Questions and Answers 18 Jan 2012.pdf

Questions and Answers

FA8533-11-R-32740

18 January 2012

QUESTION #1

(Staircase & Maintenance Lift)

3.2 “The maintenance stand shall be adjustable by a hydraulic system with a positive locking mechanism for all heights within the range of adjustment and working levels.”

Does a holding valve directly mounted to the cylinder, or one manufactured into the cylinder per ANSI A92.3, meet this requirement or is it the intention to have a redundant positive locking mechanism in addition to a holding valve?

Government Response: The intention was to have the redundant positive locking mechanism.

QUESTION #2

(Staircase & Maintenance Lift)

3.5.2 “The maintenance stand when configured for air shipment shall be capable of being stacked.”

Is the intention of the government to have some kind of fixturing incorporated into the design that allows the units to be stacked on top of one another or does the stacking capability mean in a crated form?

If so, does this contract require us to design a crate for each individual unit for shipping purposes?

Government Response: This requirement was a request by the using community to try and maximize the available shipping space. Previous designs for the stands, specifically the legacy Articulating Staircase Type I design, allowed the bases to be stacked with one platform facing one direction and one facing the opposite direction. A crate is not required for shipping purposes.

QUESTION #3

(Staircase & Maintenance Lift)

3.8.4.1 “Casters shall be steerable.”

Does this mean swivel casters, or casters attached to a towbar?

Government Response: Swivel casters.

QUESTION #4

(Maintenance Lift Only)

3.8.6.4 In reference to the Platform access opening: The PD states that the access opening should be normally open, requiring the operator to close / block the access opening when utilizing the platform.

Can this be achieved with a removable guardrail, normally stored in another position, but put into place once the operator is on the work platform?

Government Response: The Government left this language ambiguous so the contractor could determine what best suited their design. As long as the removable guardrail meets OSHA requirements and the additional items listed in 3.8.6.4 it would be acceptable.

QUESTION #5

(Staircase Only)

In reference to the Articulated staircase: Is there any “over the wing” or up and over capabilities that the stands must meet? What kind of unrestricted free space needs to be under the staircase?

Government Response: When working on the canopies of the F-16 and F-22 aircraft the stands are up and over parts of the wing / aircraft. Typically the stands are set-up to get a foot / foot plus of clearance.

QUESTION #6

(Staircase & Maintenance Lift)

After reviewing the PD, we do not see a requirement for any kind of aircraft protection bumper. Is it the government’s intention that these units not have any kind of bumper protection?

If it is the government’s intention that these units have bumper protection? What level of protection would be required?

a. Padded Guard Rails? If so, is a special kind of foam required (such as high density polyurethane foam)?

b. What would be acceptable material to put on the outside of the foam to fasten to guard rail? UV and/or Skydrol resistant?

c. Would the entire outside edge of the platform need to have aircraft bumper protection?

d. Would only the corners of the platform need protection?

Government Response: The working platform should have a bumper pad to protect the aircraft. The PD has been updated to include a bumper pad requirement. See revision 2.

QUESTION #7

For both the articulating staircase and hydraulic scissor lift stands the PD sections 3.5.2 state “The maintenance stand when configured for air shipment shall be capable of being stacked.” During air transport there is the possibility of large G forces 4.5 G downward etc., to analyze the structure of the stand it will be necessary to know the loads induced by stacking. The number of units to be stacked and how they are stacked (points of contact etc) will need to be specified for each stand. Are there a required number of units to be stacked for each type of stand? There is also a potential conflict between the requirement of 3.5.2.1 and the requirement to be stackable. It is believed that current practices of stacking during air transport use shoring between the stands while stacked.

Is this acceptable? Is there a requirement for built in provisions on the stands to accommodate stacking without shoring? Should stacking methods and limitations be included in T.O. and instructional Media?

Government Response: This requirement was a request by the using community to try and maximize the available shipping space. Previous designs for the stands, specifically the legacy Articulating Staircase Type I design, allowed the bases to be stacked with one platform facing one direction and one facing the opposite direction. If the possibility of stacking causes the G forces to be exceeded or causes conflict with 3.5.2.1 Shoring then the stacking specification is not required.

QUESTION #8

For both the articulating staircase and hydraulic scissor lift stands there is a requirement for lifting provisions and winch points, can these be combined in a single provision? (PD sections 3.5.2.4 and 3.5.3)

Government Response: Yes, the lifting and winching provisioning can be combined into one provision.

QUESTION #9

For both the articulating staircase and hydraulic scissor lift stands PD section 3.7.1 states “Fall protection system shall be provided on each maintenance stand as applicable to OSHA 1910.66 Appendix C, AFOSH 91-100 (Section 8.2.5 Fall Protection Requirements), and AFOSH 91-501 (Chapter 13 Fall Protection) standards.” --AFOSH 91-501 Chapter 13.2 states “…fall arrest systems should be selected to match the particular work situation.” All of the different work situations have not been identified in the PD or SOW. Different work situations need to be identified in order for us to properly satisfy all of the required human factors considerations mentioned in the SOW (3.8). Are personnel still required to use a fall arrest device if they are on the platform and surrounded on all four sides with railings and toeboards? Is it a requirement to have the fall protection system employed while transiting staircase/ladder portion of stand, or only while working on the platform? If required during assent/descent, then how many workers max will be allowed on staircase/ladder? Will they be carrying equipment? How many workers are allowed on each stand at once?

Government Response: No, additional fall protection is not required if personnel are on the platform and all four sides have guardrails with toeboards installed. The guardrails provide the passive fall protection which is acceptable. Fall protection is not required on the staircase / ladder unless it exceeds 20 ft, continuously.

Personnel will be required to carry toolboxes / parts up to and down from the platform. Worker numbers will vary depending on the job but assuming 200 lbs per worker with 50 lbs of tools would result in 3 workers max.

QUSTION #10

Articulating staircase P.D. paragraph gives a Platform Footprint requirement for Type III as 48 inches long by 48 inches wide (plus 25% in any direction and a 750 pound maximum operating platform load). Is it a requirement to install a personal fall arrest system for one or two workers? With the limited space of a 48” X48” working space there is concern with trip/entanglement hazards associated with the fall arrest system.

The hazard is greater with two persons. Is this a permissible requirement?

Government Response: From Question 3, if the guardrails are in place this provided passive fall protection so no additional fall protection is required. (Note:

the 25% in any direction is an allowable increase the contractor has to meet the requirements of OSHA / AFOSH. The called out platform sizes are what is required by the Government to meet the AF maintenance requirements.)

QUESTION #11

Articulating staircase requirements of P.D. paragraphs 3.7.1 (fall protection) combined with the limited base footprint and weight limit for the Type III may present challenges to maintain stability during a fall protection or windy conditions. Please verify requirements and weight limitation.

Government Response: The called out footprints and weight limits are field level requirements but per PD section 3.8.1 a 25% increase is allowed to meet OSHA / AFOSH requirements. If increases beyond this 25% or additional limitations are required the contractor will need to contact the Government for more specific answers / approval.

QUESTION #12

The dimensions of the type III articulating staircase at its lowest elevation will not allow loading on C-130 aircraft (even with collapsible handrails height is 13 feet). If the stand is to be disassembled to accommodate air transport, this creates potential conflicts with other requirements:

a) Maintaining ability to be rolled into aircraft (P.D. 3.5.2) as casters will likely be removed or only attached to one portion of stand.

b) Removal of major sections of stand will require equipment such as crane or hoist--conflicting with requirement for use of common hand tools (P.D.

3.5.2.5)

c) Time for major disassembly is expected to exceed ½ hour (P.D. 3.5.2.5).

Please verify requirements as they relate to the type III stand.

Government Response: The Government understands that the Type III Articulating Staircase stand will exceed the normal required aircraft loading requirements. For the Type III design, the preparation times for the C-130 aircraft will be excluded from the called out specs. The PD will be modified to clarify this conflict, see Revision 2.

QUESTION #13

For both the articulating staircase and hydraulic scissor lift stands it is a requirement to include a means for closing/blocking the platform whenever personnel are on it (PD 3.8.6.4). Is the requirement to design the means to block/close both the staircase entry and the platform entry? Once the platform is blocked/closed what is the maximum time requirement to unblock for emergency egress?

Government Response: The stand design will allow for blocking the platform entry when personnel are on the platform and working. For an emergency egress, the quicker personnel are able to unblock the entry/exit access the better, but no time requirement is set for the closing /blocking of the access opening.

QUESTION #14

For both the articulating staircase and hydraulic scissor lift stands PD paragraph states “An engineering analysis shall be performed to demonstrate compliance with the electrostatic discharge requirement of 3.3.4.4.” Is there a criteria/Standard (MIL spec, OSHA, NEC etc.) to which the analysis should verify conformance?

Government Response: There is not a set standard for this analysis. The analysis is at the contractor’s discretion.

QUESTION #15

For both the articulating staircase and hydraulic scissor lift stands, it is stated in the PD

4.6.10 that the hydraulic system shall provide pressure and flow rate in accordance with paragraph 3.3.10. What are these values? Is there a required lifting or lowering time? Is there a maximum system pressure?

Government Response: From SAE ARP1247D Section:

3.13.1.3.2 The preferred maximum system pressure required by an operation is 3000 psi (20.7 MPa).

3.13.1.3.3 Maximum allowable flow velocity through any hose, tube, or pipe shall be determined from Table 1:

TABLE 1 – MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOW VELOCITY

Service V (FPS) V (M/S)

Suction 4 1.2

Pressure – continuous duty 15 4.6

Pressure – intermittent (up to 50- duty) 25 7.6

Pressure – infrequent (up to 20% duty) 40 12.2

Question #16

Based on the solicitation, what is the correct version of the MIL-STD to use? Is there another way to access the DTD/FOSI? Do you know what is the latest version of the

DTD/FOSI?

Government Response: The technical manuals will be developed using the work pack format. A copy of the MIL-STD-38784A along with the current DTD/FOSI files will be provided to the successful offeror. Below is the current versions of the DTD/FOSI files:

87929C-AV8aD0P0.dtd

87929C-AV8aD0P0.fosi 38807C-AV8aD0P0.dtd 38807C-AV8aD0P0.fosi 38784STD-BV8a.dtd 38784STD-BV8a.fosi

Question #17

Is it the Government’s intention for the contractor to make all arrangements, including facilities, in order to complete First Article Testing (FAT)?

Government Response: Yes, the Contractor is responsible for all arrangements for the FAT.

Question #18

Will raising the individual stands to their fullest extent (greatest height) be required as part of the environments portions of the FAT?

Government Response: During the environmental testing, the stand is not required to be raised or lowered.

Question #19

As there are many similarities between the various models, will test data for one be usable for like or similar models, or does each of the 5 have to go through their own test procedure?

Government Response: Some tests data can be applied across similar models;

example: environmental testing, hydraulic system testing (if system is exactly the same); while some testing will require all types to be tested; example: load testing, mobility testing, vertical actuator testing, rolling force testing.

Question #20

Does the Government have available, or could suggest, any government testing facilities that the contractor may be able to hire to conduct FAT requirements?

Government Response: No, the Government does not make suggestions on any specific testing facilities. We leave this at the contractor’s discretion.

Question #21

Conformance Inspection Pricing: CDRLs C008 and G008 require Production Reports to cover Conformance Inspections IAW paragraph 4.4 of the two Purchase Descriptions (PD09WRGRGBEA07 & 08). Paragraph 4.4 of these PDs states that “Each production maintenance stand shall be subjected to the examinations and tests described in 4.6.1.”

Section B contains CLIN/ELINs 0005AH and 0010AH for pricing FAT Unit Production Reports; however, Section B does not provide corresponding CLIN/ELINs for pricing

Production Reports on the Production Units. Please provide clarification on how offerors should price the C008 & G008 CDRL requirements for the Production Units.

Government Response: In accordance with paragraph 4.6.1 in the purchase descriptions, “Each maintenance stand shall be examined / visually inspected to verify compliance with all the requirements identified herein. A contractor-generated, Government-approved checklist that identifies each relevant requirement not verified by a test or analysis and the inspection results shall be used. Each production maintenance stand shall be inspected to a Government-approved reduced version of the checklist.” A copy of this checklist shall be provided with each unit. The offeror shall determine the pricing methodology to be used for these CDRLs.