Follow up QA for Industry Day.docx

Industry Day Follow-up Questions for Industry Feedback

1. The USAF is considering the option to award more contracts than needed for production and then perform a downselect prior to completion of all testing. At what point, would you consider to be the most appropriate/advantageous to perform this downselect? (PDR, CDR, some point in First Article Testing, etc.)

2. How much would adding the CMBRE Receptacle that is described in PD paragraph 3.9.1.13.2.1 increase the price of each GPU?

3. For those companies that have a product that provides 270 VDC approved by Lockheed Martin for use on the F-35, how much would we save per unit if we could remove the 270 VDC receptacle described in PD paragraph 3.9.3.13.4?

4. The Government is also considering how to stagger awardees into first article testing facilities. What does your company think is the best time after award to implement a staggering approach (PDR, CDR, some limited first article tests, etc.)? What would your company recommend as the criteria for deciding the order of the companies going into first article testing facilities?

5. The Government received a range of responses to the question posed about standard warranty: from one year to two years or 2,000 hours (whichever comes first). The Government is interested in incorporating a standard warranty. What would be an estimated cost to the Government should the Government request a two year/2,000 hour (whichever comes last) warranty? Would the cost of the warranty be rolled into the production unit cost?

6. What level of data rights would industry be willing to provide the Government for T.O. distribution--unlimited, limited, Government-purpose? Would the associated data rights come with a cost to the Government? Would industry be open to separately pricing out the data rights on a separate CLIN?

7. The Government received an input regarding potential TEP calculation for the basic award source selection: tie the escalation rate to an index. The Government would like to receive industry feedback on this potential approach. What would your company recommend as a potential formula for this type of ceiling price TEP calculation? What Global Insight index would your company recommend?

The way the Government is currently anticipating the TEP calculation can be seen in the attached “TEP Example” file. Offerors would only input information in the highlighted areas, and the number of quantity ranges could be updated based on the number of ranges the offeror would propose to, up to the estimated maximum. Please note this is not final, and is only informational at this time.

How would your company revise this to create a more realistic ceiling price for Government budgeting purposes?

8. The Government is considering all streamlining recommendations in order to meet the 15 month award schedule. One potential avenue is to conduct pre-proposal conferences with all potential offerors. During the pre-proposal conference, the Government would offer a cursory draft proposal review and comment in order to assist in the finalizing of the proposal (with the intention of reducing the number of identified deficiencies and amount of discussions required). Would your company be open to this approach? How many days after RFP release would your company need to develop a draft proposal for cursory review? Does your company feel this approach would create an unfair advantage to other companies, or provide an appearance of an unfair advantage?

9. Another streamlining approach we discussed during industry day is the oral proposal/discussions process. Upon receiving industry input thus far, the Government is anticipating the following evaluation factors being written, presented orally, both, or ENs discussed orally:

Factor I: Technical Technical acceptability (written, ENs discussed orally) Technical risk (separate rating, part of tradeoff decision) (written, orally presented, ENs discussed orally)

Factor II: Past Performance (written, ENs discussed orally)

Factor III: Small Business Participation (written, orally presented, ENs discussed orally)

Factor IV: Price (written, ENs discussed orally)

When the Government indicates ‘written’ and ‘orally presented’ (technical risk and small business participation), the Government anticipates utilizing a briefing slide deck with annotated notes pages as the written proposal. What is your company’s thoughts on that approach? Does your company agree that technical risk should be a part of the tradeoff decision?

10. Based on the responses received from industry, it appears as though the weight limitations, size limitations, testing schedules, and 270V DC are among the highest risk areas. The Government anticipates these areas being evaluated as a part of the technical evaluation factor, and likely as part of the past performance evaluation factor. Are any of these areas better suited for oral presentation in lieu of a traditional written proposal? Does your company think any of these areas are not ‘risky’ enough to warrant being a part of the evaluation criteria?

11. For the past performance evaluation, the Government is considering evaluating the past performance of critical subcontractors, defined as any entity other than the prime offeror itself that will supply the 270V DC. Does your company have any concerns with that definition, or does your company recommend an expansion of the critical subcontractor definition?

12. The contract for the current version of the 72kW GPU has a 7 month ARO order delivery requirement for the start of deliveries. Is that a realistic delivery requirement for this effort? If not, what would your company recommend? How many units does your company recommend be required for the first month’s delivery?

Questions Received From Industry and Answers The leading power factor is specified as 0.95 in the PD (section 3.4.3.2). This is lower than the standard of 0.8 specified in UFGS 26 35 43 (section 2.1.1.8). This value was specified in the UFGS to address the higher capacitance of new electronics that are being retrofitted into older aircraft and installed in new aircraft designs. A lower leading power factor will cause higher heat generation in the converter and will affect the heat sink and airflow design. What is the leading power factor needed for this project?

Response: We have discussed power factor requirements with the Navy and understand why the Air Force and Navy programs have different power factor ranges. At this time the Air Force doesn’t require a leading power factor lower than 0.95.

Same question for the lagging power factor: specified in your PD as 0.8 and in the UFGS as 0.5. Which one should we assume for our converter design?

Response: We have discussed power factor requirements with the Navy and understand why the Air Force and Navy programs have different power factor ranges. At this time the Air Force doesn’t require a lagging power factor lower than 0.8.

The quantity of the 1st article GPUs is related to the sequence of the tests. Is it possible to get the tests sequences in advance to be able to determine how many tests can be done in parallel?

Yes, the Government’s anticipated high level test schedule is in an attached power point slide. The Government will appreciate Industry inputs as to what sub-test events can be done in parallel.

Should GPU crane lift be designed as a single point hook or it can be designed by using a separator and lifted from 4 points on the chassis?

The Government is considering dropping the crane lift requirement, however, we will retain the forklift design requirement.

How many output cables should be delivered with each GPU? Just 115/200 VAC, 400Hz and 28VDC or 270 VDC and 28.5 VDC as section B3 states.

At this time the requirement is for each GPU to be delivered with one 115/200 VAC output cable.

Would you please specify which one of the 1st article tests 4.2 to 4.6.13.4 should be done with USAF Engineers / Technicians are attending?

The Government intends to witness all testing required by paragraph 4.6 and sub-paragraphs.

Should an alternative fuel test be done for both JP8 and JP28 or is either good enough?

JP-8 and F-24 are considered primary fuels. Alternate fuels are listed in paragraph 3.5.7.2. Note: all PD references to JP-24 will be changed to F-24.

Could you please provide us with ramp spec details of the C5 and C17 (Paragraph 4.6.10.6.2)?

Yes, the Government can provide these specs, after confirmation of the spec.

Is there any specific shipping quantity for each batch? IE; 3, 6, 12 at a time.

Not at this time. To be determined.

Will they all ship to one location in United States? If not, can USAF provide an approx. list of locations?

No. There won’t be a single shipping location. The 72kW GPUs are used on almost every Air Force installation world-wide.

What is the time frame for the AF to release the finalized tender package to the selected participants? This is the tender we would reply to with our financial proposal. Just curious.

The current schedule, which is subject to change, has the Request For Proposal (RFP) being released in Mar 2021.