Attachment_0019_Industry_Questions_.pdf

Solicitation W52P1J-16-R-0156 Amendment 0003, Attachment 0019 Industry Questions and Government Responses ITEM: MS3314 and MK3-0 Suspension Lugs

References:

a) Dwg 1380540, MK3-0 Suspension Lug

b) Solicitation W52P1J-16-R-0156, Amendment 0001

c) Solicitation W52P1J-16-R-0156

d) Attachment 0019, Amendment 0002

e) Attachment 0010, Updated QAP MS3314, Amendment 0002

f) Attachment 0020, ADLMS3314-001, Amendment 0002

Industry Questions

Question 1: Sheet 1 of 1 drawing note 7 line 2 of reference (a) change from, “125 RMS MIXIMUM.” To, “125 RMS MAXIMUM.”

Government Response to Question 1: Agree. Typo is fixed in DWG rev AB. ECP to update to Rev AC is in process, and rev AC will be sent out in a few weeks. Also included in AC is update to packaging requirements and official incorporation of post-chromate bake requirement.

Question 2: Is the added post chromate conversion treatment stated in the above mentioned amendment (reference (b), in place of the current 24 hour hold time at room temperature per paragraph 4.6.3 of AMS QQ-P-416, or in addition to the current 24 hour hold time? The narrative does not state that it is in replacement of the statement in paragraph 4.6.3 “…supplementary coatings shall be aged at room temperature for 24 hours…”

Government Response to Question 2: AMS-QQ-P-416E states in 4.6.3 Corrosion Resistance (Production Control Test): "Corrosion resistance shall be conducted in accordance with ASTM B117 (salt spray test) for 96 hours or, for fastener hardware, in accordance with NASM1312-1. To secure uniformity of results, Type II supplementary coatings shall be aged by the processor at room temperature for 24 hours minimum before submittal for salt spray testing." This just requires the samples to be held at ambient temperature for 24 hours prior to conducting salt spray testing. This does not govern the bake time after application of chromate. Regardless of process used to cure the chromate, parts shall be held at ambient temp for 24 hours prior to conducting salt spray.

AMS-QQ-P-416E states in 5.2.2.2 Type II Handling Precaution:

"Chromate treatment (Type II), which involves only dipping in chemical solutions, normally requires a sufficient period of drying, approximately 24 hours at 70 to 90 °F (21 to 32 °C), to render the parts suitable for handling without damage to the coating while in gelatinous forms. It is important with such coatings that the workmanship be such that the coating is not excessively damaged while wet. Type II treatment should be dried for 24 hours before painting." This suggests (but does not require) that parts are held at

Industry Questions and Government Responses ambient (approx 70-90F) for 24 hours after application of chromate. The requirement added in amendment 1 sets a hard requirement for a post-chromate bake to be applied to the parts after chromate application.

Question 3: Reference (c), Section L.3.3.B states “The offeror is responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal.

Offerors shall provide a proposal that, at a minimum, addresses those evaluation Factors and Subfactors required in Section L and Section M of the RFP. Each proposal shall address the requirements of Section C.” However the requirements of Section C are not referenced anywhere else in Section L or anywhere in Section M. Should these requirements be included in Volume I, Subfactor 1?

Government Response to Question 3: Read the RFP as a whole. Section L instructs the offerors what to submit; Section M explains how the Government will evaluate. The proposal should demonstrate the offerors understanding of the Section C requirements by addressing the items required by Section L.

Question 4: Reference (c), Section L.3.1 lists all of the volumes to be submitted as

a. Volume I Technical Ability Factor

b. Volume II Past Performance

c. Volume III Price Proposal

d. Volume V Acknowledgements and Signatures

Is there a Volume IV?

Government Response to Question 4: This was a typo. Section L.3.1.d

Acknowledgements and Signatures should be Volume IV.

Question 5: Section L.3.1.d states “This volume shall contain one completed signed electronic copy of the complete solicitation, SF33 and continuation sheets (Section A through M) and acknowledgement of all amendments, and the Property Management

Plan (See Section L.4.5).” Since the Property Management Plan provides specific bidder capabilities, should this information be contained in the missing Volume IV (see Question

2)?

Government Response to Question 5: Yes, the Property Management Plan is contained in Volume IV.

Question 6: Technical question that relates to SF33 §E-6 (p.21) Statement that says use

MIL-STD-1916 (would require 80 pcs for Load/Drop) in place of ANSI Z1.4 (requires

32pcs for Load/Drop). Statement that MS3314 QAP has "additional guidance", that additional guidance (p.12) says to use ANSI Z1.4. Normally the QAP overrides all, but need to confirm, can you help?

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Government Response to Question 6: Follow the guidelines in the QAP for this requirement.

Question 7: In Attachment 0019, the USG response to question #1 references an upcoming Drawing 1380540 Revision AC that will be available in the next few weeks.

Will this revision be made available prior to the solicitation response due date?

Government Response to Question 7: Yes, the Government’s intent is to provide the final version before the Solicitation closes on 13 October 2017.

Question 8: QAP MS3314, Rev. H, 12 September 2017 Paragraph 2.9.2 & 2.9.2.1 &

Solicitation Amendment 002; “Paragraph 2, MK 3 (see below verbiage) & MK-3 Drawing

1380540, Rev. AA, Note 2D

TO: “…BARREL PLATING AND THE USE OF BRIGHTENERS IS PROHIBITED. A

POST CHROMATE CONVERSION TREATMENT BAKE OF 100 +/- 10 DEGREES

FAHRENHEIT FOR 24-36 HOURS IS REQUIRED TO ENSURE FULL DRYING OF THE

CHROMATE. POST CHROMATE BAKE SHALL BEGIN WITHIN 4 HOURS AFTER

APPLICATION OF CHROMATE.”

Question: The requirement for the embrittlement relief bake (6 hours minimum) and the requirement for the post chromate bake (24-36 hours) state that bake should be conducted within 4 hours of application. However, the temperature requirements for the bake are different (post chromate is 100 +/-, embrittlement is 375 +/-25); therefore, cannot be conducted at the same time. Please clarify.

Government Response to Question 8: Hydrogen embrittlement relief bake is to be performed after application of plating, prior to application of chromate. Post chromate bake is performed after application of chromate.

Question 9: MK3-0 Drawing 1380540, Rev. AA, Note 2D & QAP MS3314, Rev. H, 12

September 2017, Paragraph 2.9.2: Are rack marks allowed and if so what is the location on the lug that rack marks are permitted?

Government Response to Question 9: Entire part must receive plating and chromate.

Rack marks from baking processes are permitted on bottom surface of lug.

Question 10: MK3-0 Drawing 1380540, Rev. AA, Note 2A, 3A & QAP MS3314, Rev. H, 12 September 2017, Paragraph 2.9.1, 3.4.6: MPI requirements before plating state that

MPI testing is required in two planes. It is unclear in regard to the MPI at the forging stage whether testing is required in two planes. Please advise if the requirement is the same at both stages.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Government Response to Question 10: Intent is for MPI to be performed in two planes at both stages.

Question 11: QAP MS3314, Rev. H, 12 September 2017, Paragraph 3.4.6 requires MPI

Testing before plating and Paragraph 2.5 requires marking after plating. Is each part required to be stamped for MPI before and after plating?

Government Response to Question 11: MPI stamp (green ink) is to be applied after plating, so end user can verify that MPI was conducted.

Question 12: MK-3 Drawing 1380540, Rev. AA: Does the part need to have an additional “M” stamp added after plating to show that it has passed MPI?

Government Response to Question 12: “M” stamp is to be applied after plating, so end user can verify that MPI was conducted.

Question 13: ADL1380540, Revision N, calls out ASTM-E1444 M but does not state the revision year. Please advise if 16 is the correct version.

Government Response to Question 13: Yes, 16 is the correct revision.

Question 14: ADL1380540, Revision N, calls out AMS-F-7190 A and ADLMS3314, Revision T calls out AMS-F-7190 B. Review of the specifications show no material differences between the two. Is it acceptable to utilize revision B for both suspension lugs?

Government Response to Question 14: AMS-F-7190 B is the intended revision for both lugs.

Question 15: QAP MS3314, Rev. H, 12 September 2017: VIII. C. Magnetic Particle

Inspection Procedures: Magnetic particle inspection procedures shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with ASTM-E1444 and ADL requirements. Procedures shall be submitted thirty (30) days after contract award to ensure sufficient time for government review and approval prior to FAT (if required) or initiation of production if FAT is not required. Allow thirty (30) calendar days for Government review.

QAP 1380540 Rev. E 18 May 2016: III.A.2.g. Magnetic particle inspection procedures shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with ASTM E1444 and drawing 1380540 requirements.

Question a: Please confirm that the magnetic particle inspection procedure submittal date requirements for the MK3-0 are the same as for the MS3314.

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Government Response to Question 15 a: MK 3 – MPI procedures are due as part of ITP.

Due date is same as specified ITP due date listed in contract CDRL requirements.

MS3314 – MPI procedures are technically due 30 days after contract award according to

QAPMS3314. However, they may be submitted as part of ITP, which is due at ITP due date listed in contract CDRL requirements. Intent is to ensure maximum time for MPI procedure review, as this is a key review item prior to First Article.

Question b: We were unable to locate in the submission requirements where (to whom) the magnetic particle inspection procedures are to be submitted?

Government Response to Question 15 b: MPI procedures are to be submitted to same recipients as ITP.

Question 16: Referencing L.3.2 each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and solicitation number in the header and/or footer. Will cover pages count toward the applicable page limitations?

Government Response to Question 16: Yes, cover pages count toward page limitations.

Question 17: Referencing L.3.3 Proposal Format Limitations: each volume shall be as brief as possible. Pages should not exceed 8 ½ inches in width by 11 inches in length;

flow diagrams and tables may exceed 8 ½ inches in width by 11 inches in length. The font used shall not be less than 12 point. (Font smaller than 12 point is ONLY acceptable in graphics, sketches, tables, charts, price matrix, etc. but must be at least 8 point). Do the pages with flow diagrams and tables that exceed 8 ½ inches in width by

11 inches in length be counted as one page?

Government Response to Question 17: Yes

Question 18: Referencing L.4 SPECIFIC PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS; Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details (i.e. drawings, test data) to permit a complete and accurate evaluation. Volume 1, Technical Ability Proposal, shall have a separate index, which contains narrative titles, which are cross-referenced to the applicable RFP

Requirement…

L.4.1 Volume 1 Technical Ability Factor

The Technical Ability Factor has the following three (3) Subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Manufacturing Capability

Subfactor 2: Quality

Subfactor 3: Testing and Inspection

Industry Questions and Government Responses

Question a: Is it the USG’s preference that index be cross-referenced to applicable RFP requirements of Section L (i.e. L.4.1) or references to the requirements of the solicitation as whole (i.e. Section E-4, Measurement System Evaluation) or both?

Government Response to Question 18 a: The index must be cross referenced to Section

L requirements.

Question b: Is it the USG’s preference to receive one .pdf file containing Volume 1

Technical Ability Factor inclusive of the three subfactors as a whole; or are respondents permitted to submit the three Technical Ability subfactors as three separate .pdf files with respective indexes for each?

Government Response to Question 18 b: It is acceptable to submit separate .pdf files.

Question c: Will each subfactor be evaluated separately or will the Technical Ability

Factor be evaluated as a whole? Should a respondent assume that information contained in subfactor 1 will not be seen if references to that section are made in subfactor 3?

Government Response to Question 18 c: Each subfactor will be evaluated separately.

Respondents should not assume information provided in subfactor 1 will be accepted for requirements if it’s listed in subfactor 3.