23R0051-0001.docx

N0017423R0051

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES (REVISED)

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The purpose of this amendment is to 1) answer questions recevied in response to the solicitation issuance as follows:

1. Questions submitted in response to the solicitation issuance, as well as answers to those questions, are as follows:

Question 1: PN 525-174-0179 Band, Button Lug: There is an illegible dimension in Zone C3 of the drawing, to the right of the lug (looks like .007 on top of .009)? Can the USG clarify or provide more details?

Answer 1: Disregard this dimension as it is a typo and does not define a relationship. All necessary information about this feature is communicated in detail B.

Question 2: PN 525-174-0145 Closure End: Is painted per MIL-H-18911, but per Section 3.1.2. of that spec says dimensional limits shall apply before coatings. This conflicts with Note 6 of the Closure End drawing. Our experience is that this paint can add up to .009 per side, and the spec does not specify an upper limit. This has the potential to cause issues at final inspection. Would the USG consider an ECP to change note 6 to read that 'dimensions apply prior to coatings'?

Answer 2: Note 6 is in error and should read dimensions apply prior to paint. However, the tolerance provided on all exterior (painted surfaces) is large enough (+/- 0.030” and +/- 0.020”) to accommodate standard paint coating thicknesses if the parts are made to nominal dimension. The exterior painted surface is not critical on these parts as long as it’s made to within tolerance, the Government thinks the tolerance is open enough to accommodate the paint and for the part to be machined within tolerance. The Government doesn’t want to conduct an ECP on this drawing just for the purpose of quotation, ECPs will be applied one all aspects of the drawing deficiencies have been identified just before a contractor begins part fabrication.

Question 3: PN 525-174-0144 Bridle, Towing: Per Note 2 of the Towing Bridle drawing, the minimum breaking strength of the assembly shall be 15,600 lbs. However, per MIL-DTL-83420 for Type 1, Composition B wire rope with diameter 3/8”, the minimum breaking strength is only 12,000 lbs. This creates the possibility that a bridle test assembly could fail through the wire rope section at lower than the required breaking load due to the lower allowable breaking strength of the wire rope.

Answer 3: It is the bridle cable assembly that is tested in note 2 not a single cable. Even if a single cable breaking strength is 12,000lbs, a should be closer to 24,000lbs, maybe slightly less than that though due to even load sharing.

Question 4: Table 4: Pg 15 Solicitation: NADCAP Requirements: Would the USG consider removing NADCAP requirement from the welding process? The rationale being that many capable contractors are not NADCAP certified and can instead rely on AWS D17.1 as overarching authority. Applying AWS D17.1 with appropriate engineering guidance, can put the controls in place to ensure procedures and personnel are certified to conduct welding in fashion consistent with the performance requirements of the MK22 Rocket Motor.

Answer 4: This is acceptable.

Question 5: Table 4: Pg 15 Solicitation: NADCAP Requirements: Would the USG consider removing NADCAP requirement from plating? Section 3.1.1.3 has a salt spray requirement. This would test each lot for corrosion resistance.

Answer 5: This is acceptable.

2. All other terms remain unchanged.

3. Direct questions to Bridget Taylor at bridget.m.taylor.civ@us.navy.mil.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf