Q&A_RFP_W15QKN-17-R-0024_dated_03_May_2017.docx

Questions and Answers

RFP W15QKN-17-R-0024

60/81mm Body Tube and Tail Cone Assemblies

Question 1: Print 9345348 Rev. N in note 4 states all surfaces must be painted except press fit surface, ends, and threads as shown. Is it the Government’s intent to have the ID of the part painted?

RESPONSE: The ID of the M721/M767 Body Tube Assembly should not be painted. Drawing 9345348 is missing the word "EXTERIOR" between "ALL" and "SURFACES" in Line 3 of Note 4. An amendment to the solicitation is forthcoming.

Question 2: MIL-DTL-32285 W Amendment 1 Section 3.2.6.1 was added that references a pull test which has been deleted from the print in 2011. Is it the Government’s intent to reincorporate the test?

ORIGINAL RESPONSE PROVIDED TO INDUSTRY ON 14 April 2017: The USG does not plan to reincorporate the pull test requirement, which was removed in an earlier drawing revision. The inclusion of any reference to pull testing in MIL-DTL-32285 w/AMD1 is an error that will be corrected in a future specification revision. An amendment to the solicitation is forthcoming.

CORRECTION: The pull test requirement is not being removed from the TDP. The pull test will be required during FAT in accordance with MIL-DTL-32285 w/Amendment 1. The pull test note will be added back to the drawing for clarity.

Question 3: Does the Solicitation only include machining of the components, and light assembly, or will we be handling the M776 Fuze & M27 Fin as well?

RESPONSE: This solicitation does not involve the machining or assembly of the M776 fuze or M27 fin. Drawing 9345348 contains the requirements, including the necessary subassemblies, for the M721/M767 Body Tube Assembly. Drawing 12982769 contains the requirements, including the necessary subassemblies, for the M721/M767 Tail Cone Assembly.

Question 4: In reference to solicitation W15QKN-17-R-0024 drawing # 12982769, M721/M767 TAILCONE ASSEMBLY, note #1 calls out the dimensions of the bolt but does not call out a material. What is the material?

RESPONSE: The hex head screw requirements, including material, on drawing 12982769 were updated. Please see 'Engineering Exceptions' on the 'Contract C Requirements' form for PRON P16C16 for the most up to date requirements. Please note that the hex head screw requirements are located in Note 2 of drawing 12982769, not Note 1.

Question 5: On drawing 9349624 of solicitation W15QKN-17-R-0024, if you are not using a forging does note #6 still apply?

RESPONSE: The applicability of Ultrasonic Testing is detailed on drawing 9349624 and MIL-DTL-32285 (w/Amendment 1) section 3.4.

Question 6: In reference to solicitation, W15QKN-17-R-0024 drawing # 9345349 and # 9327837, the material called out is ASTM A519; several suppliers have stated that this is an out dated material and ASTM A513 type 5 is the recommended replacement. Is this acceptable?

RESPONSE: Steel tubing per ASTM A519, as identified on drawings 9345349 and 9327837, is valid and acceptable for use. Steel tubing per ASTM A513 is already listed as an acceptable alternative material on both drawing 9345349 and 9327837.

Question 7: In reference to solicitation, W15QKN-17-R-0024 drawing # 9349624, note #6, does this still apply if you are using bar stock?

RESPONSE: The applicability of Ultrasonic Testing is detailed on drawing 9349624 and MIL-DTL-32285 (w/Amendment 1) section 3.4.

Question 8: In Attachment 0008 - Contract C Requirements (Revision B of PRON P16C16 on page 2) the bolt material is specified as unhardened carbon steel; however, a grade is not specified. Is there a material spec for the bolt or is there a required class (i.e. class 2, class 5, etc.)?

RESPONSE: The hex head screw material must conform to the requirements listed on page 2 of Attachment 0008 - Contract C Requirements for the M721/M767 Tail Cone Assembly (PRON P16C16) and ASME B18.6.3 as noted.

Question 9: After Contract award, would the US Government be willing to exercise an ECP to add a note to the drawings to allow for manganese phosphate, as an alternate to the zinc phosphate requirement? Given that manganese phosphate is more environmentally friendly, this would align with common Green initiatives to reduce impact on the environment.

RESPONSE: At this time, the Government has no plans to revise the phosphate coating requirements for the items included in this RFP. If awarded a contract, Contractors may submit ECPs (see CDRL A001) for the Government's review and consideration. Please note that an ECP would need to clearly state the specific changes being proposed and may be at the expense of the Contractor. Approval of ECPs is on a case by case basis and is not guaranteed.

Question 10: What is the purpose of the Physical Configuration Audit (CDRL A004) and how does it differ from FAT? Why does CDRL A004 show the PCA as being 60 days prior to FAT if it is essentially the same thing as FAT?

RESPONSE: The purpose of a Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) is to assess the conformance of built hardware to the Technical Data Package (TDP). If needed, a PCA may be conducted at the Government's discretion with a scope defined by the IPT. A First Article Test (FAT) has a defined scope and is conducted as specified in the RFP and TDP. CDRL A004 should not list a specific frequency or submission date for the PCA as it is conducted at the Government's discretion, as needed. CDRL A004 will be updated accordingly.

Question 11: Does CDRL A004 apply to contractors in which FAT is required?

RESPONSE: CDRL A004 applies to all items under this RFP. PCA and FAT are separate requirements and are not interchangeable.