MODIFICATION
15 -- Modification to extend response date to 26 Jan 11 and provide additional clarification.
- Notice Date
- 12/14/2010
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- NAICS
- 336411
— Aircraft Manufacturing
- Contracting Office
- AMCOM Contracting Center - Air (AMCOM-CC), ATTN: AMSAM-AC, Building 5303, Martin Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5280
- ZIP Code
- 35898-5280
- Solicitation Number
- W58RGZ-11-R-0161
- Response Due
- 1/26/2011
- Archive Date
- 3/27/2011
- Point of Contact
- james.ganoe, 256-313-4266
- E-Mail Address
-
AMCOM Contracting Center - Air (AMCOM-CC)
(james.ganoe@peoavn.army.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- Paragraph 3.1 of the RFI is changed to state that comments and input are to be submitted no later than 1:00 CST, 26 Jan 2011." In addtion to the above, the following clarifications are provided: 1. Question: Is it the Government's intent to obtain a larger sample of information of historical helicopter programs across the Industry in order to refine the Army's data base related to aircraft development? Response: The Army's intent is not to refine the Army's data base related to aircraft development. 2. Question: Is it your intent, therefore, that OEMs not submit information with respect to the same airframe as for previous RFI, but rather general information of helicopters regardless of size, power, weight, performance or production status that each OEM has previously (historically) developed? Response: Correct. The Army's request is not specific to aircraft previously addressed via the previous RFI, but the OEM's historical experience from a macro perspective. If platforms previously addressed by OEMs can contribute to the response, such prior experience can be included in the RFI response. 3. Question: Can you clarify the page limit for respondents who may wish to cite multiple examples of past performance? Specifically, does the 15 page limit apply to each example of past performance, or is it an overall limit for all examples? Response: The intent is to limit the total response to 15 pages. Specifically, the RFI is geared towards concise responses. Use of tables and/or figures that encapsulate the respondent's experience is encouraged. 4. Question: There are potential past performance examples that pre-date the TD/EMD paradigm for RDT&E or were commercial developments. In these instances, is the most reasonable course to provide an overall development figure as a proxy for TD/EMD? Response: Yes. Also, within the context of such an overall construct, if there are unique and/or exceptional circumstances where significant cost and/or schedule savings resulted, it would be beneficial to highlight these. 5. Question: Appendix A asks for range in "Empty" configuration. Empty weight typically means no crew and fuel, which does not make sense in the context of a range calculation, so are we correct to assume that "Empty" means "no payload"? To us this means providing for the weight of flight crew and a full tank of gas, but assuming no additional payload. Is the correct interpretation? Is there any specific guidance on the weight allowance for the crew? Response: Empty weight includes the basic air vehicle weight, and does not include avionics or electrical system weight, crew, gear or any payloads or armor protection.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/1b4ef8995313b1283d18c8015695765d)
- Place of Performance
- Address: AMCOM Contracting Center - Air (AMCOM-CC) ATTN: AMSAM-AC, Building 5303, Martin Road Redstone Arsenal AL
- Zip Code: 35898-5280
- Zip Code: 35898-5280
- Record
- SN02343520-W 20101216/101214234040-1b4ef8995313b1283d18c8015695765d (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |