Amendment_0001_Answers_to_Industry_Questions.pdf

CQ# QUESTION OPR RESPONSE

1 Attachment - L provides the technical volume general outline. There are several major topics not listed in the sub-headers of the general outline that are in the SOW that don't really fit in the existing sub-headers (for example "Coordination Meetings" main header below Sub-factor 4 and "Training" as a sub-header under Manufacturing). May these and several others be added to the outline so as to aid narrative flow?

Section L-3.2.1 provides the outline for the technical volume.

Offeror's proposal shall include the information identified in Section L and organized accordingly for evaluation purposes.

2 The RFP cover letter says 8 months for Phase I but

FA9101-17-R-1000 PART I - THE

SCHEDULE, SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR

PERFORMANCE SECTION, ITEM

0001 says 12 MARO. Which is correct? XXXX recommends 12 months.

Twelve months is the proper timeframe for Phase I. The RFP takes precedence for requirements over the cover letter.

3 FA9101-17-R-1000 PART I - THE SCHEDULE, SECTION

F - DELIVERIES OR

PERFORMANCE SECTION ITEM 0003 shows FDR to be at 18 MARO. Per the XXX schedule, this will not allow for sufficient time for material testing to be available to be incorporated into the final design when considering wet sample infusion times for moisture as well as time requirements for fatigue testing.

The period of performance for CLIN 0003 is based on the Government's preliminary estimate for performing the work.

As we move through the process and the downselect for Phase II is completed, the timeframe may be redressed.

4 The Cross Reference Matrix Phase I & II show SOW paragraphs based on the Draft SOW. XXX will update the SOW paragraph numbers to reflect the final RFP.

An amendment was posted to FBO on April 11, 2017, which provided an updated version of the matrixes.

5 There appears to be one more prototype blade needed for the root test Spec 4.1.5.C.

The Government expects that the offeror would use the 10th (damage / repair) blade in order to perform the root testing.

The root testing would be performed after the damage / repair testing such that any destructive modifications to the blade would not affect tunnel testing.

6 SOW 3.1.1.E calls out spare cuffs. They as for (30) spare cuffs but call out (20) spare cuffs per row. Does AEDC mean (60) total? Also, does this imply that "if" there is an integral cuff design, it must be repairable? Is this correct?

If so, we need more definition of where and to what extent damage is expected to occur.

The proper count for spare cuffs is 30, 10 for each row. Yes, if the cuff is "integral" to the blade meaning that it cannot be removed then the cuff must be repairable. If the cuff is still "removable," then the vendor shall provide the specified spares and the there is no requirement for the cuff to be repairable. No impact damage is expected on the cuff, but cracking, disbonds, or other composite defects are expected to be repairable to the same size specified for Zone 1 in the specification. These spare cuffs are identified in CLIN 0020 of the RFP.

7 Spec 3.1.2 calls out a +- 35% oscillation magnitude of the static load case at 30 Hz during operation. Is this for all static load cases?

Yes, the +/- 35% oscillation is for all load cases.

8 Note that AEDC has added a fatigue testing requirement in Spec 4.1.4 that only calls out tension-tension testing. Has AEDC analysis or testing shown that there is not significant compression loading?

Due to the centrifugal loading and bending, the highest strains/stresses are tensile from the initial AEDC assessment. From this initial assessment, it is not believed compression loading is significant.

9 Spec paragraph 3.7.1.F should have added at the end “tested per section 4.1.5”.

The final sentence in section 3.7.1.F will be revised to add "tested per section 4.1.5."

10 Spec section 4.1.7, Modal Testing: XXX is assuming no loads applied during modal testing. Is this correct?

The offeror is responsible to create the test plan. The intention of the modal testing is to validate the offeror's analysis. The analysis must have the same boundary conditions as those in the test plan.

11 Section 4.1.2 C. The data is required at -20F (dry), 77F (dry), and 320F (dry and wet) condition for all B-Basis design allowable. AGATE defines dry as “as manufactured”, which is more typically referred to as ambient condition. If wet test data exists above 320F, is that test information acceptable if inclusive of tensile, compressive and shear loading conditions?

Ambient is expected to be 70-80F in a lab environment, where 77F dry is accepted as "Ambient Dry." If data is available for 320F or above wet for tensile, compressive, and shear loading, it is acceptable to use this data in lieu of new testing.

12 Section 3.5.1 from the specification calls out dry weight.

Did AEDC intend to require ambient weight as opposed to dry weight?

The term "dry weight" was added to show that the max blade weight does not include any water absorption over time. The max blade "dry weight," "ambient weight," or "as manufactured" weight are all synonymous.

13 In section L-3.2.4.1.1, is this asking for our approach to the design process or a description of a baseline concept?

The Government is looking for both a description of the offeror's design process as well as an initial design concept.

14 After some preliminary investigation we have found that the pressure data coordinates are not mapping directly to the reference blade CAD model.

How was the reference CAD blade OML created? How was the CFD blade OML created?

The CFD OML and CAD OML were created separately.

There are areas, such as the tip region, which is not clipped short and at an angle on the CFD OML as described on the blade drawing, but is included in the CAD OML. In addition, there are some areas on the CFD OML which appear to show "bulging" or waviness which may not be seen on the CAD model. Overall, when the pressures were mapped using ANSYS (which does some linear fitting of the data) the applied ANSYS pressure profile matched well with the profile output from CFD. If the fit issues you are seeing are not minor differences, there is a possibility that the coordinate system in the CAD model and that of the CFD are not properly alligned. A chart showing the coordinate system and a chart describing the CFD cases did not post properly when the RFP was released and will be posted again on FBO.

15 Section 3.1.1 of the SOW states the following “The following full production quantities shall be provided:”. Should this read “The following total quantities shall be provided:”

The quantities that are callout include prototype blades.

The intent of the wording in section 3.1.1 is to give total quantities produced. The CLINs provide the total quantities to be produced for each blade type.

16 It was our understanding that pictures and/or descriptions of AEDC’s full scale test rig would be provided with the Final RFP. Will these be provided at some point?

A couple of documents did not post when the RFP was released; these pictures will be posted again on FBO.

17 Is there a not-to-exceed limit on CLIN-0001 Design through TDR?

CLIN 0001, Design Through Technical Design Review (TDR), does not include a not-to-exceed limit. Offerors are reminded that this CLIN will be evaluated for realism, reasonableness, and balance (see Section M-2.4).

18 Will periods of performance be set for each CLIN, or may the supplier modify the schedule as long as the end date is met?

The period of performance is identified in each CLIN.

Section L-3.2.7.1 requires offerors to provide an integrated master schedule. As a reminder, sufficient time must be given for review of information for all review meetings (21 days per the SOW).

19 Is a 1% void content required, or would material characterization with a known void level for the proposed manufacturing process used to create the B-Basis allowables be acceptable? Are repair procedures required to maintain a 1% void content?

The specification will be amended to remove the 1% void content required for the finished blade. The accept/reject criteria created by the offeror is expected to address all defects including void content which would cause a blade to rejected based on the offeror's design and manufacturing process.

Specification section 4.1.2.D will be revised to :

The Contractor shall either conduct void content testing on panels created for material characterization or shall report the void content from the industry data source from which B-basis allowables are taken. The Contractor shall conduct void content tests on as-built blade material during the manufacturing process development phase in order to assure that their process can produce parts that do not require further material property knockdowns due to excessive void content.

The offeror's repair procedures are required to maintain the safety factors and weight limits given in the specification.

The void content in the repair area is not specified.

20 We would like to request pictures of all the cross sections seen at the blade shop as well as pictures of an unistalled cuff.

Cross-section pictures seen at the blade shop and the uninstalled cuff will be posted to FBO; however, they must go through our internal security release process so may not be available for a few weeks. Not having these pictures should not impact the offeror's ability to complete and submit their proposal.

21 Will B-Basis testing be required in phase I? The exit criteria for the TDR review is a detailed plan for material characterization. The Government does not want to pay for three full material characterizations in Phase I.

Offerors may perform some limited testing to validate any micromechanics assumptions during Phase I.

22 Is the bearing length shown on the drawing correct?

There seemed to be a discrepancy between the drawing and the blade seen at the shop.

The Government has measured the bearing in the field and it matches the overall dimension and "individual" dimensions shown on the blade drawing. The current blade bushing was originally 16.84-16.9" in total length and the grooves which allow installation onto the blade adapter were machined after part assembly and cure. There was some discussion of standard part sizes for using individual bushings as opposed to a single bushing. It is definitely possible that the original bushings were either specially built or post machined by the manufacturer. Blade bushing alignment is very important, if individual bushings are used instead of a single bushing, bushing alignment tolerances must be maintained. The Government will not change the dimensions shown on the drawing to accomodate standard bushing sizes as this would require a change to the blade adapter.

23 Is it possible to see an overview picture of the PWT facility?

AEDC's Test Facility Guide provides information on PWT.

This guide is available on the Arnold AFB home page in the section "About AEDC": http://www.arnold.af.mil/

24 Can the natural frequency of the current blades be released?

The natural frequencies of the current blades were addressed in questions to the draft RFP as follows: The current blade natural frequencies are:

1st Bending : 17.7 Hz 2nd Bending : 63.7 Hz 1st Torsion : 97 Hz 3rd Bending : 139 Hz 2nd Torsion : 165 Hz These numbers are calculated from a blade mounted horizontally in a fixture with the cuff supporting the blade weight and no clamping on the opposite cuff surface. This information will be added to the specification for reference.

There are restrictions on the blades' first two bending modes in section 3.7.1.D. There is no specific target frequency for the new blades.

25 Can Non-US Citizens have access to data and visit on site?

Non-US citizens may have access to all data for this procurement, as it is considered Distribution A, Public Release Distribution. Non-US citizens may visit on site as long as their information is sent to AEDC security at least 30 days before the first site visit for security validation. Please see Appendix B, AEDC Security Rules and Regulations, of Atch 1, Statement of Work for 16T C1 Compressor Rotor Blades.

26 The Impact Panel Test Report, #7 in the Required Submittal List (page 9 f the Statement of Work) is shown to be due 21 Days prior to TDR meeting. Is this correct or should it be 21 Days prior to FDR Meeting? This same 21 days prior to TDR is also listed in the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) A0002.

The impact panel is due 21 days before TDR, as it is part of the downselect for Phase 2.

27 In the Schedule listing for the CLINS, the due date for the TOOLING AT THE PRODUCTION STAGE (page 15 of 34 of Section F of the RFP) is listed to be 42 MARO. Is this correct or should it be 30 MARO?

CLIN 0005AB, Tooling at Production Stage, is provided in case additional tooling is required for production which was not yet fabricated at the prototype phase (CLIN 0006). This tooling is due 12 months after CLIN 0006, as this is the estimated time required for testing, which calculates to 42 months after receipt of order (MARO).

28 On page 9 of 19 in Section L (Attachment 3 of the RFP), the Proposal is to include a "copy of AS9100 certification for all offerors and any subcontractors that will be involved in the composite manufacturing process.

Tooling is considered a part of the composite manufacturing process." Do the potential tooling and testing vendors have to have AS9100 certification?

Tooling vendors are required to be AS9100 certified. Testing vendors are not required to be AS9100 certified.

29 Can you provide strain gauge locations and sample data for the instrumented blades?

The Government may provide instrument locations and data, but we would need additional clarification of the type of data the offeror is interested in.

30 Can you provide current CG location data for sampled blades?

The Government may consider this testing at a later time. In lieu of this testing it is expected that the Offeror will create a high quality CAD model for use in determining their blade Center of Gravity (CG).

31 Part IV, Section K, 52.230.1 Cost Accounting Standards states “Note: This notice does not apply to small business.” How is this applicable to this small business set-aside contract?

FAR Clause 52.230-1, Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certification, will be removed from the RFP.

32 Is there allowance for any schedule item within a fiscal year (ie: Reduce tooling schedule to allow more time for production and testing of prototype blades)?

Section L-3.2.7.1 requires offerors to provide an integrated master schedule (IMS). The IMS will be evaluated to ensure it presents a reasonable, realistic, and logical schedule for key program tasks and events across all phases, functions, and areas of interest to successfully complete the Compressor Rotor Blade Program (see M-2.2.6.1).

33 Does SOW paragraph 4.1.5.A.1 mean test at both 70F and -20F or is it saying test at the temperature that gives the worst case stresses by way of analysis?

Para 4.1.5.A.1 of the specification states that blades should be tested in bending and torsion at the maximum load that the blade will experience at the temperature of 70F +/- 20F.

Testing at -20F is not a requirement.

34 When is the fatigue testing plan and report due? We do not see it called out in the RFP.

Para 4.1.4 of the specification has been revised to state that the fatigue test is considered to be part of material characterization testing, and this report is due 21 days before

FDR.

35 How do the results of the ballistic impact test affect the blade design and the damage tolerance analysis?

The ballistic impact test panels are due before TDR and are to be used as early indicators to the Government on how damage would propagate in the Offeror's design. The offeror may utilize the results of the impact test to refine their design, improving damage tolerance and impact resistance.

36 Are the damage sizes defined in Spec Table 2 representative of the penetration hole and the delaminations zone about the hole?

The damage size defined in table 2 is meant to represent the maximum damage size including post-impact delaminations.

37 How does section L-3.2.3 relate to the section L-3.2.7.3 later in the Tech volume outline?

As stated in Section L-3.2.3, an offeror's proposal will be evaluated and given a separate rating for its technical approach risk. Will the proposed approach have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful performance.

Section L-3.2.7.3 is a general risk management requirement for the entire program including such items as funding concerns, cash flow, material procurement, etc. This element will be evaluated to determine if an offeror provides a comprehensive risk management approach that effectively and continuously assess risks (see Section M-2.2.6.3).

38 Are the structural and thermal tests to be conducted with installed tip caps? We are concerned about accessing the spars webs for NDI after testing.

Unless the tip cap is considered part of the structural design of the blade, then the static / thermal testing can be performed without the tip cap. The in-tunnel testing requires the tip cap to be installed. The tip cap can be removed, if required, for the post-test NDI inspection (see para 4.1.5 of the specification), and a new tip cap installed for delivery.

39 Can the root test in Section 4.1.5.C of the specification be completed after testing in the AEDC 16T wind tunnel? If so, one of the 9 prototype blades can be used for this test. If not, we believe an additional blade will need to be fabricated beyond the current 10 prototype blades.

The purpose of the static testing is two-fold:

1.) To validate the offeror's analysis.

2.) To give confidence in the structural capability of the blades before allowing their installation in the compressor.

Since the root is likely a critical structural region, the root testing must be performed before installation in C1.

The Government expects that the offeror would use the 10th (damage/repair) blade in order to perform the root testing.

The root testing would be performed after the damage/repair testing such that any destructive modifications to the blade would not affect tunnel testing.

40 We would like to request a 14 day extension on the RFP due date.

The RFP will be amended to extend the date for submission of past performance volumes and proposals (see Amendment 0001).

41 We would like to offer a blade health monitoring solution which we feel would add significant value, but we do not want to price ourselves out of competition. Is there a vehicle for such an addition as an option?

Blade health monitoring is not a requirement in this acquisition.