MODIFICATION
28 -- F108 Module 13/15 Low Pressure Turbine Assembly Navy Requirement - Amendment 1
- Notice Date
- 3/9/2017
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- NAICS
- 336412
— Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, PK/PZ Tinker AFB, 3001 Staff Drive, Ste 1AG76A, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, 73145-3015, United States
- ZIP Code
- 73145-3015
- Solicitation Number
- FA812216R0009
- Archive Date
- 7/11/2016
- Point of Contact
- Mike Murray, Phone: 4057344616
- E-Mail Address
-
mike.murray@us.af.mil
(mike.murray@us.af.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- Statement of Work The purpose of this amendment is to answer questions concerning solicitation FA8122-16-R-0009, attach new Statement of Work (SOW) dated 1 March 2017, amend the CLIN structure of the amendment itself and extend the closing date fo the solicitation. FIRST : Questions and Answers for FA8122-16-R-0009 Navy Module 13/15 Questions and Answers for FA8122-16-R-0009 Navy Module 13/15 Issue 1: PWS Subsection 1.4.6.1, Service Bulletins, requires compliance with SB 72-602, Replacement of Suspect Stage 1 LPT Blades. SB 72-602 Revision 2, dated July 2014, identifies additional batch numbers of suspect blades. Question 1: Is the Contractor to include pricing for 100% replacement of all 174 each Stage 1 blades, for a quantity of three-(3) each modules, within the proposal pricing due to SB 72-602? Answer 1: No. Question1A: All other module(s) identified as having suspect blades will then be presented to the Government for direction and/or Over and Above compensation. Answer 1A: Yes. Contact the Navy (POC's will be provided at time of award) on all identified suspect blades for authorization on to either rework or replace with new/used blades. Include your best unit price for new/unused LPT blades as identified in solicitation. This price will be used if determination is made by the Navy to replace suspect blades with new/unused blades. Question 2: Would the Government consider Over and Above proposals for all suspect blades associated with SB 72-602? Answer 2: No. Government requires that the potential offeror to include a price for the complete rework in their remanufacture unit price. Include your best unit price for new/unused LPT blades and LPT disk as identified in solicitation. This price will be used if determination is made by the Navy to replace suspect blades and/or disks with new/unused blades or disks. Based on limited Government data replacement rate of LPT Blades is 9%. Government does not have adequate data to establish replacement rate for LPT Disks Question 3: The current PWS for PR# FD2030-15-02631, Rev 0, Preparation Date: 28 January 2016, identifies the same three-(3) modules as the 2012 version of the PWS cited above in Issue 1. Does the Government intend for these serial numbers to be the same as the prior PWS or will the PWS require a revision change? Answer 3: All modules maybe affected. Contact Navy if in question. Reference Service Bulletins in SOW dated 1 Mar 2017. Issue 2: PWS Subsection 1.4.5, Condemnation of Tracked Items, states the Navy may elect to use components that are within a few hundred cycles of meeting the build policy requirements. Question 4: Is the Contractor to exclude the cost of all five-(5) LLP within the proposed unit prices? Answer 4: No. The conical support is to be replaced 100% of the time. Concerning Stage 1, 2, 3 and 4 disks/blades. See response to question 2. Question 5: Is the Government considering Over and Above proposals for some or all LLPs giving the Government the opportunity to keep or replace specific items. Answer 5: No. The conical support is to be replaced 100% of the time and this shall be included in the offerors Remanufacture Unit Price. Concerning Stage 1, 2, 3 and 4 disks/blades See response to questions 2. Question 6: If a contract is awarded by the end of March, when could we expect to receive shipped modules? As early as April 2017? Answer 6: Yes. Question 7: Section 1.1, (Introduction) states 15,000 to 23,000 Engine Operating Hours. What are the average cycles? Answer 7: Average around 6500. Question 8: Section 1.4.4, (Parts not Listed in the IPC). Are replacement of parts not mentioned in the IPC considered as an O&A? Answer 8: If they are not OEM parts then the Navy has to authorize them. Parts listed or not listed in the IPC are considered part of the remanufacture of the module and shall be included in the offeror's remanufacture unit price. Question 9: Section 1.4.5 & 1.5, (Condemnation of Tracked Items) (Re-installation of life limited Components). For LLPs with less than 5100 cycles remaining, will replacement parts be supplied by US Navy or will the contractor be required to purchase replacement parts? Answer 9: First, this para refers to LLC not meeting the 5100 build. If they are close to the 5100 cycle build time (Example 4500 cycles remaining) then they will ask the Navy if they want to leave the LLC in place and still use it getting written authorization. Second the contractor will purchase the LLC's from the OEM catalog at their price as there will be no Government furnish parts. Question 10: Section 1.4.5, (Condemnation of Tracked Items). Is LLP replacement considered as O&A? Answer 10: No. See answer 4. Question 11: Section 1.4.6.1 (Service Bulletins). Is there an SB previously embodied list exist that can be provided? Answer 11: All required SBs are listed in the SOW Section 1.4.6.1. Question 12: Section 1.4.6.2, (Re-Identification). Does this re-identification request indicate that the incoming P/N is a 305-482-302-0? Answer 12: This is the OEM part Number. We have added a -2A on the end of the part number so we could identify as a Navy. Question 13: Section 1.4.6.4, (Replacement parts). If parts are non-repairable and there are no US Navy assets available, are the USM assets that have not undergone more than 1 repair cycle considered as O&A? NOTE: We understand that these parts must comply with the Navy approval. Answer 13: No. The offeror is being asked to provide a remanufactured quality product and must provide a firm fixed price per unit for that remanufactured quality product. The offeror shall use serviceable non-life-limited Navy CFM56-2A assets, to include Navy CFM56-2A assets that can be reworked within a 30 day time frame. When rework able assets cannot be made serviceable within 30 day time frame, the offeror shall inform the PCO and request a stated additional amount of time to complete the rework. If, on hand Navy assets are not available to replace those that have been condemned, and the only suitable/serviceable assets available are commercial assets; serviceable commercial assets may be used provided they have not undergone more than one repair cycle and meets Navy build processes. Offeror should include providing suitable/serviceable commercial assets in their proposed remanufacture price. It is the responsibility of the offeror to provide a remanufactured quality product. Question 14: Section 1.4.6.4, (Replacement parts). If there are no US Navy spare parts available, are USM parts that comply or new OEM considered as O&A? Answer 14: No. See response to question 13. Question 15: Section 1.10, (Beyond Economical Repair). Do we consider replacement cost of each repairable part based on USM market, or catalog price for new material? If neither applies, is there a replacement cost for each repairable part available to use to determine BER value? Answer 15: OEM Catalog Price. BER is not included in a remanufacture contract. See Statement of Work dated 1 March 2017. Question 16: Section 1.10, (Beyond Economical Repair). Is replacement of BER parts considered as O&A? Answer 16: No. See response to question 15. Question 17: Section 1.12, (Reporting). Is a DD Form 1574 required for each repairable part found within mod 13/15? Answer 17: Yes in Section 1.12. 1.6 states you must also have an 8130-3. Question 18: Section 1.12, (Reporting). Do we have to update CAVAF for each repairable part found within mod 13/15? Answer 18: Report on all reps received from the Government-F108 Module 13/15's only not component parts. Question 19: Section 2.1 (Government Furnished Property). Does the "NONE" statement apply to the expendable a shop will use to remanufacture Mod 13/15? Answer 19: YES, applies to ALL material. Question 20: Section 2.1 (Government Furnished Property). Please clarify the "NONE" statement if it applies to more than expendables, and how it relates to sections 1.4.4, 1.4.6.4 & 1.10 Answer 20: Section 1.4.4; 1.4.6.4; and 1.10; Contractor will provide ALL parts IAW OEM IPB. If the part number is not in the OEM IPB then it must get approval from the Navy engineering Question 21: Can you please confirm if the module or any parts within are ITAR regulated as "military"? Answer 21: The U.S. Government requires all manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of defense articles, defense services or related technical data to be ITAR compliant. If your company falls under these categories, the following information will help answer some of your questions. More and more companies are requiring that members of their supply chain be ITAR CERTIFIED or ITAR COMPLIANT. Language to that end is often contained in contracts, on purchase orders and request for proposals. Nowhere in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) is it spelled out what "ITAR certified" means. If you speak to different staff members of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), you may get slightly different answers, but the "not for attribution" acceptable, generally safe definition is as follows: For a company involved in the manufacture, sale or distribution of goods or services covered under the United States Munitions List (USML), or a component supplier to goods covered under the USML, the stipulation or requirement of being "ITAR certified (compliant)" means that the company must be registered with the State Department's DDTC, if required as spelled out on DDTC's web site and the company must understand and abide by the ITAR as it applies to their USML linked goods or services. The company themselves is certifying that they operate in accordance with the ITAR when they accept being a supplier for the USML prime exporter. In other simpler words, to be ITAR COMPLIANT, a company needs to register with DDTC and know what is required of them to be in compliance with the ITAR, and self certify that they possess this knowledge. This explanation does not constitute legal advice and is not for attribution. If in doubt as to how this concept applies to your company, you should seek legal advice. Question 22: Section L, Subsection 4.2.3 Pricing Information Requirements, Page 51, provides FAR Part 15 language in lieu of FAR Part 132 language. Will you be providing an update to the pricing information requirements? Answer 22: No. 4.2.3 Identifies FAR Part 12.209 gives the requirement to establish price reasonableness in accordance with 13.106-3(Simplified Acquisition Procedures), 14.408-2 (Sealed Biding), or 15.4 Contracting Pricing by Negotiation), as applicable. The contracting officer must establish price reasonableness for each proposed requirement. This particular requirement is not applicable to Simplified Acquisition Procedures or Sealed Biding. Therefore, 15.4 Contracting Pricing by Negotiation is applicable and must be used to establish price reasonableness. Question 23: Page 50 of the solicitation, Subsection 2.3.2 identifies Attachment 2 to the ITO. Not able to locate Attachment 2 to the ITO, will you please provide a copy. Answer 23 : Subsection 2.3.2 page 50 of solicitation FA8122-16-R-0009 identifies Attachment 2 to show the Team List of the offeror's primary Point of Contacts and the format to submit that Team List. Amendment is made to Subsection 2.3.2, page 50 of Solicitation FA8122-16-R-0009 showing the format to submit Team List of the Offeror's primary Point of Contacts. SECOND : Statement of Work (SOW) F108-200 Low Pressure Turbine Union of Assemblies Module #13/15 (Navy) Rev. 0 Preperation Date: 1 March 2017 is hereby attached and is incorporated into this solicitation amendment. THIRD : Amended CLIN structure see below in Section B. FOURTH : The due date for proposals has been extended to 24 March 2017 at 3:00PM Central Time. FIFTH : All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. Note: If you are unable to open the SOW or view the CLIN structure. Contact the primary point of contact Mike Murray.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/OCALCCC/FA812216R0009/listing.html)
- Record
- SN04429293-W 20170311/170309234314-74c78d7a2392cb126b2d52f1026dc549 (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 |