Pre-RFP_Industry Questions - Govt Responses.pdf

Industry Question: LPT BLADES – RESTORED AS NEW. Please provide clarification for the phrase “restored to as new condition”. Assume the intent is all repairs must be performed.

Example: If a blade feature meets serviceable standards, it still must undergo repair for that feature. Exception: Feature has no repairs but meets the serviceable standard.

Government Response: All features that can be restored to new condition must be accomplished. If features have no established repairs, then they just need to meet serviceable conditions.

Industry Question: 1ST STAGE LPT BLADES - NEW OEM.

Request Confirmation: replacement of USAF must be NEW OEM.

Request Confirmation: replacement of USN must be NEW OEM.

Government Response: New blades can only be manufactured by the OEM and must be unused. PMA alternates and used blades that have been repaired are not acceptable.

Industry Question: LPT BLADES - TWIST ANGLE and NEW OEM. Request confirmation that both USAF and USN NEW OEM blades must meet minimum pre-twist angle requirements.

Government Response: All LPT blades, whether they are new or restored, must meet the pre-twist angles established in section 1.9.1 of the SOW. These are more restrictive than current serviceable limits so all blades will have to be checked.

Industry Question: 4th STAGE LPT BLADE INVESTIGATION SUBSECTION 1.11. Can the Government share the status of the ongoing investigation?

Government Response: The investigation has been completed. No changes to the remanufacture processes are required. The portion of Section 1.12 Remanufacture Deviations of the SOW referencing the ongoing investigation will be deleted.

Industry Question: With the exception of LLPs, Case and Frames, are all lower-level detail components considered Government Inventories that can be used in either USAF or USN Modules? Example: This would be beneficial in meeting the USN 21-day RTAT.

Government Response: Yes. The only exceptions are parts that are Air Force or Navy unique.

Industry Question: Section 1.25 provides a delivery schedule of 12 each every 30 days for Module 13/15. Is this both USAF and USN delivery schedule? Is this delivery schedule of 12 each every 30 days for Module 14 as well? For USAF as well as USN?

Government Response: Section 1.14 Schedule of the SOW will be revised to specify the delivery schedule for each module.

AF Module 13/15: NSN 2840-01-229-5786PN; 12 each every 30 calendar days ARO

Navy Module 13/15: NSN 2840-01-484-3913PN; 1 each every 60 calendar days ARO

AF Module 14: NSN 2840-01-189-2941PN; 7 each every 30 calendar days ARO

Navy Module 14: NSN 2840-01-483-8785PN; 1 each every 60 calendar days ARO

Industry Question: To ensure fair and reasonable pricing needed to establish competition will the government provide the following data:

5-yr history of organic and/or contracting quantities of Remanufacture of USAF Module 13/15, USN Module 13/15, USAF Module 14, and USN Module 14?

5-yr history of scrap rates/factors for each module?

5 yr forward projected quantities for orders for each module and source?

Government Response: Previous 5-year history: Module 13/15 USAF - 416 each - 83.2 avg/yr; Module 13/15 USN - 17 each - 3.4 avg/yr; Module 14 USN - 15 each - 3 avg/yr;

Module 14 USAF - 243 each - 48.6 avg/yr. The government does not have history of scrap rates/factors at this time. The 5-year projected quantities for each ordering period are listed as the maximum quantity for each remanufacture line item in the schedule.

Industry Question: Are separate SAR packages required for USN and USAF for each module type?

Government Response: Yes, each module (F108 Module 13/15 USAF, F108 Module 13/15 USN, F108 Module 14 USAF, F108 Module 14 USN) has a distinct NSN; therefore, a separate SAR package is required for each NSN, and separate approval is required for each package.

Industry Question: We are concerned about the time it will take to obtain CAC and subsequent access to USAF Portal and required data systems such as CEMS and CAV-AF.

Will the Government provide support (or other solution) for the accomplishment of the CDRL tasks requiring access to these Government data systems until such time that the awardee has sufficient capability and access to meet these SOW requirements?

Government Response: If awardees lack appropriate access to required governmental systems (i.e., lack CAC and/or access to USAF Portal for CEMS/CAV-AF), the Program

Office and Contracting Officials will work collaboratively with the awardee personnel to ensure compliance with contractual tasks such as CAV-AF/CEMS compliance IAW CDRLs.

Industry Question: When is solicitation expected to formally be released?

Government Response: The proposed, anticipated schedule was provided in the Pre-RFP Industry Conference PowerPoint Presentation and was originally forecast as early November. Due to the unforeseen delays in the lapse of appropriations and subsequent furlough of Government personnel, this schedule has been overcome by events. While the Government is attempting to recover the lapsed time, the schedule has currently seen a delay of approximately 3 weeks, and solicitation may be released late November - early December.

Industry Question: Is a split award based on the specific part number anticipated (e.g., one contractor may receive an award for the repair of Module 13/15 but not Module 14, etc.

or is the award expected to be for all part numbers)?

Government Response: Contractors will receive awards based on SAR Qualifications per specific NSNs or modules; so, any individual awardee may receive an award to complete Delivery Orders on a single NSN, or a combination of up to 4 NSNs on the Delivery Order contract. Additionally, as expressed in the Pre-RFP Industry Conference Briefing, the Government also reserves the right to make Delivery Order awards with any combination of awards of 1, 2, 3, or 4 NSNs to each award holder if FOPR responses are solicited and received to include multiple NSN (or Module) assets.

Industry Question: Is there a current incumbent contractor or is this work currently performed by the Government at the Tinker Depot?

Government Response: There is no organic repair capability at the Tinker Depot. The work is currently performed by 2 different contractors.

Industry Question: The Government received a suggestion for CLIN Restructure to account for pricing risk in unknown/variable material items for the remanufacture CLINS (X002, X003, X006, X007).

Government Response: The CLIN structure will be modified slightly for both USAF and USN Module 13/15 (CLINs X002, X003) to allow for sub-CLINs to price Stage 1 Blades and the Remanufacture effort independently, although the Blades remain CFM. The Government has reviewed the historical data to calculate the average blade replacement per asset and has determined an increased number for future forecast replacement. The solicitation will require the contractor to propose to replace the stated number of blades in their FFP price per asset.

The CLIN Structure for Module 14 assets (CLINs X006, X007) will remain unchanged, as the Life-limited part/high price variable asset identified as material risk (No. 4 Bearing) were low risk in the historical performance of this contract (2 occurrences in the current 5-year history of the contract). If the life-limited part/high price variable asset identified as material risk becomes an issue for the future contract, replacement will be addressed in the Over and Above CLINs.