TurbineAmend1.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1.

Instead of FOB Destination can you consider FOB Origin ?

FOB Origin is the right designation since we are not trying to pass any liability on to the contractor. The Navy intends to pay for shipment of our engines.

2.

Under Para 2.0 Scope, the contamination limits are listed as:

a.

(less than 100 dpm / 100 cm2 loose / removable contaminants and less than 6000 dpm / 100 cm2 total).

b.

It should read "less than 1000 dpm/100 cm2 loose/removable and less than 6000 dpm/100 cm2 total". It would be very difficult to see 100 dpm. We currently use 1000 dpm/100 cm2 on the K34 engines. It appears several times in the document.

Yes, this is a typo, my mistake, agree with part B above, should read less than 1000 dpm, same as the 501 contract.

3.

In para 5.1.3.8 the RFP says the contractor will collect and package the contaminated part, but is does not say what to do with the parts once packaged. Is the Navy going to be responsible for final disposition of contaminated USN engine parts? They are on the K34 program. There is a significant cost if RWG is responsible so we need a definitive decision one way or the other.

The US Navy (NSWC) is responsible for disposition of contaminated parts, not the vendor.

4.

Can we get searchable electronic copies of technical manuals S9234-AB-MMD-010, 020, and 30 as well as an Illustrated Parts Catalog?

The Navy will not provide MMD manuals to the contractor awarded this contract. NAVSEA does not permit distribution of these manuals to outside vendors not under contract with the Navy to support gas turbine repairs. We cannot provide these manuals (due to distribution restrictions) to any vendor who replies to this RFP. We can provide an Illustrated Parts Breakdown (IPB) manual to any interested parties on CD Rom. This manual is not under distribution restrictions.

5.

There will be some significant start-up costs to equip our RADCON facility to accept LM2500. When we set up the program for the K34, these costs were on the first delivery order for the first engine. In other words, startup costs + RADCON Deco costs. Should we price our bid the same way or should we provide a separate estimate for start-up costs?

The Navy agrees that many companies may require start up costs to support this contract. Those costs should be included in their submittal. They can be broken out as a separate section so that evaluators can differentiate between start up costs and actual executable labor on the gas turbine engine. Vendors which do not show any start up costs must document that they have an existing, viable, production facility currently in use for this same workscope. Failure to document that capability in detail would be used during the evaluation of any submittal.

6.

90-days for delivery is not actually possible for two engines. One is possible. Can the delivery schedule be revised?

90 days per gas generator is fine for the delivery.

(End of Summary of Changes)