Questions and Answers 2.pdf

Q&A N6426721R6000

1. Question:

SOW N6426721R6000, which covers the VLS, has contradictions that I feel need to be resolved.

Section 4 defines the applicable drawings - AKA TDP.

Section 5 identifies the requirement – manufactured IAW the TDP, with no exceptions.

Section 7 suggests the government will perform the testing and conformal coating which directly contradicts section 5.

For clarification, confirm that the US Govt will conduct ALL testing per Section 7 and that the supplier will NOT be testing the PCBA’s.

Answer:

Yes, the Government will perform the testing as stated in Section 7 of the SOW. This includes test requirements set forth in the Acceptance Test Requirements. If they look at the ATR’s, they will see the specific testing to be performed by the Government. For example:

Shorts/Opens/Continuity/Safe-To-Turn-On Testing Functional Testing Production Environmental Test

In addition, the Government will be performing all conformal coating as well.

Section 5 is in place to verify the as-built configuration. If exercised, the PCA shall be conducted in accordance with Section 6 (NOT Section 7) of the VLS Configuration Management (CM) Plan. This is a typo in Section 5.1 of my v5 of the SOW.

2. Question:

Our company is working on the N6426721R6000 proposal and have come across a few components with lead times extending past the delivery date. We have several solutions to resolve these types of issues but I want to make sure I understand what is required for this contract.

• Are we allowed to offer substitute parts, provided form, fit and function are not compromised?

• Is there any restrictions to purchasing the lead-free version of the component(s) and sending them out for tin mitigation?

• Would we be allowed to purchase from unauthorized distributors, provided we have the components verified for authenticity?

Please let me know if any of these solutions are acceptable.

Answer:

1. No part substitutions without authorization from Procuring Activity.

Q&A N6426721R6000

a. Request for Variance (RFV) is usually used to approve any part, item, process, etc. that is not in compliance with the TDP. Sufficient supporting information and Objective Quality Evidence (OQE) would need to accompany the RFV to justify the need and that there is no change to form, fit, or function.

2. TDP cites specific component part numbers, with some having a tin-lead finish and others as pure tin finish. As a goal, tin-lead finished parts are utilized as much as possible. The TDP does specifically cite what parts/components require this lead-free mitigation via a Note on the Parts List that corresponds to the affected part/component.

This is most likely a “build to print” contract. The awardee would be responsible for building the parts to the TDP – including the use of the specific parts identified. If a lead-free component is cited on the Parts List, then that is what should be used. If the vendor wishes to use a component that is not explicitly cited, then it requires authorization from the Procuring Activity via RFV as mentioned above.

3. The use of unauthorized distributors is frowned upon because it invites increased potential for counterfeit parts. There could also be wording in the contract that states to only use authorized distributors. Not sure how the vendor would “qualify” any verification of authenticity. I also imagine that each individual part would need to be verified. Procuring from unauthorized distributors should be avoided.