Clarification Referring to Drawing 201128074.pdf
PDF 79 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Sleeve Spacer Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA820322Q0016
About this file
This document contains a clarification request referring to engineering drawings and a related federal contract opportunity notice. The clarification request notes errors in tolerances shown on Drawing 201128074, with internal and external dimensions of 6.082 inches and 3.209 inches respectively shown, which is geometrically impossible as the external dimension should be larger. The engineer confirmed the dimensions are displayed incorrectly without indicating whether they represent radii or diameters as appropriate.
The related federal contract opportunity is a total small business set-aside solicitation from the Department of the Air Force for 145 sleeve spacers with National Stock Number 5365016461750LE and 152 sleeve spacers with National Stock Number 5365016461749LE. The solicitation number is FA820322Q0016 and opportunity type is for a solicitation.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| FA820322Q00160001.pdf | ||
| 3447230_EDL_REPORT.pdf | ||
| 3446582_TRNSPDATA_REPORT.pdf | ||
| 3447601_EDL_REPORT.pdf | ||
| 3087063_ITMDESC_REPORT.pdf | ||
| 3446607_TRNSPDATA_REPORT.pdf | ||
| 3446602_PKGRQMT_REPORT.pdf | ||
| 3087070_ITMDESC_REPORT.pdf | ||
| FA820322Q0016.pdf | ||
| 3446581_PKGRQMT_REPORT.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Concern Referring to Drawing 201128074 & Engineering Order Documents
* After looking through the Engineering Order Documents, and the two drawings, I noticed an error on Page 2 (Section C5) of Drawing 201128074
* There are two tolerances (that I have included a snip-it of below) that do not geometrically make any sense.
* The Internal Dimension, noted below, states 6.082” and the External Dimensions, also noted below, states 3.209”
* This is geometrically impossible as the outside dimension would need to be larger than the internal dimension, which they are not (see snip-it below)
Response from my engineer is below:
The CAD file and the pdf file both show the same dimension as they should, that does not mean it is correct rather that that they both reflect the same information.
Both the 6.082 and 3.209 are displayed incorrectly in that they do not include a Ø or R (respectively) with the dimension. Furthermore, the 3.209 shown as a radius is also not appropriate for the view or feature, it should be shown as a diameter.
I checked drawings 4G13403 and 7729293 both show the dimension 3.209 as Ø6.418.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .