Non_Proprietary_Questions_162_-_210.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- A-10 Thunderbolt Advanced-Wing Continuation Kit (ATTACK) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8202-18-R-1001
About this file
This document contains questions and answers from a pre-proposal conference related to a federal solicitation for the A-10 Thunderbolt Advanced-Wing Continuation Kit (ATTACK) program. The conference addressed technical questions on government-furnished tooling and production requirements. Questions covered topics such as the condition and completeness of tooling assets, requirements for master tools, interchangeability standards, and production ramp-up assumptions. The government provided clarification on the as-is condition of tooling, plans to make additional tools available prior to award, and allowed flexibility in production ramp-up rates in contractors' integrated master schedules.
Questions 162-210.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
A-10 Thunderbolt Advanced-Wing Continuation Kit (ATTACK) has more files on GovTribe.
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
BOE-Questions
| No. | Doc | Title | Para | RFP Statement | Question / Comment | Recommendation | Answer |
| 162 | Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award | C. Volume II, Technical Factor | 2. Technical Rating: | The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor identified above will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal has met the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive evaluation consideration for performance in excess of threshold requirements. | The solicitation states: Blue/Outstanding: Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths. |
Purple/Good: Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.
| This enables all competitors to easily achieve an Outstanding Technical rating, even though they may lack the specific strengths necessary for success on the ATTACK program. | The successful contractor must demonstrate strengths in many areas in order to meet the Government's technical, quality and delivery requirements for this program, including precision machining, composite manufacturing, process control, quality management, supplier management, Program Management and others. Please consider revising the Section M requirements to state that a Blue/Outstanding proposal contains five or more strengths. | This is standardized language directed by DOD Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 16. The govt will maintain the current wording for Section M. | ||||||
| 163 | ATTACK SOW, 25 May 2018 | SOW | 3.3.3.3.3 | The contractor shall perform clean-up of TCTO 1A-10C-520. This involves incorporating all supplements and adding all TDP changes prior to first article install. After all updated information/changes have been incorporated after first article install, the contractor shall deliver a finalized version of TCTO 1A-10C-520. | The TDP contains a pdf titled 1A-10C-520_C. This pdf refers to supplements C and D. However, neither of these supplements are included in the TDP. | Please provide electronic copies of supplements C and D and, if existing, all other supplements. | The SUP-C referenced in the TCTO 1A-10C-520_C document in the RFP includes the Supplement C document within it. An updated version that will also contain supplement D within it will be released directly to each offeror. |
| 164 | Final RFP, FA8202-18-R-1001 | CLIN 0001AA First Article Data | Page 6-8 | Inspection: Origin | |||
| Acceptance: Destination | I/A at Destination is standard for CDRLs | Recommend the Government change CLIN 0001AA First Article Data, Schedule B, page 6 of the RFP so that Inspection and Acceptance happens at Destination. | Inspection at Origin and Acceptance at Destination will remain the requirement for First Article. Inspection at Origin is required for First Article and LRIPs to ensure quality before shipment. | ||||
| 165 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Should we plan on tools being in "working condition?" | All GFE items are provided "as-is" per the GFE Attachment to the Solicitation. Tooling has been shipped and stored IAW Mil-Standard-2073-1. | |||
| 166 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Are there tools that have automated trimming/routing? | Some tooling may support that feature. Each tool will identify these characteristics if applicable within the TDP. | |||
| 167 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Is the Waterjet process not allowed? | See SOW section 3.4.1.1.1. | |||
| 168 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | What if tools arrive at the awardee location and are not in serviceable condition? | The GFE clauses and prescribing language (FAR 45 and DFARS 245) will govern such a situation. | |||
| 169 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | What about accessory tools? Does each Assembly Jig (AJ) come with a complementary set of accessory tooling (AJAs)? | No, aside from the basic things that hold that wing structure in place, the AJAs are typically one each that will have to move down the line. | |||
| 170 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Mill Fixtures/Plates; do we have pictures of milling features? Is that a piece of equipment not related to the program that they ran using this tooling? | It's all one custom built milling machine with a control unit. It's all included in the boxes. For Pictures - Check TDP. | |||
| 171 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Tools at suppliers; Forge dies and extrusions dies… is that Gov't owned or supplier owned? | Anything that was made with Gov't money is Gov't owned. That does include some dies and some extrusions. If it was previously built and is used for a suppliers other products, the current sub/supplier will keep it. See Tooling section of TDP. | |||
| 172 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Is there a list of longer lead items to know what tools should be chosen first? | The government cannot provide this at this time as it is something the technical team has requested the contractor provide for evaluation. Long lead items are specific to each offeror's situation and need to be thoroughly explained. Each contractor may have differing long lead items depending on their expertise. This will be a topic of discussion during award. | |||
| 173 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Section M. What is price balance? Is it pass/fail? | This reflects realistic expectations based on quantity ordered. An unsustainable drop-off in prices past estimated/anticipated quantities to gain good TEP Matrix scoring would be an example of unbalanced pricing. |
It is pass/fail, but there is no disqualification. A failure will result in an EN.
| 174 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | How will the awardee know the tooling is ready for pickup? Do we work through a company or a PCO? | The Gov't maintains daily communication with AMARG. It should be possible to coordinate in advance when to have tooling ready for pickup. The Awardee may interact directly with a member of the Wings Team. |
| 175 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Will the Gov allow a contractor rep to be on-site at AMARG to verify shipping (inventory, condition, etc.)? | Yes, but AMARG will not be responsible for opening/resealing any boxes. |
| 176 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Will there be a list in each box stating the box's contents? | There should be an inventory list for each box that will be made available. |
| 177 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | What if the contents of a box need to be sent in two different directions? | If tools are to go in different directions, the contractor will specify which tools go where and make multiple requests, one for each location. Each unique request will then have its own cost estimate to prep, and ship |
the tools.
178 Tooling Conference Tooling Conference Will additional preservation be done by the Gov before shipping tooling from AMARG? The current preservation method (sealed boxes) is to level of preservation that the government provides and tools will be shipped in that condition. AMARG intends in the next month or so before monsoon season to apply armour shield (protective coating) to all AMARG tooling assets that are too big for boxes.
| 179 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | What is the process of Tooling Repairs & Serviceable Condition? | The Gov't will not be doing any repairs or remanufacturing. Tools are As-Is. Anything not serviceable will have to be identified during acceptance and repaired by contractor prior to usage. | ||||
| 180 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | SF502 Rev K is needed quickly. Please Send | SF502 Rev K will be sent direct to each offeror. | ||||
| 181 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | What is the lead time for tooling? Can the incentive plan start after tooling arrival. | Related to the incentive, if tooling doesn't arrive in a timely manner, that could affect the ability of the awardee to deliver early. | The Gov't believes there is sufficient work to be done before tooling arrives such that tooling delivery will not impact critical path. If industry doesn't believe there is sufficient rationale, the Govt invites responses to validate new rationale. | |||
| 182 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | How long does it take to get tools shipped from AMARG? | Typically it is 1 week with for a select few pallets with advanced notice, 2 weeks if a crane is required, and approximately 1-2 months for all parts. | ||||
| 183 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Will the Assembly Jigs be boxed before shipment? | The Government does not intend to do this, but the government would not prevent the awardee from this action. | ||||
| 184 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Are there tool hierarchy definitions for each wing assembly and sub assembly (a list of top-level and lower level tool for each assembly and sub-assembly starting from the Main Master to Component Masters, Tool Gauges, Production Tools and Check Gauges)? | If not, is there at least one for I/R (Interchangeable/Replaceable) parts and assemblies? | Within a tool like an assembly jig, there is some hierarchy. Attachments will be listed within the engineering definition. We don't know how every tool is used in conjunction with every other tool. The Government doesn't have any processing information. | |||
| 185 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Is there a list for I&R assembly | I&R is all defined within the technical data package. For each part there will be a part report. That part report will have a note that says I&R and what interfaces are interchangeable. | ||||
| 186 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Are the I/R plan for the wing and an IRWL (I/R working list) in accordance to Mil-I-8500D? | Yes | ||||
| 187 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Are all required Masters for the ATTACK wing production included in the RFP Att. 7 – Government Furnished Property List? Are there any other Masters that are not on the list, and required to build the wing? If they are Masters not listed how will the suppliers receive them and what is expected from the suppliers (create new masters with no back interchangeability? copy from other tool or sample part? etc.) | Very rarely does the engineering data require that a Master be used. Master tools do not have to be used to maintain an I&R interface. You can use other methods to achieve interchangeability like demonstrating interchangeability by nature of manufacture. Everything that was used in the past production effort is in the GFE list and will be made available. We do have access to other master tools that weren't used in production that could be looked at post award. CDRL 43 requires that these processes be identified/approved. | ||||
| 188 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Are all Masters in usable condition and include all detachable details, pins, clamps, etc.? | Tools will be provided As-Is IAW 52-245-1. | ||||
| 189 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Are all Tools in usable condition and include all detachable details, pins, clamps, etc.? | Tools will be provided As-Is IAW 52-245-1. The tooling we put on display today did contain these items. | ||||
| 190 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Are all of the Tools required to build the ATTACK wing in the possession of USAF and listed in the RFP Att. 7 – Government Furnished Property List? | They are not all in our possession, but they will be before award. | ||||
| 191 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Are there any other Tools still at previous suppliers? If yes, who are these suppliers and how will the Suppliers receive these Tools? | Some tools are still at previous suppliers, but they will be in the government's possession before award. The Government does not have a list of these suppliers, but this data is available within the tooling TDP CAGE Codes and major suppliers are listed within TDP Spec 160S900706. | Curtis Elton approved this response. | |||
| 192 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | How will the Government close the loop on the items that aren't currently in the GFE list before award? | The Govt will validate the GFE list as tools are reported excess by current suppliers. | ||||
| 193 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | What production rates can the Tools in the RFP Att. 7 – Government Furnished Property List support? | The previous requirement was 4 per month. | ||||
| 194 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Can photos be taken of the Tools and Wing during the conference? How about the tools that arrive later. | Yes. Photo's were authorized at the tooling conference. Please treat any photos as FOUO data and discard appropriately when they are no longer needed. It would not be beneficial to RFP or evaluation to view tooling arriving after proposal due dates, so the government does not intend to do that until award. | ||||
| 195 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Do all the Tools in the RFP Att. 7 – Government Furnished Property comply with the current ATTACK wing configuration? If not, can USAF identify which comply, which are no longer relevant, and which need to be modified? | As far as the Gov't knows, they are. However, it is at the awardees discretion to use and validate GFE tools. Attachment A gives notice to engineering changes in work that may not be reflected in current tooling. All tooling is provided As-Is. | ||||
| 196 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Does the government have a list of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and OEM part numbers PN/NSN for all the accessories/equipment that the TDP does not specify? | The government does not have a list that can be shared with contractors other than what is supplied in the TDP. | ||||
| 197 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | When did the tools arrive at AMARG? When were they used last? And when were they built? | Typically the tools at AMARG arrived within the last years, were last used within the last 2 years, and were built within the last ten years. | ||||
| 198 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | If all tooling is not yet at AMARG, is there a schedule for the tooling arrivals? | They will arrive prior to contract award. If they have not arrived by that time, they will be coordinated for shipping if requested. | ||||
| 199 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Are there any locating features on the tooling? | Yes. The features are in the Tooling TDP supplied. | ||||
| 200 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | How many tools are there in total? | Over 3,000 tooling items. | ||||
| 201 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Is there a list of what isn't at AMARG? | Yes, but it is irrelavent because all tooling will be at AMARG prior to contract award. All tooling is the list provided as SOW Attachment G. | ||||
| 202 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Have the tools been validated against the most current design? | Negative. That will be a contractor requirement. | ||||
| 203 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Do we (offerors) need to price tooling transport? | Industry prefers cost reimbursable. | This will be cost reimbursable and not evaluated during competition. | |||
| 204 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | How many Assembly Jigs are there? | 6 Center Wing total. 1 boxed and 5 exposed. | ||||
| 205 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Is all the tooling being sent to AMARG, or does the Government have plans on repurposing it for depot uses? | All tooling is headed to AMARG. | ||||
| 206 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Will there be another conference when all tooling has arrived to AMARG? | No. This event would occur after proposals are due. The government would consider taking pictures as things became available, but they would be provided in such a way as to not have an impact upon RFP or evaluation. The government will not open boxes to take pictures. | ||||
| 207 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | What is the quality of detail parts? Do we need to build new tools? | The tools have been used recently and are As-Is. Company representitives were shown a sample of the tools during the tooling conference at AMARG. | ||||
| 208 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Are non-design tools available? Have the non-design tools been validated against engineering? | Non-design tools are in the GFP list with the non -5000 number. It would be the responsibility of the awardee to validate that non-design tools produce the desired product. | ||||
| 209 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | Are dolly's included? | No, transportation dolly's are not included. Shipping fixtures will also need to be manufactured per the SOW. | ||||
| 210 | Tooling Conference | Tooling Conference | CSI's: There are 400 parts listed as CSI and there is a requirement for "source approval" for each supplier. Do offerors and/or the Gov. need to verify each supplier? | Request clarification on the requirement to validate all CSI sources of supply. | AFI 20-106 requires that the Program Office approve sources for manufacture of the CSI items noted in SOW Attachment B. Production Qualification Plans and First Part Qualification Plans will be submitted (CDRLs A030 and A009) prior to production to accomplish the coordination of the necessary approvals. The approval process will be negotiated for each part and SOW Section 3.4.2.3.1 indicates that the Government will accept plans that utilize an incremental approach that will minimize disruptions to production. Where feasible the Contractor should take advantage of part family groupings to minimize production impacts. | |||
| Coordinated with EN leadership 7/11/2018 | ||||||||
| 211 | A-10 ATTCK SOW | Kitting Requirements | 5.4.2 | Kit B: Center Wing Panel will use the primary package (P/N 160D997900-5) in SPI F01-492-6056. | Would the government consider supplying the Kit B: Center Wing Panel shipping fixtures (P/N 160D997900-5) in SPI F01-492-6056? Alternately, would the Government consider allowing the shipping fixtures to be rotated between Hill AFB and the Center Wing Supplier? | Government supply the Kit B Center Wing Shipping fixtures and allow rotation between Hill AFB and Center Wing Supplier/Contractor. | The Government does not intend to supply the WCP shipping fixtures for this contract. |
Rotation of WCP shipping fixtures has been coordinated for previous wing acquisition efforts. ATTACK shipping details will be coordinated IAW SOW section 5.4.1 CDRL A007 - Packaging Plan.
212 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award C. Volume II, Technical Factor (SF2).d (d) A draft IMS that at a minimum graphically details the offeror’s timeline for tooling production (to include master and production tool need timeline), material purchase, first article production (manufacture, inspection, and testing), LRIP, and FRP for an entire year (following the delivery of final LRIP unit). Assume a FRP delivery rate of three wings per month. The draft IMS shall reflect program milestones and CDRL deliveries as required by the SOW. The draft IMS will not be included in the page count limitation for the Technical Proposal Volume. Please clarify if all competitors are required to submit a Draft IMS showing 3 wings per month (36 wings year) to start delivering on the first month of Production Ordering Period 1?
Allow competitors to build up to a rate of 3 per month vs starting 1st month of Production Ordering Period 1 at a rate of 3 per month Full rate production shall be assumed to be 3 wings/month. There are no assumptions being directed for FRP ramp-up. The IMS should reflect a realistic delivery schedule for full rate production.
&"Arial,Regular"&10Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .