Question_and_Answer_for_Draft_RFP_R01_05Nov18.pdf

Draft RFP Q&A for FA8220-18-R-0001/FA8220-19-R-0001, T-38 Pacer Classic III (PCIII) - Phase III & TRIM, R01 dated 11/5/2018 Offeror Question

Please confirm the Incentive plan applies only to the TRIM Kits and not to the Phase III Kits.

We are attempting to get a few SAR’s ready to submit and are missing one of the part number drawings. We have drawings for 2-11412 and 2-11308 but are missing drawings for 3-11608. Is there a possibility of providing the drawing for 3-11608 for us to work the SAR on that part number?

Government Response

Drawing 3-11608 is included in the PCIII and TRIM TDPs. Please let us know of any issues.

The government has decided to include any applicable Fastener requirements for the Pacer Classic III Phase III and TRIM efforts within the solicitation CLIN structure.

Locations will alternate between: Contractor facilities, Hill AFB, or Randolph AFB.

Are there any 3d models (.stp files, etc.) available for any of these parts?

Is there a master data set available that includes mylar's and loft data?

Please advise, if a decision has been made not to include the purchased hardware with the Pacer (III) and TRIM kits for FA8220-18-R-0001.

Do the TRIM Kits roll-up into 1 kit similar to the Phase III top kit and is that how the Government intends to procure? What’s the difference between the Base Kit A and Base Kit B?

In the Past Performance Section, do we submit the Attachment 2 documents along with the printout generated by the PPI tool?

Are we supposed to submit the Incentive spreadsheet with our proposal? Are we to provide alternate percentages and if so, how does that get evaluated/factored into award decision?

Section M states that the Technical Volume is either acceptable or unacceptable. Since it’s the most important factor, does the Government intend to rank each offerors volume?

How much more weight is given to the Technical and Past Performance Volumes over the Cost/Price Volume in the evaluation?

To achieve early delivery, is customer willing to provide funds for expedites or up-front material purchase either through advance funding or performance-based payments?

Will customer provide dedicated engineering support to resolve engineering issues such as engineering errors, obsolete hardware and chemicals no longer commercially available?

What is the time limit that the Govt. has to respond to technical questions (to avoid affecting delivery schedule and financial penalties)?

Will there be penalties for schedule delays on source-directed parts?

How much travel will be required for progress meetings?

What location will meetings be held?

Will Government source inspection support an accelerated production schedule?

No.

These are organized by subkit (BXE, CXE, DXE, etc). Each subkit should have a form 185 (BOM) and EDL (Engineering Data List) file. Under each folder should be a zip folder which contains the pdf drawing data and an HTML file that can be used to link the desired page of specification or drawing. If a drawing is missing, please contact the Government contracting office listed on the RFP.

The mylars are listed in the EDL and associated HTML file as “MY.” The loft data book is NAI57-84 for T-38. Since there are some parts based off of F-5, also included is NAI62-82.

How is the information on the TDP DVD's organized? (We are having trouble matching items on the BOM to specific drawings/file names.)

Similar, but different for A/B models. The Base Kit A will be required for each TRIM model (A/B and C models).

The B kit will be required just for A/B (currently 59 aircraft) not for the C models.

Yes, the Incentive Plan is just for TRIM Kits.

Yes, submit both documents.

No, the spreadsheet is provided for information only. No, alternate percentages need not be submitted.

Offerors are not ranked by the technical volume. See Section M for significance.

Significantly more in accordance with Section M, as its a subjective tradeoff.

Advance funding will not be provided up front for expedite purposes.

FAT lab has a total of 120 days which should be included into the decision for accelerated production. DCMA support for source inspection would support accelerated production with prior notice to government.

Yes. Through an Engineering Assistance Request (EARs).

Not specified contractually. The government will respond to technical questions no later than 10 business days. If additional information or further analysis is required, the response time may be extended up to 20 business days.

If late delivery results from one or more of the source directed parts listed for each program, and the contractor is not deemed at fault for late delivery, the Government will not assess liquidated damages.

Two PMRs could possibly require travel per year.

Section L.II.A.2: “2. Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12…”

1. Recommend the addition that “Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets…” print shall be no smaller than a font size of 10.

The Government agrees and has updated the font size to allow no smaller than a font size of 10.

Section L.II.D.2: “Each offeror/joint venture member shall complete a separate Past Performance Information Sheet (See RFP Attachment 2) for three (3) active or completed contract… For each critical subcontractor included in the offeror's proposal, a Past Performance Information Sheet for three (3) of their most recent and relevant contracts shall also be included.”

1. Recommend the deletion of “three (3)”. There isn’t enough page count in Volume III Past Performance to include three narratives from each subcontractor and three narratives from the Prime.

Alternately, limit the PPIS from each critical subcontractor to 1 per Section L.II.D.7.

Alternately, limit the page count of the volume based on each submitted PPIS; for example, if 3 PPIS from the Prime, and 3 PPIS from one critical subcontractor, and 3 PPIS from another critical subcontractor are required, then a page limitation of 6 per PPIS (reference Section L.II.D.7) plus an additional 5 pages for the other required information would establish a total page limitation of 59.

Alternately, keep the 6 page limitation for each PPIS, but exclude it from the total volume page count.

Section L.II.D.7: “This is in addition to qualifying critical subcontractors for the current effort (as specified in Section L) being able to provide one Past Performance Information Sheet…”

1. Conflicts with Section L.II.D.2 requiring three (3) PPIS from each critical subcontractor.

1. The Government agrees with keeping the 6 page limitation for each PPIS, but to exclude it from the total volume page count.

The government has corrected Section L paragraph II. D. 7. to include the following: "This is in addition to qualifying critical subcontractors for the current effort (as specified in Section L) being able to provide three Past Performance Information Sheet providing past performance data for tasks they will execute under the proposed T- 38 Pacer Classic III (PCIII) Phase III and Talon Repair Inspection and Maintenance (TRIM) contract."

Section L.II.A.3: “The page limitations include any cover page…”

1. Recommend that the cover page be excluded from the page count.

Additionally, exclude the detailed IMS required of Subfactor C, para 3.3.1 from the page count.

Section L.II.D.1: “Offerors shall submit present and past performance information for itself and any joint venture member, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor in accordance with the format contained in the “Past Performance Information Instructions” (See RFP Attachment 1) and the following paragraphs. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that will perform at least 20% of the manufacturing and/or assembly work by part quantity or weight…”

1. Recommend that a critical subcontractor be defined as performing at least 20% of the total contract value.

Alternately, omit “by weight” and define the critical subcontractor to at least 20% of the manufacturing and/or assembly work by part quantity.

The cover page (one page) and IMS will be excluded from the page count.

1. The Government definition will remain as previously stated in Section L.

The kits only contain an attachment A, Form 185 (kit BOM), and EDL. No drawing or other data is required at this level as the parts have individual drawings. The 18-22334-388-003, 18-22334-394-004, and 18-22334-400-005 were provided as DRAFT. These will be available at the time of final RFP release. The 3 -11322-502 is proprietary as stated in the Attachment A (drawing will not be provided). Please let us know of any additional questions.”

The following items are missing from the TDP: 1T38A998C, 1T38A998D, 1T38A998E, 1T38A998F, 1T38A998G, 18- 22334-388-003, 18-22334-394-004, 18-22334-400-005, and 3-11322-502

In document "1560K0104791AXE 185.pdf", kit p/n IT-38A-998B is not listed. We assume it should be included.

Please advise.

The 1560K0104791AXE 185.pdf is accurate. The “B” kit is not listed and is not included in the “A” kit. These kits are specific for the T-38-A/B model aircraft and the A kit covers all TRIM T-38 model (A/B/C) aircraft common parts.

Within 200610158-10 & -20 Lower Cockpit Longeron Splice Repair kits, there are p/n's 200610158-03/-04 Formers and 200610158-15/16 Longerons. It appears that these part numbers are only for the modification of the existing Formers and Longerons on the aircraft. No new Formers and Longerons will be supplied in the kit.

Correct. There is an Engineering Change Order in work to clarify this. These parts are not to be supplied in the kit.

The CRES (-7/-8) parts shall be passivated. Need to define spec and add info to attachment A until drawing can be updated.

The CRES (-7/-8) parts shall be passivated. Need to define spec and add info to attachment A until drawing can be updated.

We are also missing the following engineering: 2-10400; 2-10331; 51B105; S1109429; 2-11337; 51B108; 3-11322 2-10400, 2-10331, & 51B105 are all referenced in drawing 200610158 Lower Cockpit Longeron Splice Fitting but are not needed for part procurement and therefor are not listed in the EDL.

S1109429 Extrusion and 2-11337 Clip are currently on the EDL for the C Kit. I am not sure why they are missing.

51B108 Nutplate/Bracket: I couldn’t find where this drawing is listed and would require more information to determine if this is necessary for procurement.

51B108 Nutplate/Bracket: I couldn’t find where this drawing is listed and would require more information to determine if this is necessary for procurement.

3-11322 Skin is a Proprietary drawing to Northrup Grumman and therefore the Tech data is not provided. It is specified in the Attachment A that they need to go through NG to procure the skin.

Within 200610158-10 & -20 Lower Cockpit Longeron Splice Repair kits, p/n 3-10407-11 Zee is called out. On the field of the drawing, this part number is bracketed (i.e.. "[(76823) 3-10407-11 Zee]) which implies that it is shown for reference only and should not be included as a part of the actual kit.

Within kit IT-38A-998E, are p/n's 2-31435-501/-502 (Vertical Stabilizer Attach Angle). They are designated as Critical Safety Items (CSI). No approved sources have been provided for these parts.

Within kit IT-38A-998E, are p/n's 3-11227-11/-12 (Attach Lower Aft CFS Support). They are designated as Critical Safety Items (CSI). No approved sources have been provided for these parts.

Within IT-38A-998D (Former Repair Kit), p/n's 2-11764-5/-6 are listed as being in the kit. When referencing dwg 18-22334-388-003, it shows the Former repair items attaching to "Existing Duct Ring" which are p/n's 2-11764-5/-

6. Should the kit include a qty of 1 each of 2-11764-5/-6 or are these duct rings shown for reference and the Former Repair items are attaching to the duct rings already in the aircraft?

Within IT-38A-998D (Former Repair Kit), p/n 18-22334-388-003 is shown as being in the kit. When referencing dwg 18-22334-388-003, there is a -21 and -22 repair kit. Since there are both LH and RH Duct Rings, it is assumed that both -21 and -22 repair kits are required.

Within IT-38A-998D (Former Repair Kit), p/n 18-22334-394-004 is shown in the kit list. The engineering provided is dwg number 18-22334-394-003. It is assumed that the kit list is in error and should read 18-22334-394-003.

Within IT-38A-998D (Former Repair Kit), p/n 18-22334-400-005 is shown in the kit list. The engineering provided is dwg number 18-22334-400-003. It is assumed that the kit list is in error and should read 18-22334-400-003.

Dwg No. 18-22334-388-003 is a draft and not final released engineering. It does not call out any finishes to be applied to parts therefore we are assuming no finishes are required.

The final drawing 18-22334-388-003 notes have been corrected to include finish requirements.

Dwg No. 18-22334-394-003 is a draft and not final released engineering. It does not specify any finishes to be applied to the parts made from CRES (-7/-8). We are assuming that the CRES parts do not receive any finishes.

Dwg No. 18-22334-400-003 is a draft and not final released engineering. It does not specify any finishes to be applied to the parts made from CRES (-7/-8). We are assuming that the CRES parts do not receive any finishes.

Forrest Machining Inc. is current manufacture for other USAF contracts for p/n's 2-31435-501/-502 (Vertical Stabilizer Attach Angle). Other suppliers (including NG Technical Services and Derco Aerospace) are listed on current individual NSN screening analysis worksheet and will be provided in an update to the Attachment A.

Correct. There is an Engineering Change Order in work to correct this on the list of materials. The 3-10407-11 Zee is not required.

Correct. This is an error in the kit list. This has been corrected.

Correct. This is an error in the kit list. This has been corrected.

Correct. Both -21 and -22 Repair kits are required.

Only a qty of 1 each of the P/N 2-11764-5/-6 are in the Kit BOM. The 18-22334-388-003 drawing has been updated to clarify the required parts (18-22334-388-003-7/-8).

There currently is not a list of required approved finish sources. Suppliers were listed on previous screening analysis worksheet, however, due to need to get more suppliers qualified, this part was changed to open up sources. The existing suppliers will be provided in an update to the Attachment A.

38 Pursuant to the reference of a 12.5” dimension in 2.2.1.1 section L , Subfactor B – Drawing Interpretation we have the following question. We’ve reviewed the DWG and found the only 12.5” dimensions are either in D-D or the bottom of the Main View. In D-D, it is a reference dimension back to the real 12.5” callout at the bottom of the Main View on either side of CL. In the lower edge of the Main View, It is calling out the distance from CL to the EOP of parts -35 and -31 Formers. These parts are spliced together using the -23/-25 and -13 at the 12.5” from CL dimension. This 12.5” Dim has nothing to do with Firewall or BCL surfaces. Based on the information provided we believe the question requires additional clarification.

The question is clear and the required information has been provided. The 12.5-inch dimension at the lower edge of the Main View is the correct dimension reference in the question.

Sheet1