DRAFT RFP - Landing Gear Collaborative Supply Chain Integration II

This notice is posted to communicate questions and answers that arose from the most recent Draft RFP posting for this effort. The questions/answers from the most recent posting are below: Industry Comment/Question: Section J. FAR 52.232-16 - Progress Payments and Alternate I, are included. Progress Payments will be limited to the costs of forged items. Recommend the verbiage be adjusted to say “limited to forged and long lead items.” Government Response: Recommended verbiage will be used Industry Comment/Question: H-001 Supplemental Price Adjustment for Forgings 16 April 2026 1. Will there be any flexibility in funding additional forging costs if the price exceeds the cap rate of 50%? If not, it will likely affect pricing integrity. 2. Regarding the Informal Cost Analysis, the majority of these forgings are sole-source items, making meaningful cost comparisons very difficult to provide. Request the government re-consider. Government Response: The Government will adhere to the 50% cap established in the clause. The annual price escalation provided via Procurement Note C09, combined with the 50% forging price adjustment allowance are the appropriate mechanisms for managing price fluctuations on this effort. Section 3 of H-001 does not explicitly mandate a cost comparison. The “market comparison” cited in the clause is provided merely as an example of acceptable supporting documentation to support a fair and reasonable forging price. The prime contractor may submit other forms of pricing support as appropriate. Industry Comment/Question: 52.219-14 LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING (DEVIATION 2021-O0008) 1. Want to clarify that the SB threshold is the term of the contract and not by individual order. Recommend the government check the box which states “By the end of the base term of the contract and then by the end of each subsequent option period.” Government Response: Agreed, the government intent is for the term of the contract and not by individual order. The box referenced will be checked in the final RFP on the referenced clause. Industry Comment/Question: TRD 4.6.7 Forging Die Condition and Location “Delays due to die refurbishment will not be considered cause for OTD metric relief.” Recommend the Government reconsider relief for this metric, as there are circumstances beyond a contractor’s control that can significantly impact delivery performance. Forging wear isn’t an exact science and no amount of planning can always avoid delays due to die refurbishment. One scenario: At baseline proposal, you are given a quote where the forging doesn’t require a die refurbishment so your PLT is based around that quote. The forging die has now been used on a few runs and now requires a refurbishment. The baseline PLT was based on the forging quote that showed no delivery for a die refurbishment. Another scenario: You are running forgings and half-way thru manufacturing the die needs refurbishment. This was not something that could have been foreseen beforehand and out of everyone’s control so the lead time on a quote you were previously given has changed. Government Response: The Government's position remains unchanged; delays due to die refurbishment will not be considered grounds for On-Time Delivery (OTD) or Days Late metric relief. Bidders are expected to account for the inherent risks of manufacturing, including potential die wear and necessary refurbishments, when establishing realistic Production Lead Times (PLTs). The Government requires dependable PLTs to ensure parts are received within the contracted timeframe with a high degree of confidence, inclusive of any required die maintenance or replacement.