RFP Responses to Industry rev 1- 23 Apr 2009.docx

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE GLOBAL LOGISTICS SUPPORT CENTER (AFMC)

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE ILLINOIS

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 23 April 2009

SUBJECT: Response to Industry Questions concerning T-38 Wing RFP (FA821808R73114)

1. Several questions have been submitted by industry concerning the release of Request for Proposal (RFP), FA821808R73114 for the T-38 Wing Torque Box. All ‘Background, ‘Questions’ and ‘Recommendations’ were provided by potential offerors. The information below addresses these questions (responses to questions are in bold):

a. Reference: FA821808R73114_T38WingSPI.pdf

Background: The Special Packaging Instructions provided in the RFP appear to indicate the containers are intended to be reusable. Given the uncertainty of the government’s ultimate order quantity as well as the uncertainty of the turnaround time within which shipping containers could be returned to the contractor for reuse, it is difficult to determine the quantity of shipping containers that will be required.

Question: Can the government provide insight into how long on average it will take for an individual shipping container to be returned to contractor for reuse from the time a wing is delivered FOB origin at contractor’s production facility, to the time it arrives back empty at that same production facility?

Answer: The containers are intended to be reusable, but they will not be returned to the contractor facility. They government will reuse the container for shipping of the old wing to DRMO or another location for inspection purposes. Contractors will be required to build one shipping container per wing delivered.

b. Reference: FA821808R73114_SOW_T38_Wing_Torque_Box_10_Dec_2008.docx, Ref: Page 7

Background: SOW Paragraph 3.2.2.1.3 “First Article -33 Wing Installation” states the government will inspect the wing-to-fuselage attach points, wing-tip attach points, and upper and lower skin drilling.

Question: Can the government clarify what is planned for first article inspection at 'feather' and fuselage interfaces?

Answer: The government intends to visually verify the quality of the attach points (feather/fuselage) for risk reduction purposes, prior to the wing leaving the production facility to an Air Force base. The first article test results will be evaluated, but measurements will not be taken during these visual inspections.

c. Reference: FA821808R73114.RTF

Question: It appears this contract is set up for only a one-time exercise of a quantity option for each individual FY. Is this the government’s intent? If the government discovers a need to add additional quantities in a given year, this contract vehicle may not provide a means to do so. Can the government clarify how they might order additional FY quantities?

Answer: Yes, it is the government’s intent for a one-time exercise of a quantity option for each individual FY. The government has requested offeror’s to price 1-24 wings in a given ordering period; these quantities provide the means to order additional quantities over the best estimated quantity.

d. Reference: FA821808R73114.RTF, Ref: Page 36-37

Question: Can the government clarify how they might exercise a “Surge Option” (DFARS clause 252.217-7001) given that pricing and schedule (i.e. Production Surge Plan) for such additional units has not been requested in the RFP?

Answer: The government has decided to eliminate the “surge option” requirement from the RFP and will provide an amended RFP as soon as possible.

e. Reference: FA821808R73114_SOW_T38_Wing_Torque_Box_10_Dec_2008.docx, Ref: Page 9 and Technical Data Package (TDP)

Background: Statement of Work Paragraph 3.2.3.3. Interchangeability states that the -33 wing has to be interchangeable per MIL-HDBK-505. This is applicable at the wing's interfaces to other configuration items such as the leading edges, wing tips, fuselage, LRUs, and MLGs. However, within the -33 wing Technical Data Package (TDP), there are multiple parts (doors, fittings) that are defined as interchangeable per MIL-I-8500.

Question: The SOW direction to ensure interchangeability per MIL-HDBK-505 appears to be in conflict with specifications within the Technical Data Package to MIL-I-8500. Is it correct to assume that the SOW takes precedence and the Government’s intent is to require interchangeability in accordance with MIL-HDBK-505 only?

Recommendation: Industry would like to highlight that MIL-I-8500 requires cycle checks where you take the actual hardware from one article and interchange it with another article, while MIL-HDBK-505 does not levy such a requirement. A decision to require MIL-I-8500 would have a material impact on the cost of the program, especially, at the fuselage, wing tip, and leading edge interfaces. A nominal impact would be incurred for the other interfaces. In addition to cost, the contractor would have to keep at least two finished wing assemblies in inventory to perform the cycle check. Also, cycle checks cannot be performed without the mating parts (wing tip, leading edge, MLG, fuselage). Due to the aforementioned cost and inventory concerns, industry strongly encourages the government to require interchangeability in accordance with MIL-HDBK-505 only.

Answer: The government agrees that the SOW is in conflict with the Technical Data Package. The SOW will be updated as soon as possible to require interchangeability in accordance with MIL-I-8500. Additionally, the intent is to verify interchangeability during installation of the first article T-38 wing torque box; verification of subsequent compliance (as defined by paragraph 4.4 of MIL-I-8500) is not required. Therefore, cycle checks as mentioned in the recommendation above will not be required. Draft verbiage for the SOW, paragraph 3.2.3.3 is:

The -33 Wing shall be an interchangeable item as defined in MIL-I-8500. All interchangeable interfaces/parts are identified in the drawings within the Technical Data Package. Interchangeability for all interfaces/parts will be verified during acceptance and installation of the first article T-38 wing torque box on an aircraft. Paragraph 4.4 ‘Quality conformance inspection’ of MIL-I-8500 does not apply and contractors will not be required to show proof of compliance with interchangeability requirements subsequent to the first article inspection/installation.

f. Reference: N/A

Question: Does the government have a current T-38 IRWL (Interchangeable/Replaceable Working List)? If yes, can it be provided to industry during the proposal phase?

Answer: No, the government does not have a T-38 IRWL. The designation of interchangeable parts is contained within the parts respective drawing.

g. Reference: N/A

Question: In addition to the Technical Data Package that has previously been provided to industry, would the government be willing to provide access to the existing T-38 program TO’s for all competitors?

Answer: Access to the CITOMS (Comprehensive Integrated Technical Order Management System) requires the use of a DoD CAC (Common Access Card) and approved access from the CITOMS account manager. Offerors may be able to obtain access if they have contractor representatives at a government location or may be able to utilize in-plant DCMA if those users have a CAC card.

h. Reference: N/A

3-43033-101

3-43033-102

3-43033-103

3-43033-104

3-43033-107

3-43033-108

3-43033-49

3-43033-51

3-43033-53

3-43033-55

3-43033-61

3-43033-63

3-43033-77

3-43033-78

3-43033-79

3-43033-80

3-43033-81

3-43033-82

3-43033-83

3-43033-84

3-43033-89

3-43033-90

3-43033-93

3-43033-94

3-43033-95

3-43033-96

Answer: The government recognizes that the part number contained within the above list of drawings is incorrect. The correct part number is MS21921-#D. The government does not intend to correct the Technical Data Package at this time.

i. Reference: FA821808R73114.RTF, Ref: Page 23-24

Background: Industry reiterates that the benefit to the government of splitting out Travel in a separate No Fee CLIN in the context of a FFP competitive award appears to be outweighed by the potential administrative burden.

Question: Would the government again consider having Travel be included with the associated FFP CLINs and be evaluated as part of the competition in the Total Evaluated Price?

Answer: The PCO does not believe the administrative costs to administer a cost reimbursable travel CLIN will exceed potential savings over the life of the program. Travel needs are unknown at this time: therefore the government prefers travel costs not be included with fixed price for production of units.

j. Reference: FA821808R73114.RTF, Ref: Page 35

Background: Inclusion of OCI provisions 5352.209-9002 (and its alternates) is not statutorily required and is at the discretion of the PCO where a contractor will “occupy a highly influential and responsible position for determining the system’s basic concepts.” The RFP does not identify where a “significant potential conflict exists” (FAR Part 9.505).

Question: Would the government consider removal of OCI provisions 5352.209-9002 and its alternates? If these clauses are deemed necessary, would the government consider providing clarification regarding what potential conflicts are anticipated so that all contractors can take the action to develop “an appropriate means for resolving it” (FAR Part 9.505)?

Answer: The PCO has determined that the OCI provisions are appropriate for this acquisition. The clause is broadly written to cover many possible conflicts that may arise. Potential offerors are encouraged to review the clause and ensure they do not have any personnel in a position to violate the clause as it relates to this acquisition.

k. Reference: FA821808R73114.RTF, Ref: Pages 5, 6, 8

Background: The Best Estimated Quantity combined with the requirement to begin delivery of an order 24 months after receipt of order (ARO), results in a delivery schedule that contains both gaps and overlaps.

As a revision to the Draft RFP, the Final RFP clearly states:

“If production from one option carries over into the next option period - contractor will be allowed to complete delivery sequencially starting with the earliest order. The government will not require delivery of more than 1 EA per month, regardless of open order(s). Contractors will be allowed to deliver in excess of this requirement if they choose to do so, the government will allow delivery of more than 1 EA per month at contractors discretion. This statement applies to all CLIN's and option quantities.”

Nevertheless, Quantity Options 2 through 9, still contain the explicit requirement:

Required delivery will be 1 EA per month, starting 24 month after exercise of quantity option.

Question: Would the government consider restating the requirement as follows: “Required delivery will be 1 EA per month, no later than 24 month after exercise of quantity option, or sequential completion of prior order, which ever is later.”

Answer: The government agrees with proposed restatement of the requirement for sequential delivery and will provide an amended RFP as soon as possible to provide a note to each quantity option.

l. Reference: FA821808R73114_SOW_T38_Wing_Torque_Box_10_Dec_2008.docx, Ref: Page 6

Background: The RFP contains the following references to tooling effort:

SOW 3.2.1.1 Manufacturing Tooling and Processes states: “The contractor shall design and produce the Manufacturing Tooling needed to fabricate the T-38 Wing. The government encourages the use of modern innovations in tooling to streamline production of the -33 Wing. The contractor shall prepare a list of tooling developed and its purpose for government evaluation (CDRL A011). Special tooling and fixtures specifically designed and produced by the contractor to manufacture the -33 Wing becomes government property upon completion of the contract. Throughout the period of the contract, the contractor shall be responsible for maintaining the tooling/fixtures in a usable condition and fixing any broken tooling/fixtures. Upon completion of the contract, special tooling and fixtures should be delivered in a used, but usable condition. Final disposition of the specialized tooling and fixtures shall be as directed by the government contracting officer (ACO/PCO). The government may take physical possession of the special tooling or negotiate storage at the contractor facility.”

CLIN 0001AB for Tooling and First Article states that the price, “should include all costs related to producing the First Article, including all required tooling for entire contract.”

Question 1: Based on the above references it is clear that design and production costs related to tooling should be bid within CLIN 0001AB. Tooling maintenance and disposition costs are not as clear. Is it correct to assume that since tooling maintenance is required “throughout the period of the contract,” that this effort should be bid within each of the production CLINs, not within CLIN 0001AB? Is it correct to assume that since final disposition instructions are not yet available, that this cost should not be bid in this proposal?

Answer: It is correct that tooling maintenance should be bid within each of the production CLINs and not within CLIN 0001AB. It is also correct that the costs for final disposition should not be bid in the proposal.

Additional Background: Based on the references above, it is clear that “all required tooling” should be a deliverable under CLIN 0001AB. However the CLIN structure for CLIN 0001AB includes only a Quantity 1 EA delivery labeled as First Article with acceptance at Destination. Additionally, the SOW seems to indicate that tooling is not “delivered” until completion of the contract.

Question 2: Would the government consider clarifying the tooling delivery as follows: 1) Call out tooling as a separate deliverable under CLIN 0001AB (i.e. DD250); 2) Adjust acceptance/delivery to Origin (i.e. in place at contractor’s production facility where it will be used) following acceptance and successful installation of first article; 3) Include provisions in the contract to allow contractor possession of tooling (with maintenance responsibility) for use during the life of the contract (i.e. DD610).

Answer: The government agrees and will amend the RFP as soon as possible to reflect a separate CLIN for the tooling, with acceptance at Origin. The tooling will then become GFP with the contractor possession of the tooling (with responsibility of maintenance and associated costs for maintenance) throughout the life of the contract.

m. Reference: T-38 Wing Torque Box Technical Data Package

Question: Is there a manufacturing process directive/spec for the upper skin (3-23301) similar to the process directive MP-380, applicable to the lower skin? Additionally, MP-380 prescribes steps to “form contour and dihedral shape” and then to “check skin in fixture”. Are there drawings for T-38 Check Fixture 3-23302-1CKF?

Answer: There is not a manufacturing process directive for the upper skin. Additionally, drawings for the check fixture are not available. The check fixture 3-23302-1CKF should be developed from the Report NAI 57-84. This report provides the contour for the lower skin.

5. If you have any additional questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Cory Thompson via email, cory.thompson@hill.af.mil .

James A. Becker, Maj, USAF T-38 Program Manager

416 SCMS/GUMBA

image1.png