Non_Proprietary_Questions_141-161.pdf

No. Doc Title Para RFP Statement Question / Comment Recommendation Answer

141 TDP

1) Will harness data be provided in an Electronic Design

System? (i.e.

HarnSys, MentorGraphics)

2) If so, what program will the data be provided in?

3) If not, is the Contractor free to use a harness design system of their choice?

1) No, complete wire harness data is provided with spreadsheets and NX models to show routing

2) Excel spreadsheets and NX part files

3) Yes, but shouldn't be necessary as harnesses can be manufactured with the spreadsheets

142 TDP

If Contractor chooses a harness design system, will the data have to be migrated back into a specified AF program?

No

143 TDP Are formboards provided as part of the contract? No

144 TDP

Is there a current Supply Chain for the wire harnesses? If so, can that information be provided?

No, prior manufacturer was Labinal Salisbury which is permanently closed as of 2016.

145 Final RFP, 25 May 2018 CDRL A023 CDRLs A023

CDRL A023 includes a requirement to submit metadata in Microsoft

Access 2013, and further states that AFLCMC/LZPEM will provide sample metadata, including Microsoft Access 2013.

The request is for an Access Database and NX formats. This appears to be redundant. In addition, when can we expect the CD

ROM containing the sample metadata?

Please provide further explanation of what the Government is expecting.

Metadata indexed in Microsoft Access is required for

'JEDMICS only' data deliverables. This situation will be rare as the Air Force is using Teamcenter as the main data repository for the ATTACK program.

If 'JEDMICS only' data is required as part of this CDRL deliverable the Microsoft Access index file has been included in the TDP titled 'NEW mdb (customer)'. in the

'Drawings, Specs & Documents' folder.

The referenced document 'Digital Data Description

Requirement document 9579776 Rev N Option 2 Hill Air

Force Base' and 'Sample Metadata file' will be sent out as an

RFP amendment. SOW Attachment F revision will be rolled to reflect this distribution.

146 Final RFP, Attachment 2, 25 May 18 Past_Perf_Information_Sheet

Section L.II.D.1, RFP_Attach_1_Instruct_to_Offerors, RFP_Attach_2_Past_Perf_Info_Sheet

Section L.II.D.1 "General: Offerors must use the Past Performance

Information (PPI) Tool (Use latest version from https://www.FBO.gov) in order to electronically submit the PPI portion of the Past Performance

Volume."

RFP_Attach_1_Instruct_to_Offerors, #4 on Page 8 states: "Hard copies of the pages generated from this tool shall be used in the hard copy of the past performance volume subject to the limitations outlined in this

RFP and should be Tab 1 of the past performance volume."

Section L requires the use of the PPI Tool, which does not allow pictures and tables.

Attachment 1 requires that the pages generated from the PPI

Tool are to be placed in the Volume. Each contract citation is limited to 16 pages.

The Attachment 2 PPI Sheet requires offerors to provide examples of items such as rejection tags.

How are offerors to include pictures and diagrams in the Past

Please clarify the information required beyond that in the PPIT, if any, and where that information is to be placed in the Past

Performance Volume, e.g., rejection tag pictures.

Section L.II.D.1. updated to "Offerors must use the Past

Performance Information (PPI) Tool (Use latest version from https://www.FBO.gov) in order to electronically submit specific PPI portions, as instructed in Past Performance

Instructions for Offerors (See RFP Attachment 1), of the Past

Performance Volume."

RFP Attach 1 has been updated to remove the language

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

147 Sec L, 25 May 2018 Proposal Delivery Sec L.II.A. General / Sec L.II.C.1 General

L.II.A. Offerors are to submit two paper copies and two mastered CD-R or

DVD-R containing all volumes. /

L.II.C.1 The technical portion of the proposals shall be delivered as redacted so the identity of the offeror is not disclosed in the technical proposal.

Section L.II.A specifies the delivery of 2 paper copies and 2 electronic copies with all volumes. Section L.II.C.1 specifies that the technical volume must be redacted. Are both copies of the

Technical volume required in L.II.A intended to be redacted?

Should the redacted volume be on its own CD? Do offerors need to include un-redacted versions of the Technical volume? Does the redacted Technical volume need to be delivered on its own

(separate) CD with redacted label information? Or, does the file go on the mastered CDs with the rest of the un-redacted volumes?

Please provide clarification.

Recommend providing 2 full un-redacted copies and 1 redacted copy of the Technical

Volume.

Of the two paper copies, one shall contain a redacted technical volume. Of the two CD copies, one shall contain a redacted technical volume. Please mark as original and redacted.

148 Final RFP, 25 May 18 PPI Tool Section L.II.A, RFP_Attach_1_Instruct_to_Offerors, L.II.A. Offerors shall use the instructions set forth in RFP Attachment 1, Past Performance Information (PPI) for Offerors, to electronically submit the PPI into the PPI Tool. The link to the PPI Tool is attached, as a link, to the solicitation posting.

The PPI Tool link is not available on the solicitation posting in

FBO.

Please add the link to the PPI Tool to the solicitation posting in FBO.

Link shall be posted.

149 Final RFP, 25 May 18 RFP Attachment 3 RFP Attachment 3 Subcontractor/Joint Venture Partner Consent Form The form released on FBO is not the Subcontractor/Joint Venture

Partner Consent Form.

Please correct the contents of Attachment 3

File was corrupted on upload to FBO. This will be corrected with RFP amendment.

Final RFP, 25 May 2018, Section B, CLIN

CLIN 0007 Data (Exhibit B) Section B

The RFP Section calls out an Exhibit BB for CLIN 0007. Form Sub-CLINS

0007AA through 0007AG, Exhibits DA through DG identified.

Exhibit BB and Exhibits DA through DG were not included as part of the final RFP released on 25 May 2018.

Please provide the Exhibits associated with the CLINs so the contractor offerors can determine the number of CDRLs submittals during the out year Ordering Periods.

Exhibits will be updated with RFP amendment.

Final RFP, Attachment 4 - Past

Performance Questionnaire PPQ 1st para Return your completed questionnaire electronically BY COB MONDAY 27

JUNE 16 to wade.appel.1@us.af.mil.

The date for Government receipt reads 27 June 2016.

Given the extension of the proposal due date, recommend extending this date to 31

July 2018, which still allows time prior to proposal submittal.

The Government will send this document out per Section

L.II.D.8. Highlighted areas indicate fields that will require updates. This document was provided to offerors for information only.

152 Final RFP Section B Part 1 – The Schedule – Section B page

3: A and page 3: D

A...THIS IDIQ CONTRACT WILL HAVE A BASIC FIVE-YEAR ORDERING

PERIOD BEGINING AT CONTRACT AWARD, TWO ONE-YEAR OPTIONAL

ORDERING PERIODS THEREAFTER, AND A FOUR-YEAR DELIVERY

PERIOD FOLLOWING THE END OF THE ORDERING PERIODS.

D...Periods of Contract Performance (to begin upon date of basic contract award announcement):

Paragraphs A and D state that the first ordering period starts upon contract award (FA and LRIP). This conflicts with the CLIN structure outlined in Schedule B, which has the first ordering period as the first production order.

Recommend updating A, D, and Schedule B

CLINs for consistency.

RFP pre-amble note(s) will be revised to provide as much clarity as possible with RFP amendment.

153 Form 260, Block 9. F. Form 260

Form 260 states that First Article Delivery is due 999 calendar days from date of contract, but CLIN 0001AB states that FA is due to be delivered 3 Cal years after award, or 1,095 calendar days.

Change Form 260 Block 9. F. to say the FA is due 1,095 calendar days after award (3 years).

Form 260 will be temporarily amended to match. Future documents may revert back to '999 days' due to contract writing software limitations.

Final RFP, Attachment A - Engineering

Data Requirements Attachment A Item 11

Item 11 in Attachment A notes that 'S-F502 will be updated from

Revision K', yet the document SOW Attachment F notes document S-F502 (Line 14231) as being provided at revision level

'H'. Which is correct?

Please clarify.

S-F502 Rev K will be released as an RFP amendment. SOW

Attachment F revision will be rolled and re-posted to reflect this change.

155 Final RFP, FA8202-18-R-1001 Section J Page 57 Will attachments in Section J of the Model Contract count towards the 70-page limit?

Recommend making the contracts volume unlimited pages.

Section J will not count toward 70-page limit and Section L will be revised with RFP amendment to unlimited for the model contract.

156 ATTACK SOW, 25 May 2018 SOW 3.3.3.3.3

SOW Paragraph 3.3.3.3.3 Technical Orders

The contractor shall identify Technical Orders (TOs) impacted by TDP changes and provide source data documentation to the Government…

Attachment A indicates several expected changes to the TDP.

Additional TDP changes are unknown which makes this hard to bid competitively.

Recommend providing a level or work

(hours) to bid to ensure that offerors are accounting for the scope of work realistically.

Attachment A contains changes/add'l requirements made by the Government before award. There are no additional contractor work hours required to enact Attachment A. Bid to the requirements of Attachment A as is.

157 ATTACK SOW, 25 May 2018 SOW 3.3.3.3.3

SOW Paragraph 3.3.3.3.3 Technical Orders

If a final purchase is made to complete the A-10 fleet with new wings the contractor shall deliver clean-up TO source data to address removal of

TCTO 1A-10C-520 from affected Tos.

Currently, TO work is performed IAW TM-86-01Q which lists 29

TOs and 1 TCTO. In researching the scope of effort for this SOW paragraph, an additional 32 TOs were identified that are not in the TM-86-01Q.

Recommend adding the following 32 TOs to the current list contained in the TM-86-01Q:

1A-10C-2-23TS-1 1A-10C-2-24JG-5

1A-10C-2-2TS-1 1A-10C-2-24MS-1

1A-10C-2-27TS-1 1A-10C-2-27MS-1

1A-10C-2-28JG-1 1A-10C-2-28JG-2

1A-10C-2-28JG-5 1A-10C-2-28MS-1

1A-10C-2-28TS-1 1A-10C-2-29TS-1

1A-10C-2-29MS-1 1A-10C-2-32JG-1

Recommended TOs will be added to the TM-86-01Q and posted with RFP amendement.

158 Attachment B

CRITICAL SAFETY ITEMS (CSI)

LIST

1. The following tables constitute the A-10C Critical Safety Item (CSI) and associated Critical Safety Process (CSP) requirements for the

Enhanced Wing Assembly (EWA), which will ultimately have part number

162D610010-1001.

3. These items shall be managed in accordance with USAF Instruction –

AFI 20-106, Management of Aviation Critical Safety Items.

The entire Center Wing Panel (pg 6) and entire Outer Wing

Panels (p 30) are listed as CSI items, along with a number of items listed as "Configuration Items". Are items marked

"Configuration Item" intended to be CSI, with all applicable requirements of CSI items, including inspection, approval, etc.?

If so, does it also include all sub-assembly and detail components of the Configuration Item? If not, where are the differences in requirements specified?

Please confirm that only the components listed under a configuration item are CSI.

All components listed on the CSI list are considered CSI items including parts labled as configuration items.

Subassemblies, unless listed, are not considered CSI.

159 AFI 20-106 / SECNAVINST 4140.2

MANAGEMENT OF AVIATION

CRITICAL SAFETY ITEMS

F.2.(c)

2. The Service ESAs are responsible for

c. Developing, maintaining, and distributing or providing access to a current listing of CSIs, which includes identification of prime contractors, OEMs, and alternate sources of manufacture, supply, or repair/overhaul for each CSI.

Will the AF be providing a list of approved sources for CSI

Components?

The Government does not have a list of approved sources for CSI. This approval process will be accomplished within the effort as laid out in the PQP: See SOW 3.4.2.1.1. CSI

Inspection Plan.

160 SSOW SSOW

3.4.3.2.3.1. Disposition of Critical Safety

Item (CSI) and Fatigue and Fracture

Critical Items

3.4.3.2.3.1. Disposition of Critical Safety Item (CSI) and Fatigue and

Fracture Critical Items

If the dispositions involve CSI critical processes, specific corrective actions will be observed by a Government representative (e.g. DCMA, etc.) acting on behalf of A-10 SPO engineering. If the non-conformances involve fatigue and fracture critical items and or CSIs, detailed stress and damage tolerance analysis shall be required to determine the impact to the structure involved. This requires the compliance to the requirements of MIL-STD-1530, JSSG 2006, and the associated A-10 SPO engineering analysis requirements within SOW Section “3.3.3.2.1.

Analysis Requirements.” If the 10,000 hour life is affected, the part shall either be replaced, or the Government shall be provided consideration using Major “Request for Variance” per EIA-649-B and the instructions for Form DD1694 Request for Variance.

Since a number of the components on the CSI list are NOT

1A/1B components and not currently designed to the 10,000 hour requirement, will contractor be held to this requirement?

CSI dispositions will be dispositioned on a case by case basis. 10,000 hour requirements will likely only be applied to fatigue and fracture critical 1A/1B parts and assemblies.

161 TDP Part Report 162D950827-2519

The referenced document from the TDP has a Footer if the document which states: “WARNING: This document contains technical data whose export is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C., Sec

2751 et seq.) or Executive Order 12470. Violations of these export laws are subject to severe criminal penalties.” This note is commonly applied throughout the TDP.

This Act would entail either ITAR (Department of State) or EAR

(Department of Commerce) controlled items. However, the TDP does not provide the actual export classifications.

Since the TDP is unclassified militarily critical (reason for us making DD 2345 application and approval) and subject to export control, can I conclude the jurisdiction for seeking appropriate export licensing is all through the Department of

State and none is by way of Commerce?

Yes. The data contained within the TDP that is marked with

AECA warnings or other distribution type statements is to be considered ITAR information under Dept of State. This information does not fall under Dept of Commerce.