Question_and_Answer_Set__1_-_FMU_153_A-B_Fuze.pdf

PDF 22 KB Posted

Attached to
Fuze Munition Unit (FMU)-153A/B Point Detonating/Delay (PD/DLY) Fuze
Solicitation number
W15QKN-18-R-0016
Issued by

About this file

This document contains questions and answers regarding Solicitation W15QKN-18-R-0016 for the Fuze Munition Unit (FMU)-153A/B Point Detonating/Delay (PD/DLY) Fuze. The Army Contracting Command - New Jersey, on behalf of the Office of the Project Manager for Combat Ammunition Systems, intends to award a single five-year Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract for the manufacture and delivery of the FMU-153A/B Fuze to be used in conjunction with 105mm projectiles fired from AC-130 Gunships. Key details include clarification that precedence is given to specifications in the technical data package over clauses in quality requirements documents, acceptance of early delivery of First Article Tests, and confirmation of correct drawing numbers in the technical data package.

View the file

Other files

Show all 20

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

Question and Answer Set #1 under Solicitation W15QKN-18-R-0016 for the FMU 153 A/B Fuze

Clarification/Question #1 – Measurement System Evaluation (MSE)

*RFP, para C.3.8 MSE (Establishment and Maintenance of AIE) *CDRL A003 MSE (If documentation was approved on a prior contract with this contract activity and no changes were made, submit revised design for approval) *Attachment 0013 Contract Quality Requirements, Para. 5 MSE, h. Measurement System Analysis requirements – N/A

As has been the practice on other contracts, can the contractor interpret as follows:

Resubmission of the contractors AIE for approval on a follow on Government contract, by the same contracting activity, is not required provided the inspection characteristic parameters specified in the technical data package and the previously Government approved AIE designs have not changed. In this situation, the contractor shall provide written correspondence in place of the AIE designs that indicates the prior Government approval and states that no changes have occurred.

RESPONSE: The Government agrees with the interpretation, above. However, the Government reserves the right to request copies of any past documentation that is un-locatable. Also, the Government requests that any correspondence regarding prior AIE submittals contain a listing of the AIE allowing for traceability back the previous submissions.

Additionally, it appears CDRL A003 MSE, BLK 12 wording should be reviewed and corrected as follows.

RESPONSE: The Government will revise the wording as shown below, CDRL A003, BLK 12 will be revised accordingly.

From: If documentation was approved on a prior contract with this contract activity and no changes were made, submit revised design for approval.

To: If documentation was approved on a prior contract with this contract activity and no changes were made, the contractor shall provide written correspondence that indicates the prior Government approval and states that no changes have occurred. The written correspondence shall also contain a listing of the AIE allowing for traceability back to the previous submissions. The Government reserves the right to request copies of any past documentation that is un-locatable.

Clarification/Question #2 – Statistical Process Control (SPC)

* C.4.1.3 SPC (Characteristic List, Safety device arming, 3.3.2 (C1, M101) S&A arm time, can the contractor interpret that solicitation SOW paragraph C.4.1.3 SPC (Characteristic List, Safety device arming, 3.3.2 (C1, M101) S&A arm time takes precedence over the more general SPC clause contained in Attachment 0013 Contract Quality Requirements, Paragraph 11?

RESPONSE: Yes, paragraph C.4.1.3 SPC shall take precedence over the SPC clause within Attachment 0013, Contract Quality Requirements, Paragraph 11.

Clarification/Question #3 – Method of Acceptance, Sampling Plan

Can the contractor interpret that Sampling Plan identified in FMU-153 Fuze Specification AR-PD-125 (Table III) takes precedence over the clause contained in Attachment 0013 Contract Quality Requirements, Para. 9?

RESPONSE: Yes, the Fuze Specification AR-PD-125 (Table III) takes precedence over the clause contained in Attachment 0013 Contract Quality Requirements, Paragraph 9.

Clarification/Question #4 – Deliveries or Performance – RFP Section F-5 Time of Delivery

* Initial FAT required within 450 days after contract

* Additional FAT required within 365 days after contract

Will the customer allow earlier delivery of FAT for both the Initial FAT and the Additional FAT?

RESPONSE: Yes, early delivery of both Initial FAT and the Additional FAT is acceptable.

Clarification/Question #5 – Technical Data Package (TDP)

Regarding the TDP for the FMU 153, inquiry of any updated drawings and specification that incorporate the changes per Attachment A referenced in the TDP.

RESPONSE: The changes per Attachment A have not been updated into any drawings or specifications. All drawings and specifications supplied are the latest.

Additionally, we request a copy of the latest Automated Data List (ADL) for the FMU 153 A/B Fuze, Drawing 9483250.

RESPONSE: The data list supplied, dated 6 August 2017, is the latest version of the data list.

Clarification/Question #6 – Data List within TDP

Page 3 of 7 - the 5th item, drawing 2612433 BOOSTER ASS’Y should be drawing 2512433.

RESPONSE: Yes, 2512433 is the correct drawing number. Note that drawing 2512433 was provided in the overall TDP, so additional files are not needed on top of what was already provided.

Page 3 of 7 – the 15th item, drawing 2613365 RED VARNISH should be drawing 2513365.

RESPONSE: Yes, 2513365 is the correct drawing number. Note that drawing 2513365 was provided in the overall TDP, so additional files are not needed on top of what was already provided.

Page 6 of 7 – the 7th item drawing 87943242 SEAL METALLIC should be drawing 87943242.

RESPONSE: Yes, 87943242 is the correct drawing number. Note that drawing 87943242 was provided in the overall TDP, so additional files are not needed on top of what was already provided.

Clarification/Question #7 – Drawings

P/N 5177796, ROTOR AND GEAR ASSEMBLY in Section B-B, .110 + .003 SHOULD BE .11- + .002. The .05mm tolerance is .002, not .003.

RESPONSE: The .110 + .003 dimension is correct. The tolerance was opened up via a change order in 1998. Per note 4 of the drawing, U.S. Customary units prevail.

Also in Section B-B, does the .010R max., the 32 finish, the true position, and the chamfer size stay as in the old Section B-B indicates? Or is it deleted?

RESPONSE: The .010R max., the 32 finish, the true position, and the chamfer size are all still requirement of the ROTOR AND GEAR ASSEMBLY. Note that the figure in paragraph 24 of Attachment A doesn’t represent the full Section B-B, but rather points out the changes.

P/N 2512794 SLEEVE, LEAD

Note 3 was changed to a cadmium plat in accordance with ASTM-B766, Type 1, and Class 5. Cadmium is a carcinogenic, shouldn’t the plating be zinc instead.

RESPONSE: No, Cadmium plating is the requirement for 2512794, Sleeve, Lead.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .