questions_and_responses_8_April_2014.pdf

F-15 WBSI Question and Responses 8 April 2014

Q1. Relative to the WBSI evaluation process, factor one, is there benefit to exceeding certain technical capabilities? If so, which technical capabilities are most important to exceed and how will credit be assigned for exceeding technical specifications?

Q1 Response:

Factor one: Technical Capability – Technical capability will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The technical proposal must convey to the Government that the offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and understanding on the technical requirements and provides data that supports/justifies all claims. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the following ratings:

Acceptable (pass) – Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable (fail) – Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the Solicitation

This response is intended to clarify the information provided in the solicitation and shall not substitute any information provided in such.

Q2. Relative to Factor two Subfactor one "demonstration of successful risk management" can Vendors use non wheel and brake programs in order to demonstrate compliance? If using non-W&B programs to demonstrate compliance will this impact Vendors’ score and by how much? Relative to Factor two Subfactor two "incorporates reliability design features that maximize on-axle life as well as overall life" is there additional improvements USAF is looking for in the on-axle and maintenance elements that are not identified in the WBSI specification?

Q2 Response:

Paragraph 2.3.2.3 of Section M of the Solicitation does not limit examples of recent successful risk management performance to wheel and brake programs. Offeror must demonstrate recent* successful risk management performance in critical requirements and processes and the offeror’s ability to understand and resolve program risk issues within the offeror’s organizational structure, including interaction with the Government and the offeror’s subcontractors. Provide examples of recent related Government program experience where proactive methods were applied to obtain successful and timely resolution to performance/reliability problems and potential systemic issues that occurred during product development, fleet retrofit and/or actual service. *Program examples within the last 5 years are considered recent).

The Performance Specification includes the required improvements from the USAF.

This response is intended to clarify the information provided in the solicitation and shall not substitute any information provided in such.

Q3. Relative to Factor three is USAF assessing all areas of past performance (i.e. engineering, design, development, program execution, supply chain maturity, product delivery, quality, etc? What elements of assessing past performance are most important and contribute more to "Substantial Confidence?" How are the elements of confidence scored or evaluated?

Q3 Response:

In assigning a confidence rating, the Government will utilize any and all relevant information obtained regarding the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance on past efforts. As described in paragraph 2.4.3.1 of Section M of the solicitation, information utilized may derive from a variety of sources. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained and reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

This response is intended to clarify the information provided in the solicitation and shall not substitute any information provided in such.

Q4. Our engineering and program management team has a few questions related to report delivery and timing during the development program. Can you forward these on to the USAF engineering team to clear our questions around the delivery dates and reports that are required.

Item Deliverable RFP Date

RFP

CLIN

TRD Date CDRL Date

Comments/Questions

1 Final VACR (aka Qual SOF Report, Final)

None 0001AF 120 days prior to flight test (does not specify prelim or final?

Assume final but unclear)

30 days prior to flight test (A006)

Based on historical programs, SOF report typically due ~30 days prior to flight test. Which date is correct, 30 days or 120 days prior to FT? Did the TRD mean to say Preliminary Qual SOF Report 120 days prior to

FT?

2 Qual Report, Final

None 0001AG None 30 days prior to flight test (A007)

Why so early? Typical only need SOF report done before flight test, not entire qual report. We would recommend Final Qual Report 3 months after flight test which should still support production deliveries 22 months ARO.

3 Fit Check 8 months

ARO

0004 -

9 months

ARO

None TRD and RFP have different dates for fit check – which is correct?

Q4 Response:

1) The VACR and QTR are two separate deliverables (reference TRD paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8, respectively). The VACR is intended to document compliance with the VACC. The vendor airworthiness requirements will be provided by the USAF; and will essentially consist of a matrix tailored from the approved aircraft MACC. The QTR is intended to document compliance with the PS (performance requirements).

2) The preliminary QTR deliverable (SOF) delivery prior to flight test is necessary to support the Technical and Safety Review Board proceedings at Edwards AFB which typically occur 30 days prior to legacy/baseline flight test. The flight test start identified in the TRD schedule represents the WBSI portion of the flight test.

3) The TRD fit check milestone represents when the event is planned to occur 9 months ARO. The RFP delivery date of 8 months is when the USAF requires delivery of the hardware for preparation and shipment to the fit check location (TBD).

Q5. The F-15 WBSI Specification attempts to identify what tests are to be complete as part of SOF (below). However, rather than identify which Spec section paragraph #s are to be done, descriptive wording is used.

We have attempted to determine which Spec sections might be covered (Colored Text below) but red text items are particularly unclear to us. Can we suggest that the USAF identify Spec Paragraph #s for each safety of flight requirement?

4.4.5 Safety of Flight (SOF) Tests

Qualification testing shall objectively be completed and approved before wheel and brake equipment is released for flight test. The following minimum level of successful testing shall be completed before the wheel or brake equipment or the wheel-brake assembly is considered safe to release for flight test:

Wheels:

1. All static load tests 4.5.2

2. Burst test 4.5.1.1

3. Roll test (100% of yawed miles & 30% of straight miles) 4.5.3.1

Brakes:

1. 100% of structural torque test 4.6.5

2. 100% of static and dynamic torque tests 4.6.1 - All??? (If so would cover almost all other testing)

- Maybe 4.6.1.1 (Static) & 4.6.1.4 (100/5/1)?

3. 100% of thermal tests 4.6.2

4. 100% of leakage tests 4.6.4.1 (Endur.), 4.6.4.3.2 (Cold), 4.6.4.4 (Proof),

4.6.4.5 (Burst)

5. 100% of required analysis 4.6.2.2 (Brake Therm Model) , post CDR updates to:

4.7.1 (Vib.), and 4.7.2 (Tol.) ???

Note: 4.7.3 (Wear) is due at end of Qual

Note: 4.7.4 (Stress) is due at end of Qual Note: 4.7.5 (Therm.) is due at end of Qual

6. 60% of endurance test 4.6.4.1

7. 100% of stability test 4.6.3

Q5 Response:

All subparagraphs for each PS section identified are required. To further clarify…

Wheels:

1. All static load tests - PS Paragraph 4.5.2

2. Burst test - PS Paragraph 4.5.1.1

3. Roll test (includes 100% of yawed miles and 30% of straight miles) - PS Paragraph 4.5.3.1

Brakes:

1. 100% of structural torque test - PS Paragraph 4.6.5

2. 100% of static and dynamic torque tests - PS Paragraph 4.6.1 (includes ALL subparagraphs)

3. 100% of thermal tests - PS Paragraph 4.6.2 (includes ALL subparagraphs)

4. 100% of leakage tests - PS Paragraphs 4.6.4.3, 4.6.4.4, 4.6.4.5

5. 100% of required analysis - PS Paragraph 4.7 (includes ALL subparagraphs)

6. 60% of endurance test - PS Paragraph 4.6.4.1

7. 100% of stability test - PS Paragraph 4.6.3