Wings & Fins Subassemblies

This notice serves as a formal SOLICITATION for the procurement of Wing and Fin Sub-Assemblies. These critical sub-components are required to support the AIM-120X and CATM-120X series of the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).

The Government intends to award a single contract for the scope of work identified within the Attachment 2 Statement of Work (SOW) as a result of this solicitation.

2. Source Selection Procedures

This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure in accordance with:

• FAR 15.103-2
• DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.200 and DFARS PGI 215.200

These procedures will be used to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Please refer to sections L and M of the solicitation for additional information.

3. Evaluation and Award Criteria

The Government shall evaluate proposals in accordance with the provisions outlined in this notice. A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror's proposal will be performed.

Key Evaluation Parameters:

• Proposal Limit: The Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror.
• Award Basis: Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal:
  1. Is determined to be technically acceptable.
  2. Conforms to all solicitation requirements (terms and conditions, representations, certifications, and technical requirements).
  3. Has the lowest Total Evaluated Price among the technically acceptable offerors.
• Evaluation Sequence: The Government does not imply, nor is it the Government's intention, to conduct the evaluations in sequential order (i.e., technical evaluation does not necessarily have to precede price evaluation).

4. Technical Evaluation Factors

The Government's technical evaluation will be based on the following four equally important subfactors:

Subfactor

Description

Subfactor One

Wing and Fin Packaging, Handling, Shipping and Transportation Solution

Subfactor Two

Wing and Fin Production Plan

Subfactor Three

Finished/In Process Product Verification Plan

Subfactor Four

Honeycomb Implementation

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Questions Received:

1. The First Article timeline indicates up to 720 days (without a waiver), while the first item delivery appears to be required within approximately 365 days. Can you please clarify the Government's expection regarding this timeline? Specifically:

• Is the intent that the first Delivery Order (DO1) would not be issued until after First Article approval (potentially up to 720 days from contract award), which would push DO1 delivery into the 2029 timeframe? 
• Or is there an alternate expectation involving the delivery of two (2) First Article units and concurrent qualification activities that would support earlier production and delivery?

2. Drawing package is quite old and has many areas of poor clarity and blurred details essential for the evaluation and manufacturing design. 

1. Drawing Set 2

• P1 - Item 22 illegible instructions
• P11 - illegible tolerance
• P13 - PNs illegible

1.  Drawing Set 3

• P8 - Missing text/markings
• P9 - illegible reference points/tolerances

1. Drawing Set 4

• P7 - illegible notations, specs
• P8 - illegible notations

1. Drawing Set 5

• P16 - illegible tolerance/measurement

3. Since the drawings are only scanned copies of printed drawings, the effort will require modeling and digitization of the information to permit modern CNC machining instruction protocols. Is NRE allowed in proposal submissions or are vendors expected to to take on those costs and distribute in the delivered units pricings? Alternately are digital models of the components available for industry evaluation? 

4. Brazing of the metallic honeycomb - lcaks details on the processes to satisfactorily meet the standards, with no deviations permitted. Is the Govt open to sharing best practices from prior manufacturing of the Wings/Fins to facilitate successful first article builds? 

5. Partial bids - would a proposal of the metal part manufacture be acceptable to the Government in the event that honeycomb brazing processess cannot be achieved in an acceptable standard? 

6. We are reviewing the documents for Notice ID FA855626RB013, but we believe there are a few drawings referenced in the Wings and Fins TDP that were not included in the package. The following drawings were referenced in Drawing Set 4 but appear to be missing:

• 7038187 – Housing Assembly
• 7038184 – Lever, Fin Lock
• 7038174 – Housing, Cam Retainer
• 7038173 – Cam

Would you be able to provide these drawings, or let us know where they can be obtained?

7. I wanted to inquire whether you have any fins on hand or in inventory that you would be willing to provide to us, contingent on our selection. These would be used for scanning, disassembly, and potential reverse-engineering in support of this effort.

8. With the conditions of the current drawing packages, if we were to be selected for this effort, would it be possible to have the components sent over? We would use the information from the scan in tandem with the drawings for manufacturing efforts.

Answers Given:

1. Answer: The Government estimates that production of the two (2) First Article units will require six (6) to twelve (12) months, followed by an additional six (6) to twelve (12) months for First Article Testing (FAT) prior to full-rate production. Therefore, the Goverment anticipates mass delivery to occur in 2029, contingent upon successful FAT and validation of a viable product.

2. Answer: Please be specific as to blurred details on given drawings; drawing number, drawing zone, and specific questions. The drawings are the best copies available. 

1. Drawing Set 2

• P1 - These instructions are makring for the guidance section and have no bearing on the wings and fins. Note 22 on Zone D5 of drawing.
• P11 - Diameter with proejcted tolerance zone
• P13 - From top of list to bottom: AN960C3L, MS20615-2M9, 7002065, 7005502

1.  Drawing Set 3 - There is no drawing set 3, appears that Drawing Set 4 was duplicated

• P8 - N/A
• P9 - N/A

1. Drawing Set 4

• P7 - From left to right on drawing: Position tolerance of the diameters is .001 Maximum material condition on reference plan A/Maximum material condition on reference plan B; 2.24, shows the .075:.080 slot ends in a radius of the same dimension
• P8 - Profile tolerance, identical to the same callout on the Section FF: .345 dimension, profile tolerance symbol, .004, A Max material symbol, B, J

1. Drawing Set 5

• P16 - 2.3651 degrees

3. Answer: Vendors are expected to take on the costs of any NRE and distribute that pricing as necessary within the delivered units' pricing. The Government does not possess digital models of the wings and fins. The method of manufacture is up to the supplier, as the Government expects a finished product per the drawings and related specifications.

4. Answer: The drawings specify MIL-B-7883 Type II (furnace Brazing) and Class A (Critical structure), which has been superseded by AWS C3.6, but MIL-B-7883 should control. The drawings also have several evaluations of the quality of the brazing operations in the notes. The Government will not provide training nor best practices. The Government expects delivered items to match the drawings and its relevant specifications.

5. Answer: The Government is only interested in the honeycomb brazing and will not allow for a partial bid in accordance with solicitation FA8556-26-R-B013.

6. Answer: Please forgive me for the lack of information that was missing from Drawing 4. Drawing 4 is now updated with the remaining information and added to this notice ID for all others to view.

7. Answer: The Government does have spare wings and fins. The problem with scanning is that a random wing or fin can be anywhere in the tolerance zone for every dimension. The resulting scan could be on the upper or lower end of the tolerance zone, meaning a fin or wing made to that scan and applying the drawing tolerance to the dimension from the scan would/could be out of the actual drawing tolerance. Scanning is helpful when you do not have a drawing, but if you have a drawing, that is the benchmark. That being said, a scanned model could be doctored after the scan to adjust the dimensions to the drawing, not sure how much time that could save, as every time the dimensions are changed, other dimensions can be affected. Please use the drawings to make any models that you desire. Also note that the Government is not implying that we will accept any models that you may build that are outside of the drawings that were provided. You will be evaluated against the drawings, not the scanned model.

8. Answer: It is not common for "production samples" to be provided, however, it is allowed. The answer right now is no for solicitation purposes but that's a bridge the Government is willing to cross upon selection.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Government Actions:

Drawings located under Notice ID: FA8556-25-R-B016 will now be added to this notice to avoid having to request access to an older annoucement. Drawings are separate from the solicitation and will not be made as an attachment. Please contact Ivan Jones for any questions, comments, and or concerns. 

It was discovered that the Drawings under Drawing 5 is missing information just as was discovered under Drawing 4. Drawing 4 and Drawing 5 are now updated.