USG- Ktr QA_2- Responses.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER

ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE GEORGIA

MEMORANDUM FOR MOBILE AIRCRACT ARRESTING SYSTEM

FROM: AFLCMC/WNKAC

235 Byron Street, Suite 19A Robins AFB, GA 31098-1670

SUBJECT: U.S Government (USG) Response to Questions/Clarification Requests on DRAFT

MAAS RFP.

The USG is providing this response to the questions submitted on 7/09/2021 regarding the DRAFT request for proposal FA8534-21-R-0009 for the Mobile Aircraft Arresting System Source Selection.

QUESTIONS

A. AFMC Form 260_FAT, Paragraph 11, Condition(s) of Waiver for First Article Approval – This section is written to allow a potential waiver of the First Article Approval. Will the Government grant waivers for this specific contract? The Government will not be granting any waivers for First Aritcle Testing. The DD Form 260 Paragraph 11, CONDITION(S) FOR WAIVER OF FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL, has been updated to reflect “First Article testing will not be waived.”

B. The past performance time frame has been changed from 10 to 15 years in the current draft. Taking FAR 15.304(a) into consideration, which required the evaluation criteria to be ‘tailored to the acquisition’, it would be wrong to increase the allowed time frame. As shown in the SOW (3.5.1), the Government’s requirement is predicated on MIL-STD-3036. MIL-STD-3036 was released on July 5, 2013 – hence, when tailored to the acquisition (e.g., MIL-STD-3036), the time frame for past performance should be no more than eight years. In this regard, for a relevant baseline, the FAR Council had decreed that past performance information beyond three years is too stale to be retained in a CPAR for procurements involving items of supply (FAR 42.1503(g)). Can the Government provide clarification on why it was changed to 15 years? The Government extended the past performance period to provide for increased competition for offerors who may have completed deadload testing of any kind, regardless of the release date of MIL-STD 3036. This change also addresses the previous concerns of competition being too restrictive.

C. The current design as defined in TDP 201018515, and Technical Order 35E8-2-10-1 is not capable of meeting MIL-STD-3035 (to be verified by MIL-STD-3036). Is it the Governments intent that the contractor redesign the system to meet this specification, or use the existing TDP/TO? The Government's intent is for each offeror to use the USAF TDP and develop their own ECPs if discrepancies are discovered. For any drawing discrepancies, ECPs will be coordinated with the AAS engineer and included in the Contractor specific TDP which will be used to produce the first article set. The USAF does not intend to share the ECP results of any respective offeror’s TDP with anyone other offeror. If both offerors pass FAT, the Government will move into production with the lowest price technically acceptable offeror and the TDP used to produce the passing first article.

D. The link in paragrapgh 2.2.1, of the MIL-STD 3036, is incomplete and/or provides an error. Can the Government provide the corrected link and/or the POC for the standardization document order desk? The Government was unable to locate an updated link at this time, but will ensure it is updated in the next revision. For convenience, the referenced drawings (NAVAIR DRAWING 515053, USAF DRAWING 66D1751, USAF DRAWING 7545764) will be provided.

E. The email address listed in paragrapgh 2.2.2,of the MIL-STD 3036 is no longer valid.

Can the Government provide an updated email/ POC? Or, can the Government provide these drawings? The correct workflow address is 642CBSG.Workflow@us.af.mil and will be updated with the next revision. Also for convenience, the referenced drawings will be provided .

F. Is MIL-STD-3035 intended be the design criteria standard for a newly designed Energy Absorber to be incorporated into top level drawing 201018515 replacing P/N 201019010 (BAK-12)? No, the Government does not intend for any design work to occur for this effort. Each offeror shall use the USAF TDP and develop their own ECPs if discrepancies are discovered. The USAF expects most discrepancies, if any, to be clerical or tolerance type of errors and not major design flaws.

G. Under Section A of the Relevancy Definitions in Section M- Initial, there is a reference to Energy Absorption capability being 80 (40/20) Million foots, pounds or greater. Can the Government provide the proposed runout that will meet this requirement? The runout of the system should fall within the basic parameters of the BAK-12 system, which is ~1,200' for a standard installation.

H. Under Section A of the Relevancy Definitions in Section M- Initial, there is a reference to Energy Absorber Rotary Style Hydraulic Friction Brakes. Is this item comprising 8 brakes or more based on BAK-12 PN 52-W-2291 brake design listed in TO 35E8-2-10-1? Also referened in SOW Item 1. Under TO 35E8-2-5-1 item 1-20 brake assembly. This is in the Section M relevancy definitions under very relevant, if you manufactured Energy Absorber Rotary Style Hydraulic Friction Brakes comprising 8 or more brake disks, then you can answer yes, otherwise it's no. This is based on the government owned drawings that are provided.

I. According to MIL-STD-3035 paragragh 5.1.1a, the AAS system shall have a minimum energy capacity of 100 Million foot-pounds. TO35E8-1-10-1 Table 1.1 Leading Particulars states the BAK-12 model 52W2291 in various designations are rated at 98-million ft lbs @1200ft. Will this be sufficient to fulfill this requirement?

Yes, this is sufficient, and it should be noted that this requirement of MIL-STD-3035 should be modified for this contract to be equaivalent to the T.O. requirement of ~98M ft-lbs.

J. According to the Q&A 5/18/2021, All Missing Drawings have been identified and included in the attached updated Drawing Package. We have been unable to locate the package. Due to Size, the Drawing package was not loaded onto SAM.gov. Should contractors desire a copy of the drawing packlage prior to FINAL RFP release, the contractor should submit a specific request.

In response to the questions and comments submitted on 7/09/2012, the following documents have been updated and/or included:

Statement of Work- SOW DD Form 260- First Article Testing

NAVAIR DRAWING 515053

USAF DRAWING 66D1751

USAF DRAWING 7545764

USAF Test Matrix

Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Kristen Campbell and/or Kelsey Wade via email at kristen.campbell.2@us.af.mil and kelsey.wade.1@us.af.mil.