Questions Responses.docx

Questions

1. Tolerances are not stated on the drawings. We will target +/-0.030”, is this acceptable?

Ans: Section 3.2 states vendor internal company standard tolerances are acceptable. +/-0.01 is more reasonable for machined parts, however, +/-0.03 is acceptable.

1. Much of the geometry of the parts is not directly provided by the drawings, rather are implied by the dimensions of the mold.

1. Presume no requirement for shrinkage and not dimensional requirement on parts.

Ans: Correct. The part dimensions are controlled by the mold there is no requirement to allow for shrinkage.

1. Essentially all parts will be ‘per mold’ with the exception for the molded-in parts which are defined.

Ans: Correct.

1. Are these dimensional assumptions acceptable?

Ans: Yes.

1. Is there any limits or allowance for small voids cause by bubbles trapped during the molding process? Viewing Figure 4 in Emitter + Specifications document there are voids on the edges of the part. Can those be characterized and be suggestive of criteria?

Ans: The vendor should use their own quality control processes to limit voids and bubbles during the molding process. Generally, the existing product is solid with only small bubbles (less than 1/32” diameter) randomly noted on the surface. No specific effort will be made by the government to characterize internal product voids or bubbles.

1. Drawing 100361

3. Are Items 1, 4, and 5 parts of the deliverable part and will remain in the Vertical Emitter?

Ans: Correct

3. Are Items 2, 3 ,6 ,7 ,8 ,9, and 10 is part of the mold and removed after molding?

Ans: Correct

1. Drawing 100362

4. Are Items 1, 2 and 9 parts of the deliverable part and will remain in the Horizontal Emitter?

Ans: Correct

4. Are Item 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 is part of the mold and removed after molding?

Ans: Correct

1. Horizontal End Units shown in figure 5 have a unique design versus the Center Unit, however lack engineering and notation as a separate as a deliverable.

5. Is there a unique requirement for End Units or will we deliver 3 Horizontal Emitters per the drawings?

Ans: Deliver three horizontal emitters per the drawing. Government will add the end feature during installation.

1. Are there current tooling or manufacturing processes available for review?

Ans: No original manufacturing documentation is available.

1. Drawing MS-100361, Urethane Emitter Process note 7 indicate a plug that is not described as a specific deliverable. Can you confirm that this is not required?

Ans: These plugs are deliverables and are fabricated using the end plate opening notch for item 9 to allow plugging the cavity after item 9 is removed. Two are required for each part and the vendor is expected to fabricate and bond into place.

1. Drawing MS-100362, Urethane Emitter Process note 7 indicate a plug that is not described as a specific deliverable. Can you confirm that this is not required?

Ans: See answer for question 8. Plugs are to be installed and bonded as part of product deliverable.

1. Alternate tooling designs

9. The Solidworks file “3footplasticpiece.sldprt” indicates a different mold than MS-100363. It appears to be a more resolved and better mold design, is there a preference? We prefer to have separate end caps for the gasket molds (is indicated by “3footplasticpiece.sldprt”). This would not be in accordance with MS-100363, so is variation of MS-100363 acceptable provided the geometry of the indicated part is produced?

Ans: A variation is acceptable as long as the part properties are correct.

9. In addition, are alternative designs to the molds acceptable for any component acceptable provided the intent of the mold is met (produces indicated part, reusable, meets tolerance)? We have received initial feedback that costs could be reduced with alternative tool designs.

Ans: Alternative mold designs and materials are acceptable. Vendor proposals that reduce cost but provide the same product dimensions, material strength, function, etc. are acceptable.

1. Regarding alternate Urethanes.

10. Our intent is to use the recommended material noted, but under a circumstance where an alternate material is required we will choose a material that meets the desired selection criteria of the initial recommended materials.

0. Alternate selection criteria

0. Shore hardness (the existing product shore A hardness is approximately 70 durometer)

0. Sea Water compatibility (product service environment is freshwater vice seawater)

0. Stiffness (indicated by modulus)

0. Toughness (indicated by elongation at break, tabor abrasions, and tear strength)

0. Customer review and approval prior to substitution (customer will review acceptability during proposal technical review prior to award)

10. Are there concerns with this process?

Ans: The contract shall be fixed price. Technical changes that provide a superior product at reduced cost are encouraged. However, the vendor must meet terms stated in the contract at time of award.