Comment Example.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 12 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SHOCK ENGINEERING SERVICES
- Solicitation number
- N0016720Q0250
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| # | Comment | Action |
| 1 | [Section/paragraph] of the letter states that "The shock test results deviate from the acceptance criteria of Reference XXX as [error that occurred] during [drop #'s] without self-correction ...". [Section/paragraph] notes that "Momentary degradation of Grade A items which can be corrected by watchstanders will be considered acceptable only if specifically approved by NAVSEA" which is stated in OR Ship Spec Section 072. |
| Rationale for acceptability of this momentary degradation of Grade A functionality is provided in [Section/paragraph], which includes considerations regarding manning and system requirements, which are beyond the technical scope of NAVSEA 05P1. The cognizant NAVSEA system TWH is required to certify that this momentary degradation which can be corrected by watchstanders will be considered acceptable, in accordance with OR Ship Spec Section 072 and section 3.1.10.1(a) of [MIL-S-901D IC#1 / MIL-S-901D IC#2 / Low Impact PPD/ Hull Pen. PPD]. | The requesting activity shall gain cognizant NAVSEA system TWH that the certification that the failure of the [principal unit] to meet test acceptance criteria due to [error that occurred] does not produce "unacceptable effect on performance" in accordance with section 3.1.10.1(a) of [MIL-S-901D IC#1 / MIL-S-901D IC#2 / Low Impact PPD/ Hull Pen. PPD] and OR Ship Spec Section 072. Specifically, the cognizant NAVSEA system TWH should evaluate manning considerations in the event of realistic UNDEX threats and system requirements, such as time span in which degraded Grade A functionality is acceptable. | ||
| 2 | Section XXX of [applicable document] states that the tested fixture weight was [tested fixture weight]. However, in the [Table/Section] of the approved [Test Procedure], the estimated fixture weight is [procedure fixture weight]. This discrepancy in weight between the estimated and reported fixture weight has not been addressed in [applicable document]. | The requesting activity shall clarify this discrepancy between the estimated and the reported value for the weight of the shock test fixture. | |
| 3 | Section XXX of [applicable document] states that for drops XXX, the spring tray configuration was [Test Spring tray #] However, in the [location where spring tray # is defined] of the approved [DSSM Test Procedure], the stated spring tray configuration is [Procedure spring tray #]. | The requesting activity shall clarify the spring tray configuration used for drops [XXX], and revise [applicable ections/references/attachments of the DSSM Test Report]. If the tested spring configuration is not in accordance with NAVSEA letter "9072 Ser 397T1F/0893" dated 28 Aug 2015, which outlines the DSSM shock test procedure, provide OQE demonstrating that testing using the incorrect test configuration is not detrimental to shock acceptability. | |
| 4 | Sections XXX of [applicable document] states that the equipment is to be qualified for a XXX orientation while Sections XXX of [applicable document] state that the equipment is to be qualified for an XXX orientation. | The requesting activity shall reconcile the differences between [Section/Document 1] and the [Section/Document 2] and update the procedure accordingly. | |
| 5 | The test procedure states the [applicable subsidiary component/subassembly] will not be present during shock testing. The [applicable subsidiary component/subassembly] is not discussed elsewhere in the letter or in Enclosure XXX. It is not clear whether the [applicable subsidiary component/subassembly] is a subsidiary component or subassembly of the [principal unit]. If it is a part of the [principal unit], in accordance with Type A test requirements in section 3.1.5.1 of [MIL-S-901D IC#1 / MIL-S-901D IC#2 / Low Impact PPD], the entire principal unit must be tested. Alternatively, justification must be provided that the lack of the [applicable subsidiary component/subassembly] during test does not prevent extension of the tested [principal unit] to similar equipment. If the [applicable subsidiary component/subassembly] is not a subsidiary component or subassembly of the [principal unit], justification should be provided that the [applicable subsidiary component/subassembly] does not dynamically interact with the [principal unit] such that its absence during the shock test of the [principal unit] does not violate section 3.1.7 of [MIL-S-901D IC#1 / MIL-S-901D IC#2 / Low Impact PPD]. | The requesting activity shall provide justification for not including the [applicable subsidiary component/subassembly] in shock testing in accordance with [MIL-S-901D IC#1 / MIL-S-901D IC#2 / Low Impact PPD], along with the planned method of shock qualification. | |
| 6 | Section XXX recommends approval of [additional fixturing analysis enclosure], which is the The requesting activity analysis of the additional fixturing used to shock qualify the [test unit]. |
| NAVSEA notes that it is responsible for approving the fixture design provided in [fixture design enclosure] of the letter in accordance with section 3.1.6.4(m) of [MIL-S-901D IC#1 / MIL-S-901D IC#2 / Low Impact PPD]. However, although review of details in [fixture analysis enclosure] informs NAVSEA of the fixture design provided in [fixture design enclosure], NAVSEA approval of [fixture analysis enclosure] is not required for approval of [fixture design enclosure] and its submittal should be for information only. | No requesting activity action required. | |
| 7 | The test procedure describes a method for measuring the torque applied to fasteners attaching the equipment to the test fixture. No other fastener measurements are mentioned. |
The procedure in its current form is in accordance with [MIL-S-901D IC#1 / MIL-S-901D IC#2 / Low Impact PPD/ Hull Pen. PPD]. However, section 3.1.8.7 of [MIL-S-901D IC#1 / MIL-S-901D IC#2 / Low Impact PPD/ Hull Pen. PPD] states "Accessible fasteners may be tightened to pre-shot torque after the first shock shot/blow without verification (e.g., by bolt length measurements) of bolt yielding MIL-S-901D (NAVY) IC #2 or stretching. For subsequent shots/blows (i.e., shot/blow #2 and follow-on), these fasteners may be tightened only as necessary to compensate for loosening due to seating-in of mating surfaces, as demonstrated by suitable measurements."
| Therefore, it is recommended that a section describing measuring of bolt lengths to prove that no yielding has occurred and associated entries in the data sheets are added. Without this addition, bolts may not be tightened after each blow. | The requesting activity shall consider, in support of potential need for tightening of bolts to pre-test torques, adding a section describing measurement of bolt lengths to prove that no yielding has occurred after the initial blow, in accordance with section 3.1.8.7 of [MIL-S-901D IC#1 / MIL-S-901D IC#2 / Low Impact PPD/ Hull Pen. PPD]. | ||
| 8 | It is unclear from the test basis report what the Grade A acceptance criteria was for the [basis part] and how the [basis part] was assessed against this criteria post shock. It is also unclear what the Grade A acceptance criteria is for the candidate [candidate part] . Without knowing this, it can not be determined if the test basis assessed the [basis part] to the same criteria and demonstrated acceptability. [Note any inherent differences between the two parts that may cause an issue] | The requesting activity shall provide details on what post-shock data was measured/recorded for the [basis part], and what the associated criteria for determining Grade A acceptance. The requesting activity shall provide the criteria by which the candidate [candidate part] would be assessed for Grade A shock. The requesting activity shall explain how the test basis measurements and associated criteria are acceptable to demonstrate that the [candidate part] would meet its criteria post shock in accordance with section 3.2.1 of MIL-S-901D IC#2. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .