Welcome to Wired!
Preparing a request for a quote to integrate new equipment, and the capabilities it provides, can often grow into a process more complicated than it needs to be. An RFQ is like any other business document; its efficacy depends on clear, concise, comprehensive communication. To avoid the stress and delay that comes with making it more difficult than it needs to be, work backwards one block of information at a time.
Everything builds on the cornerstone, on a concise statement of work, says ASIG Managing Director Luke Ribich. “The number one issue with RFQs is the absence of clearly defined operational goals: We want to do this. We want these system qualifications. We want this improved dispatch reliability. We want to satisfy these regulatory requirements by this date and time.”
Rather than being afraid to admit that they don’t know what they don’t know, operators should “be open to the education that comes from it,” Ribich says. “More often than not we’ll get a call from an operator saying ‘I have this problem. I have this need.’ So we start with consultations, research the available solutions, help them create their statement of work, and then, based on the operational requirements, show them what the project is going to entail.”
Not fully understanding the complexity and allowable regulatory parameters that shape the certification process can lead to confusion. To some, “the certification package consists of installation drawings, wiring diagrams, instructions for continued airworthiness, approved flight manual supplements, and the document data list.” But that’s only the half of it. These things follow the engineering and test data, annotated with the appropriate FAA guidance, that proves to the aircraft certification office’s satisfaction that the new system integrates with the existing systems without suffering or causing problems.
To overcome this confusion, using the cornerstone statement of work, ASIG explains its SEMPER process and leads an operator through the realities of the certification process. (For an idea of what’s involved, see the three-part STC Symphony.) With the statement of work, “we typically ask for the baseline tech data,” Ribich says, the maintenance manuals, wiring diagrams, repair manuals, and related aircraft documentation pertinent to system being integrated.
If they have already done internal research, in their RFQ operators can identify the equipment, by manufacturer and part number, they would like to use. “That way we can start to gather the necessary intel, if you will, on the device, the spec sheets, the installation data, the OEM manual, what the sensor inputs and outputs are, and all the physical and environmental requirements for mounting and placement.”
But this research is not mandatory. “If they haven’t identified equipment up front, we’ll do a cost configuration assessment,” says Ribich, and present options, as the statement of work allows, that offer the best efficiency, economy, and scalability.
Customers can influence the timetable greatly. Instead of getting to work after it received the contract, ASIG spent four months educating a recalcitrant Part-121 customer that did not fully grasp the FAA certification requirements that prevented it from installing a system approved for the business-jet version of the airplane it used to transport paying passengers.
This project was nowhere near the complexity of another project, demilitarizing and converting a French Air Force DC-8-72 and its five-man cockpit into an US-registered aircraft with with a three-man cockpit filled with 21st century systems. But it took less time, 4.5 months from contract award, “and we did the installation in a line flight environment, nosed into an FBO’s hangar.” Like the project, the RFQ that launched it was just as straightforward.
Until next time, stay 5x5, mission ready, and Wired!
No comments:
Post a Comment