Industry Day Minutes (final).pdf


These are the industry day minutes as recorded on 12-13 Feb 2008
Original Source
Contract Opportunity
Related Agency
Date Originally Posted
May 20, 2008, 3:29 p.m.
Profiled People



DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 84TH COMBAT SUSTAINMENT WING (AFMC) HILL AIR FORCE BASE UTAH MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 08 May 2008 SUBJECT: Minutes for T-38 Wing Industry Days 1, T-38 Wing Industry Days were held at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, 12-13 February 2008. The purpose was to discuss the upcoming competitive effort for government purchase of new -33 T-38 wing torque boxes to sustain the T-38 fleet until at least year 2020. 2. 12 February (general session) - Mr. John Bradley, USAF Program Manager, opened the industry days with a few administrative remarks, introductions, and ground rules for the day’s discussion. He then gave a program description that included the program objective, the funding profile, and projected wing usage that results in this effort. - Capt Eric Russell, Lead Engineer, provided a technical and engineering overview, discussed the wing structure and composition, discussed the source qualification process and waiver criteria, as well as information for producing a first article. - Maj James Becker, Program Manager, provided an overview of the selection process (RFP Section L&M), and discussed how the proposals would be evaluated in terms of cost/price and past performance, how proposals would be evaluated for technical capabilities, and areas of evaluation. - Lori Lloyd, Contracting Officer, discussed the contracting strategy for the effort, the acquisition strategy, and discussed tooling and qualification package information. Question asked during 12 Feb general session: - Does landing gear, etc come as GFM to assist in the wing torque box production effort? o No, there are not enough spare parts available to provide them for the production effort. - What is the difference between the -29 and -33 wing torque box? o The -33 wing has enhancements to critical fatigue stress areas, using different materials and improved chem-mill areas. The -33 wing also requires different wingtips due to necessary improvements in the wing-to-tip attachment (wing-tips are not part of this effort). - Ifthere is no depot-level repair, is there field level repair? o Yes, there is some field-level repair at several USAF bases, but it is limited; cracks in several of the fatigue critical areas will result in a removal and replacement. - Has form, fit, function integration been performed on the -33 prototype? © The prototype testing performed at El Segundo included the torque box with the flaps installed, as well as a fit check with the wing installed on a fuselage. The wing box, however, did not include leading edges, wingtips, landing gear, etc. - Is there a 3-D model that has been developed for this effort and what format is the technical data package in? o. There is not a 3-D model, and the drawings are paper copies that are currently available to potential offerors on CD. The drawing will be uploaded to JEDMICS. - How many qualified sources are there currently and who are they? co There is currently only one qualified source...Northrop Grumman - The slides stated a production rate of approximately one wing assembly per month. How is this possible with approx 108 wings over 10 years? o The one per month is an estimate. Based on the fluctuation in the projected wing requirement for 2010-2020, some years will average less than one per month, and some will average more than one-per month.’ 3. 12-13 February (one-on-one discussion) One-on-one discussions were made available to each potential offeror to occur during the afternoon of 12 Feb and the day of 13 Feb. 6 companies participated in the one-on-one sessions with the government — Boeing, Israeli Aerospace Industries, M7 Aerospace, Northrop Grumman, SABCA, and Spirit AeroSystems. Questions/discussions asked during 12-13 Feb one-on-one sessions: - There is currently only a guarantee of a first article for up to three suppliers. This puts a lot of risk on the contractor. What about guaranteed additional follow-on wings to reduce risk and reward contractors for a successful first article? o The government understands these risks and currently reevaluating its acquisition strategy and the program structure for this competitive effort. - Does the government see any problem with an overseas company being a prime contractor? o The government has interfaced with the Foreign Disclosure Office and does not foresee any issues related to the releaseability of all documentation and products. Additionally, the FDO has stated that there are no issues with an overseas company being a prime contractor for this effort. - Are there drawings for the tooling? Wouldn’t the tooling be different for the same wing? Is it possible to see the current tooling? o There are no drawings for the tooling. The tooling may be different for each company, but the drawings are the specifications that each wing must be built to. The current GFP tooling will be used by Northrop Grumman at their facility to produce -33 wings until we can get this competitive effort on contract. - Is the firm-fixed price for the first two years and the NTE for 3 years? o The government is currently reevaluating its acquisition strategy and the contract structure for this competitive effort. - Does the government require a manufacturing plan from potential offerors? o No, the government does not require a manufacturing plan. - Would providing an updated technical package at no cost to the government give the potential offeror a higher rating? o No, because the technical portion is only pass/fail. This is not a formal source selection, but rather a price/performance tradeoff. What happens if technica! documentation is illegible or incorrect and contractors are unable to reverse-engineer the tooling due to data errors? o The government will deal with any technical documentation issues on a case-by-case basis. If the problem results in a government-caused delay, the government will make the proper adjustments at that time. When is the expected contract award date? o Estimated to be March 2009. Can companies get the price for the sole-source contract for the twelve (12) -33 wing torque awarded to Northop Grumman? o Yes; requests can be processed through the FOIA office. Can the government provide firm yearly quantities for required -33 wings? o No, the government cannot provide firm quantities because the wing usage rate is an estimate and may change based on the condemnation rate. Because the wing torque box is a replenishment spare (form, fit, function), it is funded by the Material Support Division (MSD) program. This means that items are not POMed for as they are w/ 3600 production money, but rather the $’s are provided for via the Working Capital Fund and the items are only funded IAW the computed D200A requirement. Therefore, we can only fund quantities as computed during the applicable computations. The government will provide best estimated quantities and will require price breakouts for different quantities in the request for proposal. Is the government really looking for competition, or are they just merely filling a square? o Yes, the government is really looking for competition (in fact, we are by law, required to). That is the reason we paid for the data rights...Competition is advantageous to the government, for price and performance. When can companies start applying for source qualification? o Companies can start applying as soon as possible. Will there be an Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clause incorporated into the contract? o Yes, there will be an EPA clause incorporated into the contract to protect the contractor’s risk against the volatile prices of aluminum parts. Several questions centered on the government’s acquisition plan for a multiple award, lack of guaranteed additional follow-on work for completion of a successful first article, and the contract type/strategy. The government is currently evaluating the acquisition strategy for this effort and is expecting to make changes to the strategy based on current requirements, government regulations and industry input. Industry will be informed of the current acquisition strategy as soon as possible. There was a discussion on how the government will make the selection process fair. The government is currently conducting an independent cost estimate to determine how to fairly evaluate first article and tooling costs. There was a discussion on source qualification, regarding whether the 18 month recency demonstration for waiver by similarity should capture a longer timeframe. The government has reevaluated this requirement and decided to change the 1 8-month recency requirement to a 36- month recency requirement in the Source Qualification Statement. An updated SQS can be found in Attachment 2. Overall suggestion to suppliers: In submitting your waiver package, make sure it is complete. We cannot consider your request for a waiver with anything other than what is in the package. You should make sure you tie your production capability, technical processes, and engineering expertise directly to products that we evaluating for similarity. 4. If you have any additional questions or feel if your questions were not answered in the industry day minutes, please contact Mr. Cory Thompson via email, . Glove 4. ie t— James A. Becker, Maj, USAF T-38 Program Manager 416 SCMS/GUMBA Attachment 1. Attendee List Attachment 2. Source Qualification Statement Industry Day Attendees Industry Representatives Eric Delph Boeing Jack Warner Boeing Sean W. Dooley M7 Aerospace Mike Lovelace M7 Aerospace Rufus Forrest Spirit Aero Systems Jim Penrod Spirit Aero systems Tim Walker Alabama Aircraft Brett Kelley B-K Manufacturing Chris Williams B-K Manufacturing Jacob Rozmann Israel Aerospace Industries Frank Funicelli CPI Aerospace Thomas Berry Northrop Grumman James Knauss Northrop Grumman Doug Hamel Northrop Grumman Robert Riley D.J. Engineering Ken Hiten D.J. Engineering John Reid MTC Technologies Brent Parrish LSI/ UBIDS Dennis Powell L… Show All