Federal contract opportunity FA8232-18-R-0001 for other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing at Air Force Materiel Command AFLCMC / AFSC / AFNWC - HILL AFB, response due Jan 23, 2018.

Due
Solicitation Number
FA8232-18-R-0001
Contract Number(s)
None listed
Additional Info Link
None listed
Set-Aside
Total Small Business

Correected Pricing Attachment. The latest is version 4

Questions from Industry #8

Q:  Is this specification available? If it is, please provide a copy.


This document is sub-doc listed within NDTS-1101 "J"


LMA-PG001 Requirements for ETCH/Cleaning Prior to Penetrant Inspection


A:  The spec, LMA-PG001, is not available.  It is not required.


For some background NDTS-1101 spec, which is required and provided in the


TDP, references LMA-PG001 for some alternate procedures.  We use NDTS-1101 a


lot for all of our parts procurements in DLA and no one has ever asked for


or needed LMA-PG001.


Note: Updated attachment A is being provided to TDP requesters

Questions from Industry #7

The Government has decided to extend the RFP close date to 23 January 2018 at 10:00 am (MST).  Barring a substantive issue, this will be the final extension.


Q: Must we include shipping costs from the Kitting location to the Delivery Site? 


A: Yes.


Q: Also would it be possible to clarify the following from Section M,


Page 1:


"4. Where the Government has specified an item for the kit which is not produced by U.S. small business concerns, such item shall be excluded from the calculation of total value for "kit assemblers only."


 


A: Yes.  A manufacturer would need to count all manufactured parts in the calculation, even if the part is on the Critical Safety List and is required to be purchased from a approve source. 


Q: Pricing Matrix Question.


On the Basic tab, the Evaluated CLIN Price for each kit equals the sum of the Weighted Evaluation Prices for all Ordering Periods except Ordering Period 1.


A: The exclusion of Ordering Peroid 1 is incorrect and has be corrected on Pricing Attachment version 3.

 

Questions from Industry #6


Q: FBO states that the RFP due date was extended but there hasn't officially been an Amendment issued with the new due date. Will there be an amendment that has to be signed and returned as part of our response?


A: There has been an issue with posting documents to FBO.  Therefore, the document was not posted and will not be posted latter, outside of an additional change.  Therefore, no signature will be required. Please sign the basic and all amendments posted in the future.


Q: Do we need to send the Client Authorization Letters to our commercial customer contacts for the Past Performance or do we just have to include it in our response for the Gov't to send if needed?


A: Please send.


Q: The parts lists for kits still have tools listed. We believe these are NOT part of the SOW for this effort. Could you please confirm that tools are not required?


A: No tools are not required.


Q: Is there a latest FPQL-3064 that goes with the FPS-3064 that was released with the Final TDP.

A: That will be sent out by COB 1/5/2018.

 

 


Questions form Industry 5


21 Dec 29017


Q: Section L (RFP References above) requires the Integrated Master Schedule and the schedule simulation (Monte Carlo) results to be submitted as part of the 100 page limit for the Technical Volume. As we understand, per Section L of the RFP, the IMS submittal in the Technical volume would only include hard copies of both IMS and Monte Carlo analysis results.  Based on our interpretation of Section L the Government is not asking for the offerors to provide any of the source files associated for the IMS or the Monte Carlo analysis. If this is not the Government's intent or our understanding is incorrect we believe there needs to be some sort of update in order to clarify the Government's intent. In the event the Government does not plan to request the source files for both the IMS and the Monte Carlo analysis, we were wondering how the Government plans to perform an evaluation of the proposed schedule and Monte Carlo analysis information to ensure the Offeror truly does have a clear "understanding of critical program milestones and critical path to deliver kits on-time for first article test" and can "demonstrates an overall schedule variance of <5% at the 95% confidence level"? If the IMS file is not properly networked and/or contains Constraint Dates (hard or soft constraints) the credibility and integrity of the schedule and the Monte Carlo results are compromised and may not represent the "true" picture of the actual and/or probable deliver schedule. Based on our experience the only way to accurately assess and provide a uniform evaluation of the credibility of the schedule against the Section M evaluation criteria would be to request the source files for an independent USG evaluation. Based on our experience the only way to accurately assess and provide a uniform evaluation of the credibility of the schedule against the Section M evaluation criteria would be to request the source files for an independent USG evaluation.  Therefore, we believe the Government should request the offerors provide electronic copies of the IMS and Monte Carlo analysis source files in order to validate the offerors assertions and help ensure the USG will have a successful program.


 


A: No source file data associated with an IMS or schedule simulation (Monte Carlo) is requested.  As stated in Section L, the IMS and schedule simulation is part of the 100 page limit for the Technical Volume.  Offerors should provide detail in their proposal of their schedule's critical path and critical program milestones and how the offeror will ensure on-time kit deliveries.  Schedule simulation inputs, constraints, assumptions, number of runs/trials and variations used in the runs (such as the task duration distribution) should be included in the Technical Volume. Schedule simulation results should provide the likely range of schedule success (for example a bell curve chart) and sensitivity analysis to provide understanding of the level of uncertainty included in the schedule.    


 


Q: Last Q/A there was a question regarding kits 201716924-10 & 201716924-30


for missing P/L. The answer was  " 201716924 is an AF drawing of the kit list and will list what is in a -10 or a -30. It is listed on the EDL". In the EDL you have a general list of the parts but it doesn't determine actual size (for example it calls for C3629 without the dash numbers) and it doesn't show quantities.


A: The EDL is a list of all of the LM engineering drawings and specs that were provided on the data disk.  Use the MKPL's for the kits parts list.


 


 


Q: Kit MK5423A attachment A para.19 calls for change quantity for different parts. At the end it shows two identical parts NAS1436H06 with two different quantity 10 & 16. Is a mistake in P/N or is it a mistake in duplication of a line?


 


A: The correct MK5423A Attachment A will be sent out.


 


Q: Kit MK5423A attachment A para.23 calls for "Increase quantity" for part AIC85-3-10. P/N AIC85-3-10 has a basic quantity of 64 in P/L. The amendment calls to increase the quantity to 56. Is it a mistake and we should leave it with 64 quantity? Should we decrease the quantity from 64 to 56?


 


A: This is also included in the correct MK5423A Attachment A that will be released. The wording changed from "increase/decrease" to "change". 56 is the correct number.


 


Q: Kit MK5423A attachment A para.23 calls for "Increase quantity" for parts AIC596-5-12 & 16B605-27.    Both of these parts do not show in the P/L at all. It is our understanding we should add the parts to the P/L. Is that correct?


 


A: This is answered in the correct Attachment A that will be sent out.


 


Q: Kit MK5423A attachment A para.25 calls for deleting part MS20427M-6-7 from P/L with quantity of 0. There is no such part in P/L. On the other hand we find P/N MS20427M6-7. Is it a typo? The S20427M6-7 shows in P/L with a quantity of 20 and not quantity of 10. Do we remove the full quantity of 20 from kit? Or do we remove only 10 each?


 


A: This is answered in the correct Attachment A that will be sent out.


 

1.  Attached questons and answers form industry 14 Dec 2017

Q: We downloaded the PPI tool from FBO on Wed. However, we do not see any Letter of Transmittals Templates, etc.  Will the Government be providing these?

 A:  No, use whatever format EZ source allows.


Q: Our previous experience with Past Performance has usually had us sending out questionnaires to the contacts for each of the contracts we select.  We did not see any questionnaires as part of the RFP package. Please confirm that there is no requirement to send out questionnaires to each of the POC's on our Past Performance section. 


 A: There is no requirement for sending out questionnaires.


Q: The RFP requests that we show relevancy to the SLEP effort for all Past Performance contracts selected. The PPI tool does not appear to allow for any charts, etc.  If we were to include a chart to show relevancy does that count against the Page Limit?  It's not clear to us how many pages the PPI information will take.  Also, is it permissible to have an introduction to the Past Performance Section and if so does that count against the page limit?  The page limit for the Past Performance volume just referenced 5 pages per contract but it wasn't clear if we could use any of those pages as a general page.


A: The outputs of PPI Tool will not count towards your page limit. If there are things that you want to include in the proposal that fall out of the scope of the PPI Tool, you may include it in the Past Performance volume. Please keep in mind that the page count will be enforced on anything outside of the PPI Tool.


Q: Please confirm that there is NOT a separate CLIN for FAI or tooling/NRE.


A:  There is no CLIN for First Article Inspection. There is no CLIN for tooling. There is no CLIN for nonrecurring engineering.


Q: MKDCSLA & B included P/N 16B2115-15/-16, and -9 /-12 respectfully as manufacturing source controlled items (line 17 in both attachment "A"s) 201716924-10/-30, and MK5460 attachment "A"s do not have a line 17 nor is there any reference to these two part numbers.  Were the P/N's omitted intentionally or is this an error?  Should the 16B2115 parts be procured from controlled sources?


A: This is an error but there is no missing information. 16B2115 does not require source approval


Q: Each TDP Parts Listing excel file contains portions for effectivity numbers and qty. How do these numbers affect our proposal and/or pricing, if at all?


A: The effectivities listed do not affect the proposal.


Q: Each TDP P/L excel file states the following: "The Following are Time/Temperature Controlled Items And Will Not Be Furnished In Kits" What does that mean? Do we need to furnish them by any other type of shipment? Apart of the kits? Does these materials are for manufacturing uses only?


A: "The Following are Time/Temperature Controlled Items And Will Not Be Furnished In Kits" means that you do not have to provide the kits.


Q: In some of the TDP P/L excel files there are lines for Engineering data / ECN. How should we handle this info? Should we identify each and every ECN and see how it affects the kit? Or is it only a reference to a previously-completed ECN and we should disregard it?


A: Disregard the engineering data, only worry about the parts/hardware listed in the kit.  The EDL's list all Lockheed drawings, ECN's and specs necessary to procure the parts in the kit.


Q: We can't find the Excel P/L's files for the following kits: 201716924-10, 201716924-30. We have all the other files (like 201716924-10 EDL - but it doesn't contain qty)


A: 201716924 is an AF drawing of the kit list and will list what is in a -10 or a -30.  It is listed on the EDL and is within the TDP/AMERDEC file.  This is different than the other kits which have an MKPL Excel File.


Q: In Kit MK5414A attachment A, section 22 (page 4) we see the following instruction: "Reduce the following kit parts...." But in the list itself we see values with zero. Does it mean we need to reduce the qty to zero? If so why don't some of the parts show on the delete section? For example NAS1724-4-14 or NAS1581A3T7 Or is the meaning we need to reduce "Zero" items - therefore no the reduce anything?


A: Apologies for the different ways of wording things but just follow the directions.  The note says "Reduce the following kit parts to the following quantities..." so if it lists a zero the quantity should be reduced to zero, effectively deleting it.


Q: Here is a list of files that are missing.






Part Number




Description




Notes




Answers






16B1107-7




LONGERON




Missing BP & PL. 




Lockheed Proprietary, no drawing available must procure from approved sources on Attachment A






16B1107-8




LONGERON




Missing BP & PL. 




Lockheed Proprietary, no drawing available must procure from approved sources on Attachment A






16B5112-15




LONGERON




Missing BP & PL. 




MK5425 shows this as deleted






16B540-29




PLATE




Dash number not found on bp or pl... is there an EO that is missing?




See 16B540 Zn B44






16B540-30




PLATE




Dash number not found on bp or pl... is there an EO that is missing?




See 16B540 Zn B44






16B660-13




Bushing




Need most recent dwg revision or an EO that adds the -13




16B660 ECN 541N0 sent out 12/7/2017. Contact Lt Hartley if you have not received it.






16B660-51




Bushing




Need most recent dwg revision or an EO that adds the -51




16B660 ECN 541N0 sent out 12/7/2017. Contact Lt Hartley if you have not received it.






16D700-743




BRACKET




Dash number not found on bp... is there an EO that is missing?




See 16D700 Zn C36






16K0685-1




BEARING




Missing BP & PL. 




16K0685 drawing and PL included in SLEP Additional Files Folder.






16Y010-9




SHIM




Missing BP & PL. 




See Attachment A






MK5414B




 




Missing Attachment A




SLEP is only procuring kits that are included in the solicitation.






MK5423B




 




Missing Attachment A




SLEP is only procuring kits that are included in the solicitation.






MK5425B




 




Missing Attachment A




SLEP is only procuring kits that are included in the solicitation.






MK5427B




 




Missing Attachment A




SLEP is only procuring kits that are included in the solicitation.






P6102




Glass Filled Nylon




Need FQML for this spec




Will provide file by 12/18/2017






Q: On PL of kit MK5414A shows parts ASPF-DT6-8 & ASPF-DT6-7. Both of them show description Fastener (C3629-6-8) & (C3629-8-7). Section 24 on attachment A states that when fastener


C3629-X-Y is called out, you need to purchase three different items instead. It is our understanding that parts ASPF-DT6-8 & ASPF-DT6-7 also need to be replaced by those three items. Is it right?


A: Yes that is correct.


Q: Section 19 (last item) calls for adding 10 units of C3629-8-7. Does this call for 10 units of each part listed in section 24?


A: Yes this is correct.


Q: In kits MK5423A, MK5420A-D & MK 5425B we find "No Number" under the P/N column. Instead we find a P/N in the description column. It is our understanding the meaning is that the description shows the PN we need to purchase. Is that correct?


A: Yes that is correct.


Q: A lot of the drawings are in a very poor condition. Are there any digital copies of the data?


A: There are no other versions of the drawings beyond what is in the data package.  If there are specific cases where a drawing is truly illegible let us know and we can look at either interpreting it or finding a better quality scan.  An updated 16RB526 drawing was added to the additional files folder because the scan on the data disks was considered illegible.


Q: We need clarification on one of the requirements in Section L Paragraph 5.1 please. Is the client authorization letter referenced in the following sentence written by the Offeror or written by the Offeror's Client?


"For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror's performance."


A: The client authorization letter is written by the offeror.




2.  Extend the solisitation close date to 16 Jan 2018

Questions from 12/6/2017

Q: The 16B660 drawing does not contain dimensional detail for the 16B660-13 and -51 Bushings.  Do you have an updated drawing or an ECN that contains this info?  If not, we will quote based on a similar bushing (e.g.: 16B611-43).


A: This ECN will be provided upon request.  If you have already received the DTP after RFP release, there is no need to request the ECN, we will be forwarding you a copy to the same email that we sent the TDP. However, if you have not received the ECN by 8 December 2017, please contact this office.


Q: Section L Paragraph 2.2.1.1 includes the following direction: "For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than Times New Roman, 12point font".  Can you please confirm that you intend this to apply to all tables, charts, graphs, and figures?  We ask because this may limit how we present certain charts, for example a chart depicting a procurement / manufacturing time-line.


A: Yes this applies to all tables, charts, graphs, and figures.

Attached questions and answers from industry_v2
PPI attachment
PPI tool attachment
SLEP Pricing attachment_v2
SLEP Kit Estimated Quantities (for planning purposes only)


Updated:

Updates were made to the document dates and GFM portions of these documents. The Government will be providing 5 rolled plates of AlLi.

Section_L_F_16_SLEP_Mod_Kit_v2
Section_M_F_16_SLEP_Mod_Kit_v2
Government_Furnished_Equipment_List_v2
SOW_F_16_SLEP_Mod_Kit_v2


All future updated documents will contain a change page to specify the area that was changed.


We have had a request to extend the RFP.  Based on the need date, we are not entertaining an extension at this time.

1.  SLEP Production Questions from Industry 1

2.  Solicitation_Traceability_Matrix

3.  MK5420C Attachment A

4.  MK5420D Attachment A

This post represents the release of the RFP/solicitation.  All attached documents are the final version. If any edits are required to the RFP/solicitation documents, a modification will be posted to FBO. There are multiple PDF forms embedded within the one PDF. We have provided a two pricing attachments, one PDF (embedded) and one Excel. We only require the Excel pricing attachment to be filled in and attached to your proposal.

The Final TDP is available upon Request: Due to the size of these files and foreign disclosure restrictions, all interested parties must submit a written request (email will suffice) to the contracting officer and representatives.

 Vendors must meet the following requirements to receive these files:

1. Provide a valid CAGE Code (for Government verification)
2. Be registered in SAM (System for Award Management), and
3. Be approved by the Government Foreign Disclosure Office (FBO).

Files will be transferred electronically via AMRDEC SAFE (Secure Access File Exchange).

Receiving parties shall not share and distribute this information to organizations outside of the receiving party or be used for other business ventures other than those defined in the FBO request without the written consent of the contracting officer.

Please provide TDP data requests to Mr. Nathan Lee at nathan.lee.3@us.af.mil Mr. Eric Dumpert at eric.dumpert.1@us.af.mil, 2Lt Dale Hartley at dale.hartley@us.af.mil, and Ms. Candace West at candace.west@us.af.mil.

 As this is a 100% Small Business set-aside, no foreign participation is allowed.

 

SOURCES SOUGHT:


TITLE: 


F-16 Block 40-52, C and D-model; F-16 Legacy Structural Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) Final Technical Data Package (TDP) Release


•1.       NOTICE:  This is not a solicitation, but rather a Request for Information (RFI) letter to release the F-16 SLEP final TDP in advance of the final Request for Proposal (RFP).


 


•2.       Program Overview: The F-16 SLEP intends to extend the structural service life of Block 40-52, C and D-Model F-16 aircraft by procuring structural modification kits beginning in 2018.  The current requirement for the United States Air Force is to extend the service life of up to 300 aircraft, with the potential to expand this requirement to 489.  Additionally, several Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers may also join the procurement contract for modification kits during the period of performance; therefore, the Government's estimated maximum requirement is for 841 modification kits.   


 


•3.       Purpose of RFI:  The purpose of this RFI is to provide industry with the early delivery of the final TDP in advance of the release of the final RFP (Late Sep/Early Oct 2017).   


 


We believe this to be the final version of the TDP.  However, if any changes occur prior to release of the RFP, those changes will be provided to industry at that time.


 


•4.       Applicable Small/Disadvantaged Businesses:  This contract has been set-aside for all small business interests.


 


•5.       Requested Information:  


•a.       The TDP is available upon Request: Due to the size of these files and foreign disclosure restrictions, all interested parties must submit a written request (email will suffice) to the contracting officer (see para. 6).

i.      Vendors must meet the following requirements to receive these files:


•1.       Provide a valid CAGE Code (for Government verification)


•2.       Be registered in SAM (System for Award Management), and


•3.       Be approved by the Government Foreign Disclosure Office (FBO).
ii.      Files will be transferred electronically via AMRDEC SAFE (Secure Access File Exchange).
 iii.      The TDP is provided solely for informational purposes; receiving parties shall not share and distribute this information to organizations outside of the receiving party or be used for other business ventures other than those defined in the FBO request without the written consent of the contracting officer.


•6.       Government Correspondence:


•a.       Please provide TDP data requests to Mr. Eric Dumpert at eric.dumpert.1@us.af.mil, 2Lt Dale Hartley at dale.hartley@us.af.mil, and Ms. Candace West at candace.west@us.af.mil.    

This effort is planned as a firm fixed price (FFP), Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract with an initial 5-year ordering period and a single 5-year option.  This contract is a small business set-aside for all small business interests. 

The F-16 USAF SLEP intends to extend the aircrafts current structural service life from 8,000 equivalent flight hours (EFH) up to 13,856 EFH by modifying and/or repairing life limiting, fractural critical, and safety of flight critical structure. This effort seeks to award a contract to a vendor who can manufacture and/or procure, assemble, and deliver up to the estimated maximum quantity of 841 F-16 Block 40-52, C/D-Model SLEP modification kits necessary to extend the structural service life of these aircraft, in accordance with Government standards and specifications defined in the Technical Data Package (TDP).

$403M (estimated maximum)

Source Selection: Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedures

Estimated RFP release: June/July 2017

Contracting Office Zip Code: 84056

Contracting Office Address:
AFLCMC/WWMK
6072 Fir Ave, Bldg 1233
Hill AFB, UT 84056

Manufacturers of Critical Safety Items (CSI) must be a qualified source at time of release of the Request for Proposal, to be eligible for award. Additional information may be requested from Mr. Austin Rickards, Lead, F-16 SLEP Engineer, austin.rickards@us.af.mil.

Offerors must meet small business utilization requirements defined in 13 CFR 121.406 to be eligible for award.

Prominent material to manufacture: 
Aluminum Plate                                FMS-3008-T851
Aluminum Plate or Sheet                   QQ-A-250/4-T81/T82
Aluminum Plate or Sheet                   QQ-A-250/4-T851
Aluminum Plate                                FMS-3004-T7351
Aluminum Plate or Sheet                   QQ-A-250/4-T62
Aluminum Plate                                FMS-3002-T851
Aluminum Plate                                FMS-3002-T851
Aluminum Plate                                FMS-3002-T851
Bars and Extrusions                          AMS 5629-H1000
Aluminum Plate                                FMS-3004-T7351
Aluminum Plate                                FMS-3004-T7351
Al-Li Plate                                        FMS-4097-T861
Aluminum Plate                                FMS-3002-T851
Aluminum Plate                                FMS-3002-T851
 
Initial contract award requirements are for 4 kits of each of the following:
MK5420A
MK5437A
MK5438A
MK5425A
MK5433A
MK5453A
MK5426A
MK5423A
MK5460A
MK5441A
MK5414A
MK5427A
MK5459A


Unit of Issue: Kit

Inspection/Delivery:  Inspect by DCMA at source; acceptance at destination: FB2029

Delivery Schedule:  Initial delivery within 365 days after contract award.


Anticipated Award Date: March 2018 


 

Files
Package File Description
Q/A and additional Doc SLEP_Production_Questions_from_Industry_1.docx SLEP Production Questions from Industry 1
Q/A and additional Doc Solicitation_Traceability_Matrix.xlsx Solicitation_Traceability_Matrix
Q/A and additional Doc MK5420C_Attachment_A.PDF MK5420C Attachment A
Q/A and additional Doc MK5420D_Attachment_A.PDF MK5420D Attachment A
Solicitation 1 FA823218R0001.pdf SLEP RFP
Solicitation 1 Government_Furnished_Equipment_List_EDA.PDF GFP and embedded PDF files
Solicitation 1 SLEP_Pricing_Attachment.xlsx Excel Pricing Attachment
Place of Performance