Industry Day Additional Info.pdf

Industry Day Vendor Questions and Government Answers General

Q&A

For maintenance repairs and overhaul does our (USAF) engineering coordinate with the OEM for restorations?

Yes, USAF does coordinate on our current contract, but it is based on engine removal reason and historical shop visit.

Public Private Partnerships

Link to Partnership Site will be provided soon.

The current capabilities of the Heavy Maintenance Center (HMC) as described can be negotiated with OC-ALC.

Will there be a general template for the Partnership Agreement (PA) and Implementation Agreement (IA) for increased ability for depo center.

Yes, and they are available on the QR code on the back side of Mr. Ruben Marquez’s business cards. We will provide more information from Mr. Marquez and the link out in the near future.

What is the lead time on a partnership agreement? What is the lead time for an implementation agreement (IA)? How long does it take to establish and then put into place?

It usually takes about 3 months for the Partnership Agreements (PA) to be set in place and 6 months for the Implementation Agreements (IA) to be completed.

• The contractor will need a PWS/SOW to get an IA started with Boeing or Pratt. We are not able to put an IA in place without a contract in place first. This would be taken into consideration of transition time between current contract and the follow on. The PA can be started without a contract and at the vendor discretion.

When will a SOW/PWS be made available/ready?

Draft SOW/PWS will be provided prior to the next Industry Day.

What are the current requirements for PMA and DER approvals.

This was answered in an RFI response posted to Sam.gov, but as vendors you will need to follow the FAA regulations/guidelines. The USAF is not developing a supplemental approval process for review/acceptance of FAA approved PMA required for the F117.

Delta and United are using PMA parts right now, does that help in determination?

Yes.

What percentage of PMA and DER are not being accepted?

The rotating parts are not able to be accepted for this contract. Conditionally we would accept blades, for example, and will provide operating instructions and acceptance criteria in future discussions.

Technical/Engine Life Management Information

Propulsion Sustainment Chief Engineer is the cognizant engineer, maintaining authority to incorporate changes into the F117 parts catalogue and technical orders.

Aircraft Maintenance includes Water Wash, USAF will provide details in the near future.

Are improvements being completed?

They are currently being conducted within our fleet, but we can answer this further on Sam.gov.

Future Requirements Product improvements may include or are not limited to:

• Increase in MTBR for components.

• Increase engine time on wing.

• Non-material changes for enhancing performance.

• RCM/CBM+

F117 Engine Sustainment Requirements

USG is not currently perusing a strategy that drives USG integration into any requirements listed within the industry day briefing information. The USG is interested in limitations that this strategy proposes, and industry perspective on alternative strategies.

Maintenance Repair and overhaul (MRO) Capability

• FAR Part 145 Compliance Required; Approved by FAA for F117

• Test cell must test fully build engine (QEC+Core)

• Work scope development and management – inclusive of USAF collaboration upon creation.

Coordination for work scope determination prior to induction is a coordinated.

• Engine Health Monitoring may include or are not limited to:

o Removal forecasting o MTBR Improvements o Warranty

Will improvements be a requirement?

Product improvement will be requirement.

Will you be posting who attended today’s industry day to SAM.gov.

Yes, they have been posted.

Items addressed on industry day that USAF will provide future responses to:

- PMA/DER Acceptance

- Several partners were concerned about OEM Material requirements.

- Incentives considerations

One-on-One

Will there be a FFP for base price for overhaul and then Over & Above for everything else?

This contract is commercial and therefore will be priced as FFP, currently we price by engine repair workscope.

Are we releasing current workscope definition?

Draft workscope definitions will be provided prior to the next Industry Day.

Do you plan to make Small Business Participation an evaluation criteria?

Evaluation criteria has not been developed; USAF will make utilizing small business’s a priority to the maximum extent practicable.

What is the evaluation criteria for contract award?

We currently don't have that information but will provide feedback at a later date.

QEC (Boeing) will this be rolled into the contract/requirement?

Right now, it is in our current contract as Government Furnished Material, and we will have to determine at a later date if it will remain. The Government is open to alternatives.

Is the government willing to ship engines outside the US?

We cannot ship to certain countries, as outlined in the FAR Requirement but we are open to hearing how contractors chose to maintain those performance standards or centers.

Could the government do a FFP contract with an incentive on Over & Above services? We can get a forecast as accurate as we can to the government stating we will give you all XYZ engines a year, and based on that stock all the parts on the shelf so we don't over buy on our end.

Yes, the government could do a FPF with an incentive.

Will the contractor, government or OEM manage supply chain?

The Government is seeking an integrated approach to F117 engine sustainment, to include management of the supply chain.

How is workscope determined?

Currently, we work with OEM on the workscope.

How do we go from PW2000, to doing the F117 process? Any additional government approvals we need to know of?

There are variations (test wise) that are different, repair must follow FAA processes as F117 holds an FAA type certificate.

Does contract include unscheduled removal?

Yes and it is FFP.

What are the elements of performance you review?

Build standard, turn around time, spares on hand, but we are looking at future ability to make DER and PMA as well.

Will PMAs be approved through the Source Approval Request (SAR) Process The Government will provide the supplementary process to the FAA’s approval for PMA that will be required for F117.

Will there be a re-patriotism on this contract?

We shouldn't be implementing this.

What is the information on your slide that states it “4400 N1 Cycle Build goal”?

Referring to Slide 19 presented on Industry Day, that is the build goal for engines coming out of depot after a specific set of work scopes have been accomplished.

With material management, will the government approach be the same as it was before with the

OME?

We are open to ways we can integrate this into the contract. We currently do not have this in our requirement or in our future requirement.

Can we, the contractors, propose to see a depo center to understand what a breakdown of the engine looks like and possibly do this during the market research period?

We can see if at a future industry day, we are able to facilitate an engine breakdown at a depo center.

Would the Program management team oversee what percentage of the workload is done at the Tiner HMC depo center?

Under a performance-based structure, the government does not direct specific workload but requests the contract manage allocation of workload to meet performance standards.

Configuration control, who will manage engine configurations? Will it be the contractor? USAF? Or Pratt?

USAF will do this.

What are you looking at as far as PMA and DERs as part of this program?

How can we incorporate PMA and DER into this F117 follow-on.

Who will update SAP to adopt alternate configurations with them?

the Government does not require the use of SAP (an ERP system) for managing the F117 engine sustainment, it will be the contractor's choice for what ERP to use/license to meet the requirements.