T-38_Structural_Re-Engineering_ID_Q&A.XLSX
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- T-38 Structural Component Re-Engineering
- Solicitation number
- FA8220-19-R-0002
About this file
Q&A
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
General QA Questions from General Industry Day Briefing (30 Oct 2018, POE Conference Center, Hill AFB, UT)
| # | CTR Question/Comment | Government Response/Question |
| 1 | Will the CTR be required to provide tooling drawings as part of the TDP? | The government is working on defining what will be required in regards to tooling. Instructions will be provided in the final version of the PWS. |
| 2 | The USG mentioned that the company selected to deliver TDPs for the Re-Engineering contract can also bid on the follow-on production contract. We have always heard that their role in the design effort precludes them from participating in the production effort. Can you confirm either way? | To our understanding, there is nothing stopping the company who completes the Re-Engineering contract from bidding on the production contract. |
| 3 | Will a flight regime be provided to the contractor? | Yes. Portions of applicable T.O.s and Flight manuals will be provided in a "Bidders Library" to assist in determining the flight regime. |
| 4 | Is the USG going to provide a testing framework to establish physical properties of the components? | No, that is up to the CTR. A comprehensive test plan is a required deliverable. MIL-STD-115 and DLA-37B have Reverse Engineering frameworks you can work from. |
| 5 | Will a First Article (FA) be required for the follow-on production contract if the contract is awarded to the same contractor (CTR) who completed the Re-Engineering contract? | Yes, unless the same tooling which was used to produce the FA from the Re-Engineering contract is used for the follow-on production contract. |
| 6 | Where is the DLA supply center for the T-38? | Richmond, Virginia |
| 7 | The PWS lists both 2D drawings and 3D models as deliverables. What will be the master - 3D models or simplified 2D drawings? What will be used for FA testing? We are concerned about the lack of complexity of 2D drawings and that it will not be an accurate representation of the component. What about a simplified 3D model? | The current CDRL specifies: Drawing Format shall be 3D models with |
associated 2D drawings.
Since its inception the model has always been the master, the model conveys the design intent, the 2D drawings are linked to the models and all dimensions are derived directly from the model.
There needs to be enough information on the 2D drawings to fully define the item being manufactured and enough information to inspect the parts.
| 8 | If the CTR used the RPPOB program through DLA to borrow component assemblies for dimensional analysis, can the CTR get unpainted parts? Variable paint coat thickness causes inaccuracy in dimensional analysis. | If the parts are brand new from DLA, they should only have a primer with no paint. For used parts purchased from AMARG, paint may be striped from the part. For used parts expected to be returned to DLA/the field, it would depend on the borrowing agreement - the parts will most likely be required to be returned in the same condition they were given to the CTR in. The CTR could theoretically strip the paint of the borrowed part to conduct dimensional analysis, then re-paint before returning it to the USG. | |
| 9 | Modeling software concerns, PWS/CDRL error (.step), CATIA vs NX | ||
| Are you requiring all work to be done in NX? | The EPL is the Air Force Evaluated Products List that shows the current |
approved version of the software allowed on AF systems.
https://cs2.eis.af.mil/sites/10336/lists/cotsgots%20software/epl.aspx
The Drawing CDRL specifically details the requirements for software use and data delivery.
| 10 | When will industry be informed if the Re-Engineering effort will be a Small Business set-aside or a full and open competition? | Within the couple weeks, before Draft RFP release. |
| 11 | If the effort is not a small business set-aside, how are the small-business requirements calculated - percent of each basic/option year or aggregate of the entire contract? | Aggregate of base and option years. |
| 12 | How open is the USG to using new materials like composites to re-engineer the components? | If there is a compelling reason, it could be considered. We don't have the capability to deal with composite repair, along with the retraining, etc. If composite is a significantly cheaper an option, treating the components as throw-always rather than reparable may be considered. The USG is not seeking to change organic/depot maintenance strategies or else the contractor would have to provide the technical data to do that. |
| 13 | How are you evaluating different solutions? Is your evaluation going to factor projected production price for the new components? How are you judging value? Re-Engineered components could cost more than you're paying now. | If we are changing the process we need to evaluate what this is going to do to the cost of these parts because this is not an easy answer. The USG is in the process of defining our evaluation criteria. |
| 14 | Do you have a model to compute what the costs will be for future government and taxpayers in regards to future production of parts? | We have completed a cost benefit analysis using estimates from the RFI. |
| 15 | Equivalency testing? How do we determine that the parts we are destructively testing have no delamination's? | The part you will be destroying will be brand new. You can do multiple coupon tests on multiple areas to verify there are no delamination's. New parts shouldn't have delamination's. |
| 16 | What would be considered a "quality acceptable" percentage of delamination's? We are being asked to perform a couple coupon tests and then call the part perfect. We can't determine the exact bonding specification from these tests without the OEM's proprietary data so that will have to be re-engineering. | That is correct. We don't expect every single aspect of the component to be reverse engineered. Things like the bonding specification will most likely have to be re-engineering and then tested. Things like the ribs and forgings can be strictly reverse engineered from the destructive testing but the whole components will be a composite of reverse engineering and re-engineered sub-components. |
| 17 | Who has to approve the acquisition strategy? | Lower than the PEO level. Should be the division chief for the program office. |
| 18 | Will the contractor be provided historical information on repair times, mean time between failure, etc. for contractors to perform own economic analysis? | We have that data. We are reviewing it now and will determine if we can provide this to the contractor. If it is decided to provide that information, it will be included in the "Bidders Library" |
| 19 | Will the USG provide a model in the RFP for cost benefit analysis so all proposals are evaluated to the same standard? | See question 14. |
| 20 | When are you planning on releasing the formal RFP? | End of January 2019 or early February 2019. |
| 21 | Is it possible the USG can combine this development contract with the initial production contract? | We have thought about it but we are planning on using O&M dollars so we cannot include production (wrong color of money). |
| 22 | Industry suggests using at least 2-3 first article assets rather than just 1 to validate the quality of the TDP and the interchangeability of the different assets on different aircraft. We would most likely not create different tooling for more vs less first articles. We suggest doing equal numbers of right-hand and left-hand components because they have different tooling. | If you are required to do more than one first article, would you create different tooling? |
The T-38 Program Office is evaluating the requirement to increase the number of First Article units (or Interchangeability Demonstration Parts). The final PWS will be updated to include the required number of assets.
| 23 | Will contracting require bidders to reveal they've received proprietary data from the contractor in the past? Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) mitigation plan? It's important to firewall off those who would have an unfair advantage from previous work. | No set plan now but we will look into requiring an OCI mitigation plan as a deliverable. |
| 24 | Are we going to be provided with a list of qualified sources for producing the existing OEM components so we can avoid them? | We were not planning on it. It is up to you to verify that you will not use proprietary data. |
| 25 | Do you have any non-proprietary data from maintenance or anything that you can provide? We are concerned about interfacing information. | The T-38 Program Office will create a Bidders Library that will include applicable portions of maintenance manuals to assist in the determining interface information. In addition, Contractors will be permitted access to operational aircraft after contract award to assist in development of the interface requirements. |
| 26 | Will we have access to aircraft for operational testing? | Yes, you will have access to operational aircraft for fit checks. No planned operational testing on aircraft currently. |
| 27 | This initiative will require a lot of upfront coordination with DLA for data, physical parts. | DLA is waiting on us to provide a tech data package and then they'll procure it. They are aware we are pursuing reverse or re-engineering these components. They're not involved in the reverse or re-engineering effort. |
| 28 | Will the components have a brand new part number or modified existing part number? Will the USG create the new NSNs? | Yes, the USG will create new NSNs and stock list the components as well as taking care of Technical Order (TO) updates. The new reverse or re-engineering components will have brand new part numbers. The Drawing CDRL and Mil-Std-31000 outline the requirements for part number assignments. |
| 29 | Will the contractors have access to the T-38 Technical Orders (-3/-4)? | The government is looking into providing a bidder's library with the solicitation to include relevant sections of the TOs. |
| 30 | Prior to first article submittal, will the contractor have access to an aircraft for a fit check (pre-FAT)? | The contractor will be given access to operational aircraft throughout the design phase. If they would like to do a pre-FAT, we can make that happen. |
| 31 | Is there a sunset date for the T-38? | The T-X has a planned LRIP date in 2026 and FRIP date in 2034. We can expect the T-38 to be flown into the 2040's. There is still 20+ years left in the T-38 lifecycle. AETC is planning on starting drawdown in 2028, but ACC will have several (~60) T-38s for the foreseeable future. |
| 32 | Equivalency testing - how can we do this with only a portion of the part? We will need more than one item for destructive testing. | If you feel like you need more items to destroy than we are requiring, then that would be part of the test plan. You would purchase them and use as you want. |
| 33 | Will you provide current cost for purchasing these components from supply? | Prices can be looked up in Haystack. |
| 34 | Is the USG looking to increase the capability of the components? | No, the goal is to reduce the cost of the components while maintaining the capability. |
| 35 | It sounds like you don't have a cost-benefit analysis to justify the savings you hope to get - how will contracting determine that? | We are still working on our strategy. Current strategy assumes that increasing competition will reduce cost as the government will own the data rights to these components designs' and will be able to compete them at lower prices. |
| 36 | Will this contract have any EVMS reporting requirements? | Not sure yet, depends on the dollar threshold for the EVMS requirement. We will look into it. |
| 37 | If the OEM comes up and says they will cut the cost will you cancel this effort? | The government has contacted the OEM and requested that they sell the appropriate Techincal Data Rights and/or also provide any potential options for cost reductions. The government's final position going forward is still to be determined at this time. However, once the government releases our Request for Proposal (RFP), we have committed to this effort and will not cancel it after industry has put time and money into creating proposals. |
Individual Sessions QA Questions from One-on-One Sessions (30-31 Oct 2018, POE Conference Center, Hill AFB, UT)
| # | CTR Question | Government Response |
| 1 | The critical interface of each component doesn’t change between the different versions, correct? | Correct, the interface remains the same for the T-38 A/B/C models. |
| 2 | Are we expecting hybrid bids (prime with subcontractors)? Would subs be from certain pools for bids? Please Clarify. | The biggest concern we have is the past experience offerors have with bonded honeycomb structural components (including any subcontractors selected to work with the Prime). When we send out the draft RFP, you'll see honeycomb experience is highly rated in our evaluation criteria. |
| 3 | If this effort is a small-business set-aside, large businesses can't bid on the contract, correct? | That is correct. One of the purposes of industry days is to see if we have |
small businesses capable of meeting our requirement. If the contract is determined to be a Small Business set-aside, large businesses will not be allowed to bid as the Prime.
| 4 | If this effort is a small-business set-aside, does this help you get funding or affect your budget? | No, it just helps us meet our small business participation goals. |
| 5 | When establishing tolerances, will the USG be able to provide feedback or point out major issues without giving up propriety information? | We recommend using industry standards and engineering best judgement for assigning tolerances which will not infringe on proprietary data. If we compare the proposed tolerancing to OEM data, we can tell you if something is wrong, but we cannot tell you why it is wrong. |
| 6 | Does the USG want the contractor to calculate ultimate loads? | Yes, this can be accomplished in one of two methods: 1-Perform coupon testing to determine legacy properties and ensure replacement specs meet or exceed those properties, 2- develop loads data using max aerodynamic loads for T-38 flight conditions (Flight Regime to be provided in the Bidder's Library). |
| 7 | Are you interested in something's that's actually better? Or are you more interested in better assurances? Gov't has to say what its priorities are. | The main goal of this program is to increase competition in order to reduce |
costs, i.e. replicate capabilities for less money. Less changes means less pain, so the closest we can get to the original design will be better. We want a technical data package that has no proprietary data.
| 8 | How will the government address the risk of cost overrun? | We are still developing our strategy. |
| 9 | Is there an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) mitigation plan in place for this effort? | Not currently, but we will look into listing it as a deliverable with the proposals. |
| 10 | The flight load data includes a mix of proprietary and non-proprietary information. Will this be provided to the contractor? | No, we will not provide flight load data to the contractor. The contractor would have to do their own calculations (see response to question #6). |
| 11 | You mentioned that reverse engineered components won't need testing; how can you get away from testing if it's a Critical Safety Item (CSI)? | A reverse engineered component is a duplicate of the original. Further testing on the reverse engineered sub-components of an assembly is not required. Assembly-level testing for a component with both reverse and re-engineered sub-components is required. |
| 12 | Will the questions from the one-on-one sessions be posted to FBO? | Yes |
| 13 | Is the OEM going to challenge this contract/effort? | We cannot speak for the OEM and their intentions. However, as long as proprietary data is not used in any aspect of the solicitation and contract, we have the required regulatory approvals from the HCA of contracting, and also the Hill AFB Acquisition and Fiscal Law Division to move forward at this time. |
| 14 | Some contractors own tooling which was created using the data now claimed as proprietary by the OEM, but the tooling itself is not owned by the OEM. Can this tooling be used in the re-engineering effort or will these contractors need to firewall themselves from it as they create their own tech data? | The following is the response provided by the Hill AFB Acquisition and Fiscal Law Division, 75 ABW/JA: "The tooling properly created in the past (using drawings that at the time were not claimed proprietary by the OEM) is useable by USAF and/or contractors. The fact that the OEM later decides to raise a claim of proprietary drawings, does not retroactively invalidate the tooling which was properly created previously. Legal does not have a problem with the USG or contractors now taking measurements from such previous properly-created tooling to support the reverse and/or re-engineering engineering process." |
| 15 | Will the estimated production quantities be shared with interested contractors? | Yes, included in brief posted to FBO. |
| 16 | On the RFI released in September 2017, the rudder was included on the list of selected structural components for this effort. Why was it removed? | DLA has a contract for a large amount of rudders which will supply the fleet for the foreseeable future so it does not make sense to reverse engineer this component. |
| 17 | Will there be future opportunities to reverse and/or re-engineer other bonded honeycomb T-38 components after this contract? | The items selected for this effort were picked because they are current DLA cost drivers with proprietary technical data. Other similar bonded honeycomb components (like the rudder) were removed from the list of reverse engineer candidates due to existing DLA contracts for large quantities. There may be a future for similar reverse engineering efforts outside of bonded honeycomb structural components. |
| 18 | Who will own the tooling for the reverse and/or re-engineered components? Will the USG want the tooling drawings or just the parts them selves? | We are still deciding. Most likely we will require the drawings for the tooling to be a part of the final TDPs. The final decision will be included in our Final RFP |
| 19 | Production will be open solicitation for the next phase. Will the production contract include the OEM part numbers and the new part numbers? | No, it will only include the new part number and NSN. |
| 20 | What will be the bonding specification approval process? | Currently, we have no on-aircraft testing planned. Since the goal of this effort is for the USG to own the new technical data, the specifications will have to be proven to meet USG standards. We are not trading one proprietary property for another. |
| 21 | Does the USG own the specifications for the -33 wing (has bonded components)? | No. Limited rights were assigned with the -33 wing. The OEM retains proprietary rights to process specs used on the -33 wing |
| 22 | How will the USG address the issue of parts availability for components with zero stock on hand? Can the USG provide parts in this situation to the contractor as GFE? | We do not have the funding to provide parts as GFE for this effort. The contractor will have to work with the USG to acquire used parts from the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) or the field. |
| 23 | CDRL A005 in the PWS references the "latest approved Air Force EPL version." What is an EPL? | The EPL is the Air Force Evaluated Products List that shows the current |
approved version of the software allowed on AF systems.
https://cs2.eis.af.mil/sites/10336/lists/cotsgots%20software/epl.aspx
| 24 | When will the USG's Acquisition Strategy for this effort be approved? | Before the release of the Draft RFP. |
| 25 | Is F-5 technical data for these components also proprietary? | Yes. |
| 26 | After contract award, can the USG give any technical data (stress/strength data, first article reports, etc.) for the components to the contractor? | No, all technical data and reports are proprietary. |
| 27 | What is the current maintenance concept for these components? | These components can be repaired at the field-level. There is currently no depot-level repair for these components. |
| 28 | Is the T-38 on a Program Depot Maintenance (PDM) cycle? | No. |
| 29 | Where is the T-38 Depot? | The Depot is a Satellite of the 309th Maintenance Wing located at Randolph AFB, TX. |
| 30 | You're thinking about doing a past performance trade off? Would you allow past teammate cooperation? That way you get a full past performance picture. | Yes; we will take that into consideration. |
File details come from the government source that posted it.