questions / Answers
1. The opportunity value is stated as: Up to $1M. Can this amount be increased?
ANSWER: There is not a $1M cap on this project.
2. Section 2 (Supplies and Price CLIN 0001) of the Quote Sheet states that the contract is
Firm Fixed Price. Given the open-ended nature of this contract, can it be converted to
Cost Plus?
ANSWER: No. This effort utilizes FAR 12 Commercial Acquisitions and therefore cannot utilize a cost type contract.
3. What is the NFPA Explosion-Proof (XP) Class and Group rating of the rooms in which the equipment is located? For instance, were the rooms Class I and Group D rated?
ANSWER: The rooms are not rated as hazardous locations.
4. What is the NFPA XP Division rating of the rooms in which the equipment is located? For instance, were the rooms Division 1?
ANSWER: The rooms are not rated as hazardous locations.
5. Do the existing systems achieve +/-1degF temperature control? Is this driven by an aircraft requirement?
ANSWER: The best of the existing test stands digitally displays oil temperature within ± 1degF after the system has stabilized. The stabilization times vary among the stands. This is not a direct aircraft requirement. It is required in the SOW because testing experience shows that changes in oil temperature affect the pressure, and the pass/fail requirements involve observing changes in pressure correlated to change in speed. Reducing the change in pressure due to temperature improves the effectiveness of the test for the governor subassemblies. The performance of the governor subassembly affects the performance of the next higher assembly test
(constant speed drive).
6. What is the expected temperature range of the incoming cooling water?
ANSWER: Approximately 45 degF to 55 degF.
7. All Governor Test Stands currently use Rosemont pressure measurement devices with
HART Communications Protocol. Is it allowable to use pressure devices that do not utilize HART protocol assuming pressure range and accuracy requirements are met?
ANSWER: There is no requirement in the SOW to use HART protocol or a particular brand of device as long as they meet range and accuracy requirements
(Appendix G). There is a requirement for calibrated devices that PMEL can calibrate them in the same way they do now (SOW 3.4.6) which is done by connecting a calibrated pressure system to the manifold for each transducer.
8. When replacing the PLC, Is it permissible to use a non PLC device that is LabVIEW controlled and meets the requirements of the data acquisition system?
ANSWER: Yes, that is permissible.
9. Is the belt driven system the only alternative? Can a direct drive motor be an alternative that meets the performance requirements?
ANSWER: There is no requirement in the SOW to use the belt drive, but there is a requirement that disallows modification of the governor adapters (SOW 3.1.13). If the contractor went that route, they must avoid any design that would require modification of the adapters.
10. In consideration of the enclosure around the work area, are there any overhead limitations above the adapter to prevent adding a system that moves vertically?
ANSWER: There are no obstructions vertically above the work area.
11. What is a typical volume of oil that is released into the drain and sump system during each test?
ANSWER: The oil released into the sink typically happens when the adapter case is opened and the oil that has accumulated inside the case during a test is released into the sink. The amount is estimated at 1 to 2 quarts per test depending on the model of governor. One model of the governor leaks while running some portions of the test at an estimated rate of 0.5 to 1 quart per minute. (These numbers are approximate).
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .