Q A_06Aug2012.pdf

Question and Answers 06 Aug 2012

Question: Concerning replacement of fuel tanks with NEW that meet EPA 40 CFR part 112 requirements: Is single wall tank construction acceptable considering they are mounted in a protected area having a secondary spill protected dike which meets ECP SPCC requirements? Or is Double wall construction preferred being each state may have more stringent regulations?

Answer: Single wall is acceptable.

Question: Concerning replacement of fuel tanks with NEW that meet EPA 40 CFR part 112 requirements: The current USAF fuel tank drawings indicate Aluminum products. Should we assume same aluminum material product is required for new tank? Or is Carbon steel acceptable if the interior is coated for fuel storage?

Answer: Aluminum is the required material per the drawings. However, steel could be a suitable substitute for the tank and piping. An ECP (Engineering Change Proposal) and NOR (Notice of Revision) would have to be submitted after contract award per the instructions in the PWS detailing the alternative material. This ECP and NOR would be reviewed by the cognizant engineer for possible approval or disapproval as an alternative material.

Question: Concerning replacement of fuel tanks with NEW that meet EPA 40 CFR part 112 requirements: Should we assume exterior color and coating to match existing USAF drawings?

Answer: Yes. Primer and 2 coats of white finish coating will be applied to the tank.

Question: Concerning fuel piping, valves, and/or delivery system: When reconfiguring piping and valves, should we assume same material type to be used for fuel delivery piping/valves as referenced on USAF drawings? Or is an alternative material type acceptable?

Answer: Yes same material should be utilized. After contract award through the ECP and NOR process detailed within the PWS, the contractor may request the use of alternative material with the same form, fit and function taking into consideration COTS, operability, maintainability, and reliability, in several types of weather environment and suitable for the test cell operation. This ECP and NOR would be reviewed by the cognizant engineer for approval or disapproval.

Question: Concerning fuel piping, valves, and/or delivery system: Should we assume all paints and coating to match USAF drawings for this systems?

Answer: YES. Some mil specs in drawings may have been replaced with more recent mil specs. The contractor shall apply the paints and coating based on the most recent equivalent mil specs.

Question: Concerning replacement of pump, motors, and flow indicator. Drawings were issued with solicitation concerning current USAF configuration and part numbers. Should we assume replacement size of pumps, motors, and flow indicator are to match the USAF drawings? Are alternative model, make, and type acceptable?

Answer: Yes replacement should match the USAF drawings. However, after contract award through the ECP and NOR process detailed within the PWS, the contractor may request the use of alternatives of same or better quality components. This ECP and NOR would be reviewed by the cognizant engineer for approval or disapproval.

NOTE: Additional Drawings will be added to the Technical Data Package (TDP) to provide more detailed information on the fuel system components (tank, pumps, valves, instruments, etc). These drawings will be posted through the FBO website.