QA Received from Industry Day.docx

Questions Received From Industry and Government Responses

1. 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.

2. 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 the 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.

3. 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?

Response: Yes, the Government’s anticipated high level test schedule is in the attached power point slide entitled “72kW GPU – High Level Parallel Testing”. The Government will appreciate Industry inputs as to what sub-test events can be done in parallel.

4. 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?

Response: The Government is considering dropping the crane lift requirement; however, the forklift design requirement will remain.

5. 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.

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

6. 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?

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

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

Response: 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.

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

Response: Yes, the Government can provide these specs after confirmation of the spec. A follow up posting to beta.SAM will be provided.

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

Response: Not at this time; however, the final RFP will identify any batches required.

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

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

11. 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.

Response: The Government anticipates releasing the final Request for Proposal (RFP) in Mar 2021. Please note this time is subject to change.