T56 Industry Day Q_A Responses with 3.5 Parts Kit Content.pdf

T56 Follow-On Repair Contract Industry Day Questions USAF Answers

Anticipated timings for publication of DRAFT Solicitation and attachments, formal solicitation issuance, and award?

Draft Solicitation: Nov/Dec 2024, Solicitation: Jan/Feb 2025, and Award: Nov/Dec 2025

Will this acquisition be a total or partial small business set-aside that will result in a Single-Award Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract? What will be the Period of Performance? 5 years?

Small business set aside decision has not been made. It will be and IDIQ contract. POP is 10.5 years total. 5 years basic, 5 years optional, and 6 month extension possible

Will the USAF be seeking Past Performance as part of their bid evaluation?

No. Contract will be Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) which does not use past performance.

Is a DRAFT set of Bid Evaluation criteria available to share? Not at this time, will forward when ready.

What are TAT targets for the USAF by module? When does the TAT time clock start and finish? What does USAF define as induction start?

first provided to Govt. by the contractor and sent to Govt. to accept or negotiate. Some modules with TT&E… TT&E should be FFP and schedule, with a cost and ARO time provided by contractor.

What condition will assets be received in? Will there be any Series 3.5 upgrades as part of this Scope? What condition will Accessories be received in?

( p ) y , possible for FMS whole engines. Not sure of the condition, but an overhaul of complete engine goes hand-in-hand with the upgrade. Accessory items with be received in F condion mostly as well… other conditions like R for reclamation, etc. are possible

Does each Line Item in Attachment 1 represent an individual CLIN with 225 CLINS total?

Yes, but some parts will be the same NSN, just overhauled to the applicable tech data for that service or FMS country. Some FMS may use USAF tech data and others use Lockheed Furnish Equipment (LFE) tech data.

For Rows 13, 14, 15- what -15 Assets in Column D for USAF, USN, and FMS do these represent? Assembled engines (Power Section/RGB/TM), Power Sections, etc.- please define separated by service. They could go towards any number of things related to production of T56 items, What you would bid on would be your hourly shop rate… could be for work not on a CLIN, Engineering Investigations, Reclamation, or anything T56.

For Rows 13, 14, 15, how many BEQ hours are anticipated per Asset? How many BEQ asset units are associated with the Total BEQ hours provided? Can you please update these lines to reflect # BEQ Units as defined in Column D per your response to question above?

Again, these are estimated hours of O&A per year, not attached to any given BEQ.

Is Attachment 2 USAF GFM list intended to be all-inclusive or does this represent only a portion of USAF GFM (and NAVAIR/FMS CFM) that will be provided to the Contractor?

That is for USAF GFM only. NAVSUP/FMS GFM will only be the parts that need repair themselves, it's expected that all other material to repair their items with be Contractor Furnished Material (CFM)

How soon before Engines and Power Sections are provided to Turbopower will USAF provide detailed Turbine configuration, LLP status and Operational/Failure history for each so to allow adequate time for planning, ordering, and stocking anticipated replacement material?

p ( p Engine Management System… That is that system of record. USAF engineering questions the need to provide operational failure history of every part. 3.5 data is simply not going to exist, so life limited parts life remaining is going to be in CEMS, but engineering would need further clarification on why we would be required to provide operational and failure history to our repair contractor over.

Will USAF provide RFI Engine Accessories if they fallout/are determined to be unserviceable during Inspection or during the Repair process (if these tasks are included in the Scope of Supply?

It depends. If the Accessory that is sent in cannot be repaired for being Beyond Economical Repair (BER) or Beyond Physical Repair (BPR), the part could be condemned. Besides this, it's expected that any imbedded unserviceable part be repaired or job routed to be repaired. Parts on the USAF GFM list will be provided if the part is beyond repair and according to MRB findings

Will USAF provide Core Power Sections and QECK's from which to Cannibalize material to improve TAT's?

This would not be typical, but not out of the question as the domestic fleet wind down, it would be considered in a way that would benefit all parties. Don't plan on it.

Will Val/Ver be required?

An Initial Product Evaluation (IPE) will be needed if not already a qualified source, but Val/Ver would be to assist in tech data changes, that could happen as part of a TCTO or similar situation… This is separate from qualification.

QECK's so that the Contractor can properly forecast Material failure rates in developing our bid proposal for Supply plan and anticipated Cost and Pricing?

just added bare QECs for -16s that will be on an updated BEQ listing

Can we see DRAFT Attach K, K1, K2? Yes. Sending with this attachment.

By when are Prime Offerors (and subcontractors?) required to have T56 SAR and C-130 QECK SAR approved (approximate calendar date)? In-line with Contract Award? Those would need to be approved prior to

Does this mean Workshare between 2 or more T56 AMC's versus a Sole Source award?

understood that work could be farmed out to another

AMOF/AMC

Since the USAF's T56 Series III/Series 3.5 maintenance philosophy allows for mixing/matching modules, do the USAF mate overhauled/serviceable modules at the Little Rock I-level depot and perform bare-engine test before installing in QECK and install on aircraft? If not, how is performance/performance improvement measured?

modules are pulled from supply and used to build up whole engines at Little Rock AFB. They whole engine with prop is brough to a test cell location where performance is measured. There's currently no bare engine testing before full engine with QEC is assembled

Is the metric for 100% compliant QECK SAR tech data package submission or first tech data package submission?

That question should be directed to the C-130 SPO at Robins, as the control 100% of the QEC SAR process

Would GFE supplied for repairs be parts or module for cannibalization

GFE is equipment like tools and fixtures… not to be cannibalized for parts. GFM is not usually supplied like that for cannibalization purposes, but it's not impossible with the engines that should be available. It would need further discussion about mutual benefits of doing so.

When can we have DRAFT Versions of all PWS-referenced Attachments for better understanding of requirements?

Draft PWS attachments should be posted along with these Q&A postings

Will the USAF or RRC be releasing Series 3.5 component repair procedures or does the Contractor need to develop repair procedures on their own for USAF approval?

Rolls-Royce is being heavily pressured to develop 3.5 repairs, and has done some, but a fallback plan is to have repair contractor basically reverse engineer and develop repairs.

Please confirm specific Contractor responsibility for Engine Power Section, RGB, and Torquemeter Modules, Engine Accessories, and QECK Accessories and Components.

Question: Is the Contractor responsible for processing repairs for the RGB and Torquemeter modules, Engine Accessories or QECK Accessories and Components if they fallout/are determined to be unserviceable during inspection or Repair (if within Contractor Scope of Supply)? Is the Contractor responsible for all Common T56 Series III Power Section parts not part of the Series 3.5 kit? Question: Can USAF please provide direction on how the Contractor should properly price unknown quantities of parts needed without knowing the current turbine configuration, time and condition of Series III baseline configuration for adopting the 3.5 kit as well as condition of Engine Accessories and QECK Accessories and Components if confirmed they are within Scope of Supply?

Contractor should be responsible for all parts fall out which are not on the GFM listing. The current configurations

How are Supply Chain lack of part availability and extremely long lead times (a very real potential due to unknown detailed Series III engine parts, LLP's, and Engine Accessories impact / and tie into these performance metrics?

Lack of parts could be deemed a candidate for schedule relief, if the parts are simply not available and out of control of contractor.

DCMA rep will be available within three working days of receipt to comply?

Is this a question? DCMA should be available according to provisions of the PWS to accept competed parts.

Will there be any Series 3.0 units expected to be upgraded to 3.5? If yes, will Series 3.5 kits be provided by the Air force?

No more 3.5 upgrades from the USAF projected for this contract, but the possibility will exist for FMS engines, and the consensus is that

What is MRB Disposition process? Will BER replacement material be supplied or contractor responsibility According to PWS, USAF managed parts, listed in the PWS will be provided as GFM to contractor… all other part will be CFM (Contractor Furnished Material)

a) Does the contractor require an approval to proceed with 3.5 repairs? b) Will the contractor be responsible to supply 3.5 upgrade kits if necessary? c) Will RRC have released unique Series 3.5 material for purchase by the time this contract is executed (versus as only being available in upgrade kit form today)?

Contractor would need approval to proceed with 3.5 repairs not in tech data. 3.5 kits are generally provided to repair contractor. USAF is working on 3.5 Sustainment Kits to be provided as GFM, in a bond room, provide parts as needed, and inventoried often enough to figure the demand rates of these parts.

Standard internal audit program and AS recertification audits suffice?

There will be FIAR audits as well, and there should be updated informatino in the final PWS is there a list for non-government companies (vendors) that have contract with USAF?

Yes, but rather than give that master list of 15,000 parts, which are going to change, because if we receive a source approval requests our package and we approve a new source, then if engineering provides you documentation that's a year old, obviously it's no longer valid. So my recommendation for this is if the contractor asks through contracting, who is the Air Force approved source for this part, we will absolutely provide you that information.

Will repairs to containers be an O&A or is there a separate CLIN for containers There are separate containers repair CLINs, but before condemning, O&A work may be needed, as container shortage could be a problem in the future how are we shipping? Are we liable for not shipping with 1 day? Are we responsible for contacting the freight forwarder?

Shipping should involve DCMA, and they should contact the freight forwarder, until a vendor gets access to be a trusted agent.

talking about Export Licenses? Is USAF signing the EUC? Which countries are we shipping to?

Not sure about EUC and exactly which countries might be involved. This would be a good follow up for Mike Geary. There should be an FMS attachment to PWS to explain some of this. A draft should be coming forward soon.

Would an active reservist be authorized to use their CAC Cards for access on the contractors behalf?

No. That would be a question for the OPR of the system you would need access to, like CAV-AF… If they allow it, okay, but in most cases contractors need contractor CACs.

Would a subcontractor on USAF contract not be reimbursed Travel Costs for any Program Review Meetings No. It would be up to the prime contractor to cover those costs, rolled up in their bid.

Is a TCTO upgrade with a cost classified as an O&A or contractor responsibility?

If the repair CLIN was priced without the TCTO, then the TCTO gets incorporated, O&A would be used to cover the added expense of time and materials until pricing matrix could be updated.

For what purpose are we providing fuel bills to DCMA? Is there a test fuel cost re-imbursement?

The only whole engine testing would be FMS engines, and the fuel bill requirement should be getting removed from the final PWS, which at one time was to cover USAF whole engine testing.

What is the expectation for GFE repairs, are these accessories or are these parts that will be provided to facilitate the repair but just in as removed condition?

GFE (Government Furnished Equipment) are tooling, maching, fixtures, etc. These are neither parts nor accessories.

Are non CLIN items going to be considered over and above?

Repairing non-CLIN parts is just one use for O&A, but O&A can be used for any efforts related to the support of T56 engine… just a couple of examples: Engineering Investigations, reclamation, TCTO initial installation with new parts. There should be no limitation for use of O&A as long as it supports T56 sustainment.

Do the USAF have the latest DoD instructions for part marking compliance? Or this is something we have to look into on our own?

The T56 does not require IUID marking by repair vendor.

New parts have the requirement and this should be addressed in the final PWS

Please provide examples of instances where this might apply None.

How will the USAF rate and score Risk in Section M?

a) How is the USAF evaluating risk with over 225 active CLINs? CFM is a large investment.

The Government is trying to mitigate some risk to the contractor by providing some GFM and working to supply sustainment kits for the 3.5 engines to reduce the risk and lead times for the contractor until data can be reviewed on the types of repairs can be gathered.

b) How does the USAF plan to assess Property Management Systems and Government Compliant Business Systems DCMA will be responsible for auditing the contractor to determine compliance.

When will RQR required Process Qualifications and Audits begin?

The RQR directed IPEs are mutually agreed to (which parts and the timeframe) by the contractor and the USG.

USG tries and conduct the IPE as fast as possible after phase 1 approval, but the contractor may/may have assets they can utilize, etc., so it’s mutually agreed upon.

Because they are currently producing on current contract, SASAI is FULLY approved, so the IPE was already done and is not required

There is minimal approved depot repair/inspection Tech Data for 3.5. How does the USAF intend to address this?

The USAF is well aware, and very concerned, about the lack of series 3.5 repairs. This is an on-going issue between the USAF and Rolls Royce, that we are trying to resolve, but does not look promising. As a Rolls-Royce AMOF or AMC it’s possible this information could be shared by Rolls-Royce.

What is the requirement for surge? 25%? 30%? How long is the surge duration anticipated to be?

USAF is not anticipating surges; however, sometimes limited parts are consumed faster than expected… 25% might be requested of certain parts.

Given a potential lengthy TT&E process, how will the USAF account for TAT?

TT&E should be reserved for modules, power sections, and whole engines that include TT&E. There should be a firm fixed price developed for these items upon receipt of order and part and a TT&E max days, like 45 days After Receipt of Order (ARO), then the TT&E report will have lead times for parts and labor to repair item

What TAT relief or cost compensation will be given for non-contractor provided (GFM) kits not provided on-time?

Goal is to have the 3.5 sustainment kits kept in a contractor’s bond room so virtually no impact on TAT…other 3.5 parts managed by USAF using the Table of Allowance (TOA)/GFM process. Common CFM parts should be procured as required.

Relief should be given for parts delays out of contractor’s control.

What is the USAF’s plan for 3.5 repair kit use when repairs do not require the entire kit contents?

The plan is that the individual parts in the 3.5 Sustainment kits be combined. For example, If 10 kits are provided that have 100 blades in each kit, there are 1000 blades total. It’s the total number that will be counted… the kits are intended to make it easier to put the needed parts together, but there will be no waste per se. If only 50 blades are needed, the new balance is 950 blades.

How will the USAF evaluate Service Contract Act compliance?

Contractors must adhere to the regulations set forth in the SCA, maintain accurate records of wages and benefits, and make them available for inspection by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Failure to comply with the SCA can result in penalties, contract termination, and debarment from future government contracts

Should predictive maintenance and reliability centered maintenance RCM be added back into the PWS?

We're at the point where the 3.5 upgrades have been done to all but a couple handfuls of engines so that it's winding down. The fleet for us will be winding down after an overhaul and upgrade that was sold to increase reliability. We think this would be a waste to predict without data available, and due to the reset of the

Anticipated timings for publication of draft solicitation attachments, formal solicitation and award if we didn't cover that already there.

Draft Solicitation: Nov/Dec 2024, Solicitation: Jan/Feb 2025, and Award: Nov/Dec 2025

When does the time clock start and finish?

Starts when asset to be repaired is received and inducted to shop for repair, and order is in place, whichever comes last. Clock stops when part is presented to DCMA for acceptance… if DCMA is a delay in acceptance, then that would be Govt. caused delay. On large orders for say 50 parts, it should start when inducted… obviously all in the warehouse with orders cannot be worked at the same time on some items.

Confirm what is IN and what is OUT for Contractor responsibility- Engine Modules, Engine and QECK Components and Accessories

The contractor will be responsible for all piece parts not specifically listed as Government Furnished Material, and that will be specific to USAF, USN, and FMS.

Will USAF provide Core Power Sections and QECK's from which to Cannibalize material to improve TAT's?

Not usually, and this was answered before. It is something that could happen in the future, but not something we would as for at this time.

NSN P/N QTY NOMENCLATURE

XXX-XX-XXX-XXXX 2309XXXX REF PACKAGE, SUSTAINMENT, ENGINE ENHANCEMENT- SERIES 3.5

2840-01-653-5050 23065914 91 BLADE, COMPRESSOR- 14TH STAGE

2840-01-655-1492 23065913 95 BLADE COMPRESSOR 13TH STAGE

2840-01-655-1490 23065912 95 BLADE, COMPRESSOR 12TH STAGE

2840-01-655-1488 23065911 95 BLADE, COMPRESSOR 11TH STAGE

2840-01-655-1486 23065910 95 BLADE COMPRESSOR 10TH STAGE

2840-01-655-1485 23065909 95 BLADE COMPRESSOR 9TH STAGE

2840-01-655-1483 23065908 91 BLADE, COMP 8TH

2840-01-655-1480 23065907 91 BLADE COMPRESSOR 7TH STAGE

2840-01-655-1477 23065906 89 BLADE, COMPRESSOR 6TH STAGE

2840-01-653-5923 23065905 41 BLADE COMPRESSOR 5TH STAGE

2840-01-653-5046 23065903 37 BLADE-COMPRESSOR 3RD STAGE

2840-01-655-1525 23087777 33 BLADE COMPRESSOR 2ND STAGE

2840-01-655-1522 23086384 33 BLADE, COMPR 1ST STAGE

5306-01-348-8920 23008185 130 BOLT, .250-28 X .437 LG SLAB HD

4710-01-323-1022 23008165 6 TUBE ASSY, ANTI-ICING AIR DIST

5310-00-463-7557 6825450-04 2 WASHER, FLAT CSK 1200 DEG F

5307-01-653-6092 23091186-80 2 STUD, .250-28 X .312-18 X 1.844 LG

2995-01-326-2426 23008222 2 VALVE ASSY, ANTI-ICING AIR

5330-01-326-9515 23008235 2 GASKET, ANTI-ICING AIR VALVE

4710-01-653-6735 23089180 2 TUBE ASSY, ANTI-ICING AIR

4310-01-324-4319 23008234 2 RING ASSY, PISTON

5315-00-298-4061 6731108 200 PIN - LOCK .055 DIA X .140 LG

5315-01-653-8362 23087219 210 PIN - LOCKING STRAIGHT

2840-01-653-8933 23087224 500 PIN - LOCKING STRAIGHT

5315-01-654-9738 23087236 100 PIN - LOCKING STRAIGHT

5315-01-655-0198 23087238 90 PIN - LOCKING STRAIGHT

4720-01-323-3244 6886430E274C 1 HOSE ASSY, TFE-CODED CONFIGURATION

2840-01-655-1391 23086385 2 VANE ASSY, COMPRESSOR- 1ST STAGE

2840-01-674-5761 23091979 2 VANE ASSY, COMPRESSOR- 2ND STAGE

2840-01-655-1788 23086387 2 VANE ASSY, COMPRESSOR- 3RD STAGE

2840-01-655-1420 23086388 2 VANE ASSY, COMPRESSOR- 4TH STAGE

2840-01-653-8137 23086389 2 VANE ASSY, COMPRESSOR- 5TH STAGE

2840-01-653-8121 23086390 2 VANE ASSY, COMPRESSOR- 6TH STAGE

2840-01-653-8142 23086391 2 VANE ASSY, COMPRESSOR- 7TH STAGE

2840-01-655-1757 23086392 2 VANE ASSY, COMPRESSOR- 8TH STAGE

2840-01-653-8161 23086394 2 VANE ASSY, COMPRESSOR- 9TH STAGE

2840-01-653-8162 23086395 2 VANE ASSY, COMPRESSOR- 10TH STAGE

2840-01-655-1753 23086396 2 VANE ASSY, COMPRESSOR- 11TH STAGE

2840-01-655-1760 23086397 2 VANE ASSY, COMPRESSOR- 12TH STAGE

2840-01-655-1765 23086398 2 VANE ASSY, COMPRESSOR- 13TH STAGE

2840-01-655-8094 23088691 102 SEAL, TURBINE- 1ST STAGE PLATFORM

2840-01-653-5123 23086350 6 SADDLE, TURB 1ST STAGE VANE

2840-01-659-8356 23086338 102 BLADE, TURB 1ST STAGE

2840-01-655-1314 23086339 89 BLADE, TURBINE- 2ND STAGE

2840-01-655-1318 23086340 89 BLADE, TURBINE- 3RD STAGE

2840-01-655-1328 23086341 69 BLADE, TURBINE 4TH STAGE

2840-01-655-1387 23086345 6 VANE SEGMENT ASSY, TURB 1ST STAGE

2840-01-655-1776 23086346 6 VANE SEGMENT ASSY, TURBINE-1ST STAGE

2840-01-655-1787 23086347 6 VANE SEGMENT ASSY, TURBINE-1ST STAGE

2840-01-655-1780 23086348 6 VANE SEGMENT ASSY, TURB 1ST STAGE

2840-01-657-7923 23087239 17 COVER PLATE, SEAL- 1ST STAGE, FRONT

2840-01-707-5404 23095569 3 TOWER SHAFT RETAINMENT KIT

T56 3.5/-15A SUSTAINMENT KITS

Industry Day Q&A