RFQ_Attachment_2_Questions_and_Answers_Updated831.pdf

RFQ Attachment 2

Questions and Answer from Solicitation NNL17637308Q: Design and Installation of Nadir Research Portals in a NASA Gulfstream C-20B Aircraft

08/31/2017

Question 1. The requirements of this solicitation are very similar to the requirements appearing in a sources sought solicitation currently posted on FBO by another office within NASA. (please see solicitation: 80JSC017GVDIV, Gulfstream V Nadir Viewport Installation). The other is slightly different than yours in that it requires the following:

1. a specific minimum installation size

2. an approximate fuselage stations for location of the portals

3. that the portal interfaces with an "optical window assembly" with a design weight of 90 lbs

4. a certain seat track installation

Are any of these four requirements necessary to be included in your solicitation?

Answer 1:

No. The specifications cited above are not required in NASA Langley’s RFQ. Our requirements are adequately covered in NASA Langley’s RFQ.

Question 2. Received a request for an extension of the due date for NNL17637308Q Design and Installation of Nadir Research Portals in a NASA Gulfstream C-20B Aircraft Request for Proposal. This request is submitted due to the nature of this proposal requires validation of pricing, and the completion of internal teaming agreements, and anticipate completion of these necessary steps no later than August 30,2017.

Answer 2:

See amendment 2 to the subject solicitation extends the due date.

Question 3. First, is it possible to extend the response date to 8 Sep (1 Sep at the very earliest)? Due to the nature of this acquisition (FFP) and the potential costs involved, I will have to seek approval for our proposal at our sector level. Unfortunately, this would be extremely challenging with a response date of 25 Aug, and may drive a no-bid decision.

Answer 3:

Yes. See the response to Question 2 above.

Question 4. We have data for this aircraft that we have generated in the process of other modifications, and have subcontracted with a company that has complete Gulfstream III data packages. Our question: Is it mandatory that we possess aircraft data from, or in coordination with, Gulfstream?

Answer 4:

No. Any vendor that already has access to the required data from Gulfstream, the aircraft manufacturer, has met the requirement to act in coordination with Gulfstream for this task.

This information can reside with the prime or a subcontractor, but the prime is responsible for overall performance of the effort.

Question 5. Is the aircraft available for immediate inspection; prior to us developing and submitting our proposal?

Answer 5:

No. The aircraft is not currently available. However, if this changes, a notification may be posted.

Question 6. Ref Task 1, Section 1.c, Are there any requirements related to the location of the forward portal with respect to other equipment in the cabin (equipment racks, bulkheads, etc.) to ensure the NASA research equipment will properly install without interference to existing equipment? Is there a NASA preferred location for the portals?

Answer 6:

No. There are no requirements with respect to other equipment in the cabin at this time.

Yes. The locations are specified in Sections 1.1.c and 1.1.d of the SOW.

Question 7. Ref Task 1, Section 1.e It is assumed that by ‘identical’, NASA means that the interface for installation of the aluminum blank/optical window is identical between the two portals, but that the structure which comprises the portals may be different to permit installation in different fuselage locations. Please clarify.

Answer 7:

The assumption stated above is correct.

Question 8. Ref Task 1, Section 4 The wording in this section seems to indicate that the removable ‘floor plug’ contains seat track “The floor plugs shall restore the floor to its original strength and also provide seat tracks matching the original layout.” – meaning that there would be removable seat track. Please clarify if this is NASA’s intention. Please provide a schematic/layout of existing seat track in the aircraft.

Answer 8:

Yes, these floor plugs would have sections of seat track mounted on it. When the plug is installed, those seat tracks would match up with the seat tracks in the un-modified portion of the cabin.

No. NASA does not have a schematic, but NASA assumes the aircraft has a typical G-III cabin seat track configuration.

Question 9. Ref Task 1, Section 6 Can NASA provide information as to the antennas currently installed on the lower fuselage to permit determination of how many antennas (and of which type) must be relocated for the portal installation?

Answer 9:

NASA does not have an antenna configuration diagram. However, see statement of work attachment 4 for pictures of identical aircraft.

Question 10. Ref Task 1, Section 8. Please provide more details on the ‘dog house’ and its installation. Section 8.b states the sealing interface is the OML/skin of the aircraft – should this be the IML/skin of the aircraft? We assume that the dog house is internal to the fuselage and will seal to the portal structure via a series of fastener locations provided on the portal structure. Please confirm/clarify.

Answer 10:

Yes. It should be the IML/skin of the aircraft.

Yes. When installed, the doghouse is internal to the fuselage. It will seal to a flange, below the cabin floor, at the level of the aircraft skin. When installed, the doghouse becomes part of the aircraft pressure boundary.

Question 11. Ref Task 2 and 3 There are no requirements to paint the aircraft exterior in the location of the modification. Does NASA require that the vendor paint the modified area to match the existing aircraft paint?

Answer 11:

No. There is no requirement to paint the aircraft exterior in the location of modification as NASA does not intend to retain the current paint scheme. However the aircraft exterior in the location of the modification shall be primed.

Question 12: Ref Task 2/3, Section 4 Does NASA have any requirements for the ground pressurization check beyond those described in the aircraft maintenance manual for a maximum differential pressure test?

Answer 12:

No. NASA has no further requirements for the ground pressurization check beyond those described in a typical aircraft maintenance manual for a maximum differential pressure test.

Question 13. LMS-TD-0940 1.3 Is there a supplier portal where we can access the documents referenced in LMS-TD-0940?

Answer 13:

No. Vendors are not required to access any documents other than those provided with the RFQ. Only Section 5.4, Flight Readiness Review(s) and Maintenance Test Flight(s), of LMS-TD-0940 is applicable to this RFQ. See updated attachment 3

Question 14. LMS-TD-0940 4.1 Will Langley QA perform receiving inspection once the plane is delivered to their facility? What will this consist of?

Answer 14:

No. Section 4.1 is not applicable, only section 5.4 is applicable. In addition, per the SOW Section titled “Meetings/Deliverables/Documentation Requirements, paragraph 3, “This activity will occur at the vendor’s facility.”.

The inspection will consist of those activities described in SOW Task 2.7, 3.7 Meeting/Deliverables/Documentation Requirements 3 and NASA LaRC Responsibilities 8 and will last approximately no more than 5 working days.

Question 15. LMS-TD-0940 Chapters 6-14 will our Repair Station, GFR, and General QMS satisfy all call outs? Will need to address specific differences as called out and how we do business.

Answer 15:

No. Chapters 6-14 are not applicable, only Section 5.4, Flight Readiness Review(s) and Maintenance Test Flight(s), of LMS-TD-0940 is applicable to this RFQ.

Question 16. NNL17637308Q SOW Task 1 item 10 Will our internal records for document review be adequate or will this be covered by the PER and FER called out in attachment 1?

Answer 16:

Yes. The vendor’s internal records for document review will be discussed by NASA and the vendor prior to the PER and FER as stated in SOW Attachment 1.

Question 17. NNL17637308Q SOW Task 2 item 6 How do we show compliance to drawings?

Will our internal FAI process be adequate or will we deliver AS9102 form 1, 2 and 3?

Answer 17:

Yes. Your company’s internal FAI process shall be adequate to show compliance to drawings and shall be submitted with your proposal.

The vendor’s compliance to drawings should follow the vendor’s procedures that would be used if the task was being performed to acquire a Federal Aviation Administration Supplemental Type Certificate. See 52.212-2 for required documentation for submission.

Question 18. NNL17637308Q SOW Task 3 item 6 How do we show compliance to drawings?

Will our internal FAI process be adequate or will we deliver AS9102 form 1, 2 and 3?

Answer 18:

Please see the answer to Question 17.

Question 19. NNL17637308Q_SOW Page 1 Does NASA have a list of previous modifications performed on Gulfstream Model G-1159A, SN 478

Answer 19:

No. NASA does not have a list of previous modifications performed on Gulfstream Model

G-1159A, SN 478.

Question 20. NNL17637308Q_SOW Page 1 Is there a requirement to control the stress load across the nadir viewport windows. If yes, please provide the specification

Answer 20:

No. The nadir window structure should be sufficient to carry/transmit all aircraft structural loads without relying on the metallic nadir blanking plate or, when installed, the nadir viewport windows. The metallic nadir blanking plate or, when installed, the nadir viewport windows should only see stresses imparted from differential pressure loads between the aircraft cabin and the exterior ambient atmosphere.

Question 21. NNL17637308Q_SOW Page 1 Is there and engineering drawing of the desired optical glass to be installed as viewing ports

Answer 21:

No. There are no engineering drawings of the desired optical glass to be installed as viewing ports. The optical glass is frequently unique for each science payload.

Question 22. NNL17637308Q_SOW Page 2 Please provide engineering drawings of current antennae installations

Answer 22:

Please see the answer to Question 9.

Question 23. NNL17637308Q_SOW Page 2 Please provide a concept sketch of the rectangular pressure dome "dog house" to assist with the pressure sealing design requirement.

Answer 23:

The conceptual design of the pressure dome does not exist yet since the specific scientific payloads are not yet defined. However, see attachment 5. The C clamps are not part of the installation.

Question 24. NNL17637308Q_SOW Page 1 Is the aircraft available ahead of proposal submittal to assist with ascertaining optimal viewing port installation locations and potential re-routing/relocation of hydraulic lines, electrical cables, control cables, and antennas?

Answer 24:

Please see the answer to Question 5.

Question 25. NNL17637308Q_SOW Page 3 "The contractor shall participate in the iterative exchange between the engineers and the fabricators once actual fabrication and installation commences" Does NASA want the fabrication phase of liaison engineering bid as a part of Task 1? Is there a scenario where NASA will award the Task 2 fabrication tasks to a supplier other than the Task 1 offeror?

Answer 25:

No. NASA does not want the fabrication phase of liaison engineering bid as a part of Task 1.

This effort should be bid as part of the Task 2 and 3 fabrication phases. This liaison engineering is a recognition of the fact that some level of engineering involvement will be required to successfully execute Tasks 2 and 3.

No. NASA intends to award all three Tasks (if the options are exercised) to the same vendor.

Question 26. A provide access to C-20B data? (we are unsure of what differences there are to baseline Gulfstream data for this aircraft)

Answer 26:

NASA does not possess the C-20B data at this time. The data should be transferred to NASA from the U.S. Air Force during the week of August 28, 2017 and will be provided to the awardee after award of the purchase order.

Question 27. Please confirm NASA shall issue certificate of airworthiness post-modification.

Answer 27:

The C-20B aircraft will be a NASA public-use aircraft. Therefore, NASA will be issuing the Certificate of Airworthiness.

Question 28. Please confirm vendor shall not be accomplishing return to service post-modification.

Answer 28:

Yes. The vendor shall participate in the NASA Flight Readiness Review, as specified in the Statement of Work, see task 2 and 3.

Question 29. Please confirm that FAA Part 21/25 cert. basis shall be the compliance basis followed.

Answer 29:

Yes. The C-20B aircraft will be a NASA public-use aircraft. The vendor is expected to comply with FAA Part 21/25 for compliance and will identify to NASA any deviations that would require specific NASA airworthiness approval.

Question 30. Please confirm any NASA certification basis requirements that may be invoked that are not consistent with 14CFR 21/25. (not quality driven but engineering driven requirements such as load cases; or test requirements that exceed far requirements.)

Answer 30:

No. There are no NASA certification standards that are not consistent with 14CFR 21/25.

Question 31. Please confirm any restrictions to permanent cabin removals for the modification.

Answer 31:

NASA understands that some items will have to be relocated or removed. However, NASA desires to retain as much of the original cabin functionality as possible. NASA will review the vendor’s design for functionality at the PER as described in Task 1.as one of the assessment criteria.

Question 32. Please confirm if other alterations shall be conducted concurrent with the portal installations.

Answer 32:

No. NASA is not conducting other alterations during the portal installations.

Question 33. Task 1 is for the design for two nadir portals. Please confirm if this data needs to be constructed to allow for optional task 2 or optional task 3 to be installed separately. The cabling systems modifications will not be the same for option task 2, 3 or both. (in other words, is the proposal assembling one drawing set or three).

Answer 33:

The vendor should design as if both Tasks 2 and 3 were to be installed simultaneously.

However, the design should allow for Task 3 to be installed at a later date than Task 2. In summary, the vendor is preparing one drawing set.

Question 34. Our question is with regards to item 5 of the information we need to address in section 52.212.2 of the Solicitation, which states vendor SHALL have ability to access OEM drawings from the manufacturer or provide statement that data is currently in their possession.

We think this task could be accomplished fully without the manufacturer’s design data and drawings if a survey of the aircraft could be accomplished. Before we invest in creating a quote, I would like to know if this would be an acceptable option or if this would be considered a non-compliance item that would be a show stopper for you?

We have worked several Gulfstream modification programs such as this, without OEM drawings and obtained all necessary information from public data and aircraft surveys. So we know we can be successful on this project with that approach but would like to know if that would be an acceptable approach for NASA.

Answer 34:

Yes. NASA will consider an alternative approach in which data from public data and aircraft surveys are used in lieu of data from the OEM. See 52.212-2. Demonstration of successful project(s) using such an approach will be evaluated during review of the vendor’s proposal.

Question 35. Can you confirm that the portal is to be provided with a blank out panel and without any optical glass?

Answer 35:

Confirmed. The vendor shall design and install an aluminum blank out panel without optical glass as called out in Sections 1.2, 2.1.b, and 3.1.b

Question 36. Is the vendor expected to provide analysis that substantiates the optical glass?

a. Is there a requirement for a special glass to be used?

Answer 36:

No. The vendor is not expected to provide analysis that substantiates the optical glass.

a) No. NASA and the researchers will determine the glass that will be used.

Question 37. Does the optical shutter require a manual override or can this be electrically driven with a single motor/mechanism?

Answer 37:

No. A manual override is not required. The shutter can be electrically driven with a single robust motor/mechanism.

Question 38. Is the optical shutter intended to be a sliding door/cover or a shutter that has moveable vanes? Can you confirm that when the cover is open the portal requires a clear view?

Answer 38:

The optical shutter is intended to be a sliding door/cover.

The cover opens to provide the portal with a clear view.

Question 39. Can you provide a document that identifies how many and the types of antennas/beacons that require relocation?

Answer 39:

Yes. Please see Statement of Work Attachment 4.

Question 40. Is the noted three (3) month modification downtime intended to account for installation of both the forward and aft portals at the same time?

Answer 40:

Yes. The three (3) month modification downtime is intended to account for installation of both the forward and aft portals at the same time based on similar modifications that were made to two NASA Langley King Air aircraft. However, should NASA exercise one option at a time the period of performance for each option will be three (3) months.

Question 41. Can you identify if the ground pressure check can be accomplished using the aircraft engines or APU?

Answer 41:

No. NASA has not yet received the aircraft manuals to be able to provide this information.

Question 42. Will the ground pressure check be limited to a leak check in the areas that were modified?

Answer 42:

Yes. With respect to this solicitation, NASA is only interested in the leaks in the modified areas.

Question 43. Have any changes been made to the subject G-III in the areas under the floor where the modifications will be made (i.e. from a standard G-III configuration)?

Answer 43:

Unknown. The aircraft and its associated manuals have not yet been transferred from the U.S. Air Force. Also see the response to Question 39.

Question 44. Can you clarify airworthiness certification requirements?

a. What is the current airworthiness basis of the aircraft?

b. Can you elaborate on the statement in the SOW Deliverables item 2) “Formal Approvals by the FAA are not required”?

c. Will Letters in lieu of FAA Form 8110-3 signed by an Engineer qualified as an FAA DER be acceptable rather than delivery of DER signed FAA Form 8110-3’s?

d. Who is responsible for return to service authorization following the modifications?

Answer 44:

a) The aircraft is currently under Department of Defense airworthiness authority. The aircraft will fall under NASA airworthiness authority after transfer of ownership from the U.S. Air Force to NASA.

b) NASA aircraft are Public Use aircraft. NASA aircraft operate under NASA airworthiness authority. Therefore, FAA approvals are not required for NASA aircraft.

c) No. For consistency with documentation for modifications that have been made to other NASA Langley aircraft, a FAA Form 8110-3, signed by a DER is required. No FAA signatures are required nor should the 8110-3 be submitted to the FAA for its review/approval.

d) NASA is responsible for return to service authorization following the modifications.

Question 45. Can you clarify SOW reqt 2.5 and 3.5: “Vendor shall restore the aircraft to the as-delivered condition with the exception of the modifications performed per this SOW”?

a. Does this apply to the cabin only (as external modifications may relocate antennas/beacon, etc.)?

b. Is this a requirement that the modifications be able to be removed and the aircraft be restored to its original configuration?

Answer 45:

a) No. Requirements 2.5 and 3.5 of the SOW refer to: the removal of any temporary structures and/or equipment (internal and external) which may have been used in accomplishing these modifications; and, the reinstallation of any components (internal and external) that were removed temporarily to provide access during the modifications.

b) No. There is no requirement to be able to restore the aircraft to its original configuration.

Question 46. How quickly can an award be expected to be provided from receipt of proposal submittals?

Answer 46:

The Government anticipates to award by September 30, 2017.

Question 47. Is any Gulfstream data being supplied in support of the modification effort?

Answer 47:

No. No Gulfstream data will be provided during the solicitation period.