KC-46 LG Industry Day - Q A.pdf

KC-46 LG Industry Day

Contractor Questions & Government Answers

Section 1: The information of this section includes information that was provided by the Government without being solicited by the contractor during Industry Day meetings:

The current strategy approach has shifted from more of a Performance Based Logistics (PBL) strategy to a long term remanufacture contract where we send in “F” condition asset and expect a serviceable “A” condition asset in return. The first objective is to support the 10-year Time Change Interval (TCI). The shipset will be removed by the Government and sent to the contractor for remanufacture and returned to the AF Supply Chain. The second effort is to support remanufacture of field-level subcomponents. “F” condition field-level subcomponents are removed and replaced with “A” condition field-level subcomponents in the field. The “F” condition field-level subcomponents are sent to the AF Supply Chain. When “A” condition field-level subcomponents are needed a “F” condition field-level subcomponent will be funded and shipped from AF Supply to the contractor for remanufacture.

This is a new requirement. The KC-46 platform has been transitioned from Boeing interim contract support over to the KC-46 Program Office and the 424th Supply Chain at Tinker AFB. It is in the process of being transitioned to the 417th Supply Chain at Hill AFB. Boeing is the OEM for the KC-46 platform.

We believe that the language within the OMIT License provides the Government with the ability to share Component Maintenance Manuals (CMM) with prospective awardees and ultimate awardee for remanufacture purposes. The scope of this contract does not support the purchase of spares (new assets). The Governments intent is to do this within the required legal limits, as the strategy continues to develop and shift this approach may change.

The Government plans to create a bidder’s library with the CMMs upon release of the Request for Proposal (RFP) with OEM Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) protections. We will most likely include the proposed TCI schedule in the bidder’s library.

The original TCI schedule called for the first KC-16 aircraft induction in December of 2027. That has now shifted to September 2028. We are planning to award the contract by June 2028. We are anticipating remanufacturing an average of 15 shipsets per year for 10 years. We will attempt to smooth the schedule out as much as possible. The number of field-level subcomponent remanufactures is more difficult to estimate as we don’t have failure or demand data on those components.

We have decided to reduce the contract ordering period from 20 years down to 10 years (5-year basic with a 5-year option).

Please be aware of RFP documents Section L and Section M. These documents are the instructions that will tell you what to include in your proposal and how we will evaluate your proposal. Please provide information in your technical proposal that aligns with the instructions of Sections L. We may pursue a tradeoff approach between Technical Capability and Price.

The contractors are welcome to reach out to Kyle Swanner (DLA Contracting Officer) to provide the AF with technical evaluation criteria you think the Government should use to evaluate proposal technical capabilities. As mentioned, many aspects of these requirements frequently change, and the AF is continuing to adapt and update our strategy as appropriate.

Section 2: The information of this section includes questions that were asked by the contractors and answered by the Government during the interactive Industry Day meetings.

Duplicative questions were combined and information that was shared above will not be repeated:

Contractor Question: What can you tell us about the tech data; will the tech data be available to build proposals and perform the remanufacture requirement?

Answer: We are assessing our access and ability to distribute the CMM tech data to qualified contractors. We plan to release the CMMs through a controlled bidder’s library so participants can understand the requirements of this effort. We are making a concerted effort to ensure that we have the correct tech data for the parts we need remanufactured and that we can release it to those that need it to bid and perform to the contract. The Governments intent is to do this within the required legal limits, as the strategy continues to develop and shift this approach may change.

Contractor Question: Will there be incentives or disincentives associated with this effort?

Answer: Right now the 75-calendar day Remanufacture Turnaround Time (RTAT) of the full up shipset to support the TCI schedule is critical. If you can’t make that date you won’t qualify for award. The performance metric associated with the RTAT will include a disincentive associated with days late. Based on the schedule we are not currently considering an incentive for early delivery. But we are looking at other incentive metrics.

Contractor Question: What is Boeing’s involvement in this effort? Will they be participating in this effort seeing as how sustainment responsibility is or will be moved to the Government?

Answer: Boeing is the OEM of the KC-46. We anticipate some level of parts support interaction between Boeing and whoever is awarded this contract. We won’t speculate whether other contractors are planning to propose on this effort.

Contractor Question: Will the landing gear shipsets be sent in with the wheels, tires and brakes or will you break it down?

Answer: The strategy will be to remove the wheels, tires and brakes at Tinker AFB and then send the shipsets to the contractor for remanufacture.

Contractor Question: When do you anticipate issuing a draft RFP?

Answer: We plan to release a draft RFP summer/fall 2025.

Contractor Question: Will this effort include a Public Private Partnership (PPP) to develop organic capability at the depot?

Answer: No, the requirement has changed and this effort will not include a PPP to develop organic capability at the depot. Organic capability will be executed on a different contract at a later time.

Contractor Question: Are you looking at a multi-award?

Answer: No, we plan on awarding to a single awardee.

Contractor Question: What is the timing to develop the shipset rotable pool?

Answer: The System Program Office (SPO) is planning to purchase 9 shipsets to establish a rotatable pool in support of the TCI effort. It has yet to be determined if the initial rotable pool will be comprised of newly manufactured or used (remanufactured) shipsets. We acknowledge that the long lead times associated with acquiring the rotable pool shipsets does introduce some risk into the timing of this effort.

Contractor Question: We are assuming that the 75-day Remanufacture Turnaround Time (RTAT) won’t start until the asset arrives at the contractor’s dock?

Answer: That is correct. The 75-calendar day RTAT begins when the shipset is delivered to the contractor. The contractor is allowed 7 calendar days for return shipping. So, in actuality, the contractor has 82 calendar days from the moment the shipset arrives at their facility to remanufacture and return it to the government facility.

Contractor Question: is the Government still planning on taking care of the shipping?

Answer: Shipping from the Government to the contractor will be arranged by the Government.

Shipping from the contractor to the Government will be arranged by the contractor.

Contractor Question: You’re 100% decided that the remanufactured shipsets will go back to Tinker AFB to be installed at the TCI facility?

Answer: Yes. A designated DLA facility will warehouse the rotable pool shipsets. The Tinker depot will requisition a shipset from the rotable pool in advance of the scheduled TCI. When the KC-46 arrives at Tinker AFB for its scheduled TCI the landing gear will be removed by the Government and sent as a shipset to the contractor for remanufacture. The Government will install the requisitioned shipset onto the KC-46. The contractor will remanufacture the shipset they received from the Government and ship it to the DLA facility where it will be added to the rotable pool.

Contractor Question: Does the Government feel that the CMMs are all that is required to remanufacture the shipsets and field-level subcomponents?

Answer: The CMMs should contain all the technical information needed to remanufacture the shipsets and field-level subcomponents we have specified.

Contractor Question: Would you require a team of ours to travel to a field location to support field-level subcomponents or is the Government going to remove and send field-level subcomponents into us?

Answer: Within the list of NSNs that we’ve provided, 8 of them comprise the top level DLR full-up shipset and 42 of them are subcomponents of the full-up shipset. The 42 NSNs are the field-level subcomponents that can be removed and replaced by the Government in the field. The Government will remove a “F” condition field-level subcomponent and replace it with an “A” condition field-level subcomponent in the field. Then, depending on inventory levels and funding, the “F” condition field-level subcomponent that was removed will be shipped to the contractor for remanufacture. The contractor will remanufacture the field-level subcomponent based upon negotiated PLT metrics and requirements documents and return it to the Government in “A” condition.

Contractor Question: How will we know what your requirements will be for the field-level subcomponents? We would need to know how much money to invest and have time to procure parts for a rotatable pool. Do you accept exchanges?

Answer: The Government will provide you our best estimated quantities on subcomponent support. How the subcomponents drive requirements is based on historical usage and failure rates which we don’t have at this time. So, it is difficult to anticipate what those demands will

be. As time goes on the forecasts will be better. What we do have on some of the subcomponents is life cycle failure rates. We anticipate sharing the information we have but the contractor will need to review the tech data, go through the CMMs and use their own understanding of commercial platforms compared to the uniqueness of the KC-46 to identify potential long lead time parts. Right now, we just don’t have firm historical demands or failure rates on subcomponents.

Contractor Question: Have you considered issuing a tactical order ahead of time so contractors can understand the complete process and requirements prior to RFP so we can bid competitively?

For instance, providing a shipset that we could overhaul at cost would benefit us greatly.

Answer: No. The first shipset that will be sent in for remanufacture will be the first shipset that is removed as a part of the TCI process. We will share our strategic plan, requirements, packaging and CMMs to help you narrow the delta between the KC-46 and your commercial experience.

We have the CMMs on all the landing gear components with supplement updates at the front that provide the latest configuration part numbers. The KC-46 is based off the 767 2C aircraft.

The landing gear is definitely part of that amended type cert. All the CMMs and everything related to this discussion would be commercial derivative manuals for the commercial derivative of the 767. The commercial documentation should be very similar to the CMMs for the KC-46.

Contractor Question: When you start gathering data on failure rates for subcomponent parts will you pull that together, get averages and then share that data to be able to determine what level of inventory you want to have on hand?

Answer: We have reached out to industry with limited success for this effort. We have had to get our assumptions from “like item aircraft” to build our demands. This is such a new effort that we don’t know the failure rates. For the TCI portion of this effort (remanufacture of the full up shipset) we know what that schedule is going to be. It is fixed. The subcomponent failure schedule is unknown. The expectation for subcomponent parts will be based on the PLTs that are proposed. We want contractors to propose realistic, accurate PLTs. We can use those to plan and will expect those lead times to be met.

Contractor Question: Is it a broad consensus that the full up shipset can be consistently overhauled in 75 days?

Answer: Yes. The SPO conducted market research based on their TCI requirement that resulted in a 75-calendar day RTAT. Their research also resulted in the need for 9 spare shipsets in the rotatable pool to support their schedule.

Contractor Question: Are you amenable to exchanges or do we need to make a little pool and keep the Government parts separate?

Answer: There should be a closed loop approach for Government assets, meaning you’re not going to exchange Government assets with commercial assets. We are still considering whether we would allow used-serviceable parts to be entered into the Government pool to meet the metric. Shipsets that we remove and send in for remanufacture have life-limited-parts.

If a life-limited-part requires replacement we are going to want a replacement part of equal or greater life sufficient for the established Time Change Interval (TCI) duration. It would be inappropriate to exchange a part with “X” amount of remaining life and replace it with a part that has “< X” of remaining life or “< established TCI duration”.

Contractor Question: Would you be receptive to preapproving spare or used-serviceable material to be used as rotatable components? It’s nice if you know you can take an approved part, that is already there (vetted and approved) and then remanufacture the part that was sent in and have it ready for the next remanufacture.

Answer: We don’t have a spare or used-serviceable material preapproval process established at this time. However, having a rotatable pool of replacement parts is approved, so long as the exchanged replacement part meets the requirements of the remanufacture and meets or exceeds the remaining life of the part that was removed. Maintaining the parent/child relationship between the end item and subcomponents is not required.

Contractor Question: Does our company need to be listed on the 761 or 762 Screening Analysis Worksheet to be considered as a qualified source to compete for this effort?

Answer: No. Inclusion on the 761 or 762 documents is not a prerequisite for qualification or competition. At the moment, no one is approved on any of the 761s or 762s for this effort.

Ultimately, the source selection review of the contractor’s proposed/confirmed technical capability in relation to the Government’s technical requirement will determine qualification.

The paperwork we will ultimately reference will be the 8130. As a 145-repair station you will have the qualified part number on your capability list and then be authorized to issue that 8130 for that qualified part - just like commercial.

Contractor Question: When you talk about assessing technical capability to meet the requirement turn times; what does that look like?

Answer: Our process will be detailed in the draft solicitation and solicitation. We will lay that out. We will request demonstration of capacity and request details of how you would meet our requirement. Past Performance will be reviewed but the Technical and Price components of the selection criteria will most likely be the most critical factors.

Contractor Question: Is there a particular technology or capability you’re interested in seeing?

Answer: No. But things like special technologies or procedures that set you apart from your competition can be provided in your RFP response. The Government will review those and determine if it is beneficial and worth a tradeoff. Those things are looked at very closely.

Contractor Question: Why on a repair-type contract why would you be requesting a Firm Fixed Price structure (with all the unknowns in the repair process)?

Answer: This will be a remanufacture effort. By definition this a remanufacture is not repair.

Our market research and the technical requirements of the remanufacture indicate to us that a FFP contract is achievable and supportable. We understand that there are some factors outside of our control, especially over a 10-year contract, where commodity costs may go up. We anticipate including price indexing and appropriate implementation of Economic Price Adjustment provisions to accommodate for future price fluctuations.

Contractor Question: In the past we have been provided assets we could cannibalize for parts.

Especially for parts that are experiencing long lead time procurements to meet required remanufacture turn times. Is that something you would consider providing on this contract?

Answer: No. The only Government Furnished Property (GFP) that will be provided to the contractor will be the assets inducted for remanufacture. The contractor is responsible to provide all parts or subcomponents necessary to remanufacture a shipset or field-level subcomponent inducted on this contract.

Contractor Question: What about the configuration? Will it be with full LRUs?

Answer: There are 3 NSNs for the Left Main Landing Gear, 3 NSNs for the Right Main Landing Gear, and 2 NSNs for the Nose Landing Gear. We’ll be pulling those 8 NSN (shipset) off the KC- 46 and sending it in for remanufacture. Our intent is to set up a bidder’s library for qualified contractors to access the CMMs to will bring clarity to the configuration of the NSNs that will be issued for remanufacture.

Contractor Question: Do you require FAA or just CFC?

Answer: FAA

Section 3: The information of this section includes written questions that were submitted by contractors and answered by the Government. Duplicative questions were combined and information that was shared above will not be repeated:

Contractor Question: Would the Government consider sharing their overall LG Overhaul PBL acquisition strategy and schedule so industry can evaluate the resources needed to support Hill Commodity Council / DLA requirements? Does the Government require additional input from industry to support these requirements?

Answer: The government will continue to work with industry as we shape and scope our requirement. We plan to release a draft requirements document summer/fall 2025 for industry feedback on the current requirements document and strategy at that time. The government will continue industry engagement until the requirements document is finalized and release of RFP.

Contractor Question: Would the Government consider making the shipset average turn time 90-days verse 75? Analysis shows that a 90-day average turn time is more realistic based on the complexity of the KC-46A Landing Gear (LG), and military unique requirements not associated with a commercial 767-2C LG shipset.

Answer: No, in order to meet the required TCI schedule and the quantity of spare shipsets the government will have in a rotable spares pool, a 75 day turn time is required. An additional 7 days for shipment back to the AF will be added to this requirement.

Contractor Question: Would the Government consider sharing their required average turn times for the sub-component/NSNs listed in the Government provided KC-46 LG NSN List?

Answer: The government has no previous turn times for sub-component support. AF intentions will be to have industry provide their best PLTs for subcomponent support which will be evaluated as part of the technical evaluation in our source selection process.

Contractor Question: Does the Government feel the previously delivered LG CMMS are all that is required to accomplish LG shipset and sub-component overhaul / remanufacture?

Answer: TBD, SPO and AF engineering will need to fully evaluate this.

Contractor Question: Would the Government consider NIIN pricing for current year for the proposal and then allow updated pricing every year of the PoP to account for the dynamic pricing changes associated with LG subcomponents?

Answer: No, where this is a competitive acquisition the preferred government pricing structure will be to receive 10 yrs of fixed pricing. The government may consider the use of a pricing index and an EPA clause.

Contractor Question: Is the Government’s position that Boeing detailed manufacturing process data is releasable to third parties under OMIT rights?

Answer: No, the government does not intend to release any data associated with new manufacture. The intent of this contract is only for overhaul/remanufacture of KC-46 LG shipsets and field level sub-components. There will be no spare procurement under this effort.

Contractor Question: Is the Government’s position that manufacture / remanufacture / overhaul are covered under OMIT rights?

Answer: New manufacture is excluded from these rights; governments position will not have new manufacture under this contract.

Contractor Question: Is the Government’s position that detailed drawings or the ability to fabricate from detailed drawings is covered under OMIT rights?

Answer: No, new manufacture is excluded from these rights, governments position will not have new manufacture under this contract.

Contractor Question: Was the KC-46 fleet delivered as Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 25 Type Certified aircraft?

Answer: See Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) A1NM for minor model 767-2C. The Amended Type Certified (ATC) provisioned 767-2C aircraft is combined with the Aerial Refueling Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) along with a few Military Type Certified (MTC) items to form the KC-46A aircraft. The landing gear system is 14 CFR Part 25 Certified as part of the 767-2C on the ATC TCDS.

Contractor Question: If the KC-46 fleet was delivered as CFR 25 Type certified aircraft does the USAF expect the aircraft to maintain CFR 25 Type Certification and Supplemental Type Certification

(STC)?

Answer: Yes, KC-46A strategy is to conform to its Type Design to the maximum extent possible.

Contractor Question: Does the USAF operate and maintain the aircraft in accordance with the applicable FAA regulations and complies with intent of CFR Part 121 guidelines for continued airworthiness using Boeing developed, commercial operations and maintenance manuals supplemented by DOD/USAF instructions where appropriate?

Answer: Yes, the KC-46 program receives and uses all OEM generated manuals, Technical Orders (T.O.)s i.e. AMM, CMM, IPC, etc…. To the maximum extent possible the USAF follows an FAA signed Meet the Intent (MTI) letter.

Contractor Question: Does the USAF acknowledge and concur that by operating to the processes and procedures reviewed by the FAA that the USAF KC-46 fleet meet compliance with the intent of 14 CFR Part 121 subparts L and V Continuous Airworthiness and as such, allows the exchange of parts, data, and services between the USAF KC-46 fleet and the commercial Boeing 767 fleet.

Answer: Yes, No. The USAF Acknowledges an MTI with Part 121 and can accept serviceable parts with proper FAA paperwork pedigree i.e. 8130 Serviceable tag. However, while the USAF Military Repair Stations (MRS) are set like and MTI a Part 145 repair station the MRS is Not FAA certified therefore is not authorized to create FAA certified documentation. The USAF MRS items declared serviceable are tagged with USAF 1574 Serviceable tags and readied for return to service in the KC-46 Fleet. The USAF tracks all landing gear serialized safe life limit parts per landing cycle as identified in the 767-2C ATC Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) Manual.

Contractor Question: Does the USAF have plans to use FAA certified parts that are provided by Title 14 CFR Part 121 operators and authorized part suppliers?

Answer: Yes, if required to meet inspection intervals, other metrics, and improve readiness to the warfighter the USAF could utilize serviceable parts and components that conform to the type design.

Contractor Question: What is the government’s concept for 100% sub-component field level support?

Answer: The contractor will be required to provide 100% remanufacture sub-component field-level support for AF material. This will be accomplished under an Exchange Lead Time (ELT) Sub-component DLR metric associated to contractor proposed PLTs. Field level replaceable assets upon failure will be removed/replaced and turned in ‘F’ condition thru the AF supply process. Delivery orders for remanufacture of unserviceable assets will be placed to the contractor subject to the availability of funds and AF requirements.

Contractor Question: For the field level support will we have access to usage rates for each of the components?

Answer: Yes, at the completion of each March and September SPM (Government Forecasting System) summary cycle, the AF is anticipating sending the contractor a 3-year forecast, Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) of expected assets to be remanufactured at the contractor’s facility for field level requirements, this will also include past qtrly usage rates. Additionally, the AF tracks all usage logic codes for aircraft maintenance actions i.e. Landing Cycles for the landing gear safe life limit components listed in the Airworthiness Limitation ICA document and can make available when needed.

Contractor Question: Is there an incumbent for this opportunity? If so, who is it?

Answer: There is no incumbent for this specific LTC strategy. This is not a follow-on effort.

Contractor Question: What factors led to the decision for this to be a full and open competition requirement?

Answer: Given the results of the Request for Information for industry, as well as the additional market research findings to date, it is reasonable to conclude: (i) there’s substantial competitive interest in the requirement with multiple sources capable and qualified to meet this requirement; (ii) the services are commercial in nature (iii) full and open competition will enable the government to select a contractor with the required capabilities to be successful in meeting all of the Government’s requirements.

Contractor Question: We offer managed-repair services; whereby, we manage all aspects of the contract, receive, track, and ship parts, and subcontract with FAA Part 145 shops. Is this teaming arrangement acceptable?

Answer: To be considered as an interested party, contractors must meet several initial qualifications for this strategy. 1.) Be a title 14 CFR Part 145 certified Repair Station capable of providing complete airworthiness documentation for FAA certification on all 8 NSNs that make up the LG Shipset. This means maintaining full traceability for all parts back to their manufacturer or repair source. This requirement applies to all parts, regardless of whether they are FAA-certified, FAA Standard, non-certified, or military-certified. Notably, all FAA-certified parts require an FAA Form 8130-3, completed in accordance with FAA Order 8130-21. 2.)

Technically capable for shipset and sub-component overhaul/remanufacture. 3.) Sufficient capacity to meet throughput requirements.

While the Government acknowledges that not all remanufacturing can be done in-house, a significant portion of the TCI and subcomponent work must be completed at the awarded contractor's facility. This approach ensures process control, efficiency, and accountability in meeting performance metrics. To minimize risk, ensure timely delivery (especially given the tight turnaround times for TCI scheduled intervals), and maintain clear responsibility for performance, the Government will only consider bids from single-source contractors with substantial in-house remanufacturing capabilities. This strategy avoids the potential delays and complications associated with integrator models or multiple awards, simplifies government-furnished property tracking and reporting, and provides a single point of accountability for program success. Furthermore, if an integrator fails to meet the required performance metrics or withdraws from the contract, the Government would be forced to restart the competitive selection process, leading to unacceptable delays in securing a new contractor within a specialized and competitive industry. The Government deems this risk unacceptable.

Contractor Question: Is there any flexibility within this requirement to consider alternatives to a single-source award? Specifically, could the contract be structured to distribute the work for all 49 NSNs across the five-year base period and option period?

Answer: Not currently, the necessity for a single point of accountability to ensure lowest risk of overall success eliminated a multiple award approach. Multiple contractors would require shared supply chain responsibility, resulting in various approaches to SCM. Beyond the conflicts this could potentially create, the accountability of SCM performance becomes nearly impossible for the Government as landing gear items flow through the supply chain and lose their initial parent-child relationship for tracking and monitoring purposes. Without that single point of accountability, the Government cannot expect to maximize the process improvement capability, efficiency, and overall effectiveness of the LTC contractor.

Contractor Question: Will you consider setting this aside for small business or making a partial small business set aside to allow small business to compete among similarly situated entities?

Answer: Our current market research does not support a small business set side, but we will continue to evaluate this as the strategy continues to develop

Contractor Question: Will you consider a FFP multiple-award IDIQ contract to allow for Fair Opportunity Proposal Requests (FOPRs) to receive current and competitive pricing at time of repair need?

Answer: Not currently, the necessity for a single point of accountability to ensure lowest risk of overall success eliminated a multiple award approach. Multiple contractors would require shared supply chain responsibility, resulting in various approaches to SCM. Beyond the conflicts this could potentially create, the accountability of SCM performance becomes nearly impossible for the Government as landing gear items flow through the supply chain and lose their initial parent-child relationship for tracking and monitoring purposes. Without that single point of accountability, the Government cannot expect to maximize the process improvement capability, efficiency, and overall effectiveness of the LTC contractor.

Contractor Question: Will the contractor be granted access to OEM technical manuals, schematics, and service bulletins for field-level repairs?

Answer: Onsite field level repairs are not part of this requirement. Tech data for any sub-component parts subject to remanufacture will be provided.

Contractor Question: In order to be considered for contract award, will contractors have to be approved through the Source Approval Request process stated in the SASPO website?

Answer: Ultimately, the source selection review of the contractor’s proposed/confirmed technical capability in relation to the Government’s technical requirement will determine qualification. The paperwork we will ultimately reference will be the 8130. As a 145-repair station you will have the qualified part number on your capability list and then be authorized to issue that 8130 for that qualified part - just like commercial.

Contractor Question: Numerous factors can impact RTAT/ELT that are beyond the control of a contractor, i.e., parts availability in the market at time of overhaul. Will there be no-fault procedures in the contract to address these situations?

Answer: No, it will be the responsibility of the contractor to meet the required performance metrics. Managing vendors, parts availability lead times, and any other supply chain management functions needed to meet the metrics are required from the contractor.