Synopsis_Q&A_1.pdf

FA8504‐19-R-0006

Questions & Answers

27 March 2019

Q1. Please confirm that this include the entire system of both the upper tank and lower (below the floor) tank elements, including doors and actuators. This increased the tank volume capacity from 3,500 in the previous solicitation appears to have been coupled with the total weight for a fully loaded system being upped from 40,000 lb. to 41,000 lb., and now includes the added the dry weight restriction to the tank system of 5,000 lbs. This creates the issue that by adding 500 gallons of retardant @ 9 lb. per gal. equals 4,500 lbs. increased weight, but only upping the total system weight by 1,000 lb. with the 5,000 lbs. dry weight cap, appears to be inconsistent. Can you please provide rationale for this.

Reference: 1.1 & 6.2 f. “The Contractor shall design, engineer, develop, manufacture, and install a minimum 4000 gallon Retardant Delivery System (RDS) tank with a net max dry weight of 5,000 lbs. for all fixed and removable components to include restraints with a maximum total system weight of 41,000 lbs.”

A1. The tank capacity and Maximum total system weight are to include ALL elements of the modification including upper and lower tanks, tank elements, doors, and actuators. The 5,000 lbs dry weight is a derived requirement as a result of the Maximum total system weight of 41,000 lbs and 9 lbs per gallon retardant weight. The max total system weight is set/limited by aircraft gross weight accounting for fuel, crew, and aircraft basic weight.

Q2. It is noted that the overall duration of the contract will now be 27 months whereas in the previous solicitation the total program was 36 months. Can you please clarify as to the reasoning behind compressing the schedule?

Reference: 4.6 Period of Performance “Basic and all options if exercised shall be completed in 27 months after award of contract.”

A2. The schedule after TKI now has two aircraft in modification at one time.

Q3. Understanding and agreeing with the Government’s rationale for requiring all sub‐contractors to have AS9100 certification before commencement of manufacturing activities as stated in the April 2018

SOW, please explain the rationale for amending the new SOW to require AS9100 certification at proposal time. Given the following two factors for consideration: 1) as Prime, we have AS9100 certification and will provide oversight while our subcontractor re‐certifies their AS9100 status, which will be achieved well before any manufacturing activities begin (subcontractor had the necessary certification previously, but let it lapse for business reasons), and 2) asking a small business to speculatively seek AS9100 certification would be an unreasonable financial hardship, we respectfully request that the previous requirement (for AS9100 certification prior to commencement of manufacturing activities) be re‐instated. If not, please explain the Government’s rationale for requiring

AS9100 prior to proposal bid.

Reference: 4.8 Higher Level Contract Quality Requirements “Sub‐Contractors and vendors supporting production of the RDS shall also be AS 9100 when proposals are due.”

A3. Certification can take up to 3 years, six months is achievable, but is not typical. This certification is for organizations doing business in the aerospace industry. The standard is based on organizational processes and emphasizes the need to satisfy internal, governmental and regulatory requirements. Due to our current schedule we cannot have a delay waiting on AS9100 certification to complete the aircraft modifications. This is the standard we require for this solicitation and is the Governments requirement.

Q4. It is assumed that the intent of this is to ensure the contractor will not modify the aircraft decking or dual rails as part of the RDS installation. If this is not the intent, since the aircraft cargo floor and rails are key structures for aircraft cargo load paths (the RDS is essentially cargo), please explain the rationale for not allowing standard cargo restraint systems as part of securing the RDS installation.

Reference: 6.2 (d) “The removable aircraft decking for the floor and the dual rails will not be used as part of the RDS installation.”

A4. That assumption is correct. The paragraph should be understood to read “The removable aircraft decking for the floor and the dual rails will not be modified as part of the RDS installation.”

Q5. Please clarify what is included in ‘aircraft removable, miscellaneous and auxiliary / optional equipment or there subcomponents’. We are requesting for an exhaustive list, however a sample list would suffice to help us to better understand this requirement.

Reference: 6.2 j “No RDS mounting shall be done to any aircraft removable miscellaneous and auxiliary / optional equipment or their subcomponents.”

A5. Removable, miscellaneous, and auxiliary equipment includes items identified in TO 1C‐130h‐4‐25‐1 and includes items such as troop seats, litter stanchions, and equipment racks.

Q6. It is our assumption that the 9G crash restraint loads of the RDS system are inclusive of the retardant load as per previous communication with the USAF during the prior solicitation. If not please justify the rationale for this significant change to the safety profile.

Reference: 6.2 m. 2. The RDS system and its fixed and removable miscellaneous and auxiliary equipment and their subcomponent installations, including, but not limited to, avionics, equipment, consoles, emergency and survival equipment, retention system components, ground handling implementations and other portable items, which in the event of a crash could result in injury to personnel or prevent egress from a crashed airplane, shall meet the following ultimate load factors Longitudinal: 9.0g forward and 1.5 g aft Lateral: 1.5 g right and left Vertical 4.5g down and 2.0 g up

A6. That assumption is correct. The crash restraint loads are applied with the full retardant load at maximum total system weight.

Q7. Please confirm that potential delays caused by the OEM will not be attributable to the contractor.

Reference: 15.0 b. c. d.

A7. Per SOW Paragraph 2.0 the OEM will be a sub‐contractor under this effort and will be responsible to the Prime contractor for performance.

Q8. It is our assumption that the life of this contract is only inclusive of the months as per the schedule that will be derived from the IMS SOW/CDRL requirements and does not stretch beyond this (27 months

+ warranty). Please confirm. If our assumption is incorrect, please provide further information regarding the Government’s intended definition for the term: life of this contract.

Reference: 18.7.1 ‐ The Contractor shall (and shall cause subcontractors and vendors to) update and maintain engineering data for the item(s) designed/ developed/modified/produced and funded by this contract for the life of this contract

A8. That is correct