MAAS RFP_Questions Answers_04.pdf

1BDEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

0BAIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER

2BROBINS AIR FORCE BASE GEORGIA

MOBILE AIRCRAFT ARRESTING SYSTEM (MAAS)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FA8534-23-R-0001

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

02 MARCH 2023

Q1. Per the SOW section 3.6.5.2.f, what measurements and non-destructive testing as directed by the USG will be included in the physical configuration audit (PCA)?

A1. Any offeror selected should be prepared for the PCA to include any and ALL components that they provide, except those dimensions, etc., of components that aren’t accessible due to the limits on disassembly addressed in the SOW.

Q2. Please identify the CSI items within the drawing package/TDP along with the corresponding critical characteristics for each CSI part. Please also specify the applicable technical data requirements for each CSI part inclusive of all USG in-process hold points.

A2. Critical Safety Items are identified in the drawings as Critical Safety Items. The contractor should expect that the USG could inspect any of the material, dimensional, process, finish or tolerance etc. specifications called out in the drawings. We do not have any “in-process hold points” of which we are aware.

Q3. The performance parameters generated by the enclosed approved Test Matrix is to be matched against the provided BAK-12 Performance Parameters in the given in the PDF enclosed. The test article is to me manufactured to the USAF TDP and reference TOs. The test matrix contain 148 deadload engagements. With the current USAF standard BAK-12 setting at 1500 psi there are 15 tests (8418 to 8500 – (one hook skip)) in the data report. Please clarify against what performance data from the “fielded BAK-12” the individual test parameters from all the remaining deadload test results will be evaluated against to conclude the +/-5% pass fail criteria?

A3. Additional testing events were conducted at NAVAIR, and we have requested the test results from NAVAIR. Those evaluations will be provided upon receipt of the requested test results.

Q4. The test matrix include off center tests up to 40ft while the performance parameter report provided only include tests with an off center span of 1-27ft that seem to be a result of random occurrence? How will the off center parameters from the test matrix be evaluated against the +/-5% pass fail criteria?

A4. The additional testing at NAVAIR included Off center testing. Those evaluations will be provided upon receipt of the requested test results.

Q5. The test matrix stipulate “wet purchase tape” tests. No matching parameters for evaluation of the pass fail criteria exist. How will the wet tape test results be evaluated against the pass fail criteria of +/-5%?

A5. The additional testing at NAVAIR included wet tape testing. Those evaluations will be provided upon receipt of the requested test results.

Q6. The test matrix include deadload tests at 950ft run out. No test performance parameters exist in the provided data report. How will the 950ft run out test results be evaluated against the +/-5% pass fail test criteria for the first article provided?

A6. The additional testing at NAVAIR included 950Ft run out testing. Those evaluations will be provided upon receipt of the requested test results.

Q7. The test matrix stipulates deadload engagements up to 190 knots. The provided performance parameter report include no deadload testing above 160 knots. From the test report it appears that the test engineers concluded that 160 knots was a test speed that was too high and therefore the speed was reduced to 150 knots. Thus the “fielded BAK-12” was not subject to the same speed levels due to system limitations. Further USAF has defined that at 190 knots there are pendant cable random failures occurring, i.e. the limiting factor (Ref TO 35E8-2-5-1, page 1-39). What is the basis for demanding high speed testing up to 190 knots where it is known that there will be random test failures? Against what parameters will the matrix high speed tests be evaluated against the +/-5% pass fail criteria?

A7. Additional testing events were conducted at NAVAIR, and we have requested the test results from NAVAIR. Those evaluations will be provided upon receipt of the requested test results. We have tested up to 190 knots at lower weights based on previous live engagement data. The test matrix is a list of potential test events created to cover all types of AAS tested at NAVAIR. It will be tailored with NAVAIR prior to FAT.

Q8. Our experience from testing is that the purchase tape characteristics through the dynamic testing sequence will provide different behavior from when the tape is new, been subject to some testing and start reaching its maximum points for replacement.

Throughout the Test Matrix provided it is foreseen that several tape changes will be necessary. This will impact the performance parameters and provide varying results between exactly the same test set up in terms of speed and weight. How will these variations be isolated for the performance parameters generated from the provided first article when evaluating the +/-5% pass fail criteria?

A8. This will be discussed with NAVAIR and a reasonable solution for any required new/old tape performance difference will be isolated as best as possible in the data.

Q9. In the performance parameter report it is noted that the CDP risers were spaced closer in the during the second phase of the test program. This change resulted in considerable changes in the parameter values from the tests in particular the hook loads. This indicates the high sensitivity of the test set up and impact on the test results more than the provided pass fail criteria of +/-5%. How will these sensitivities in performance parameters be handled to be objective?

A9. This will be discussed with NAVAIR and a reasonable solution for any required new/old tape performance difference will be isolated as best as possible in the data.

Q10. During the initial highly dynamic phase of the test is highly impacted by the geometry of the test set up, location of the FLB and location of the tape connectors after each rewind. During this phase highly unpredictable variation of the hook loads occur that have been observed to be considerably higher than +/-5%. How will these effects be evaluated against the +/-5% pass fail criteria?

A10. These effects will be evaluated against the previous testing observations which may be greater than the +/-5% pass fail criteria.

Q11. The provided performance parameter report contains a limited number of tests of the

“fielded BAK-12”. There are no test results providing data using the same test setting providing insights in to what performance parameter variations that can be expected inherently from these deadload tests. When comparing the two test 8499 and 8500 that have comparable conditions/settings we note that there are very different results in terms of the performance parameters. Is there supporting data for the current inventory of fielded BAK-12 systems that do not exceed the +/-5% pass fail criteria and support that this demanded for this Solicitation first article are reasonable and robust for the given performance parameters?

A11. The additional testing at NAVAIR will provide the supporting data. Those evaluations will be provided upon receipt of the requested test results.

Q12. The parameter uncertainty provided in the performance parameter report is for most data +/- 3%. To our understanding these parameter uncertainties do not eliminate each other rather they tend to add uncertainty to each other and by itself reach or pass the provided +/-5% pass fail criteria. Theoretically this may result in an allowable zero variation of the actual test results to match the provided performance parameters and curves. How is this included in the evaluation to allow for a scientifically based objective evaluation of the first article test results?

A12. This will be discussed with NAVAIR and a reasonable solution for any required uncertainty or performance difference will be isolated as best as possible in the data and evaluation.