RFQ Amendment 1 - QA.pdf

Questions and Answers – 1333ND26QNB030170

1. Shipping Terms and Duty-Free Entry (FOB vs. DAP) The RFQ currently requests FOB Destination pricing. However, since our proposed system will be manufactured in Europe and is intended for semiconductor R&D, it appears eligible for duty-free entry under HTS

9810.00.60 (The Florence Agreement) and relevant Section 122/232 exemptions for federal research.

Background: Under standard FOB Destination terms for international shipments, the Contractor typically acts as the Importer of Record. This status can preclude the application of the Government's duty-free eligibility, requiring us to include an estimated 15% tariff surcharge. (The Section 122 surcharge is currently scheduled to expire on July 24, which is after a potential delivery date, but the subsequent action is uncertain.) Shifting to DAP would allow NIST to act as the Importer of Record, thereby facilitating the use of NIST’s tax-exempt status and the filing of Form ITA-338P for duty-free entry (in which we will support you and provide all the required technical information). This change would result in a significantly lower total price to the Government while still requiring the Contractor to manage and pay for all transportation and insurance costs to the NIST facility..

• Question 1: Would NIST consider shifting to DAP (Delivered at Place) NIST, Gaithersburg, MD? This would allow NIST to act as the Importer of Record, facilitating the use of your tax-exempt status and avoiding a projected 15% tariff surcharge for foreign products that would otherwise increase the firm-fixed price.

- NIST ANSWER: The shipping needs to be FOB Destination (domestic) or Incoterms DDP (international). We can’t accept anything different to ensure we have obligated all funds required for this requirement.

2. Period of Performance (PoP) Realignment The PoP milestones (e.g., Factory Acceptance at 10 weeks ARO; System Delivery at 20 weeks ARO) do not align with the standard manufacturing lifecycle for systems of this complexity.

• Question 2: Can the PoP be adjusted to reflect standard production phases?

Specifically, Factory Acceptance (FAT) typically occurs once the build is complete, approximately 1-2 weeks prior to shipment (i.e., 18–19 weeks ARO).

• Question 3: Regarding the Site Visit (12 weeks ARO), we will provide comprehensive design approval drawings and an extensive lab requirements list instead of a physical visit. Is NIST open to removing the site visit requirement to streamline the schedule?

NIST ANSWER: Please feel free to revise as needed, but please submit rationale.

3. Technical Compatibility – Request for System Drawings The RFQ indicates that the AXPS components must connect to an existing custom-made reaction chamber.

• Question 4: To ensure compatibility, can NIST provide a set of drawings for the existing reaction chamber for our technical team to review?

- NIST ANSWER: Due to constraints, the requirement for the system to be compatible with the NIST chamber can be omitted, and we are ready to work with the vendor's standard chamber. Details on standard chamber must be included.

4. Adjustment of Payment Milestones The current payment terms require Installation Documents as the first 20% milestone. As standard practice, these documents are finalized after FAT and delivered with the system. Furthermore, building this system requires significant upfront procurement of high-value sub-components.

• Question 5: Will NIST consider adjusting the payment schedule to reflect industry standards for custom scientific instruments? We propose the following structure:

o 50% upon Order (to secure specialized long-lead components). Or upon delivery of the system drawings o 40% upon Delivery.

o 10% upon Final Acceptance.

- NIST ANSWER: Payment schedule must be linked to deliverables. No money can be invoiced simply for receiving the award. Delivery of system drawings is a reasonable deliverable, however 40% might be more acceptable. Respondents are allowed to submit alternate payment schedules.

The specifications state that the analyzer must operate at elevated pressures: up to 5 Torr for standard gases and up to 20 Torr for water vapor.

5. To meet these requirements, we can propose one of two configurations:

1. Standard High-Pressure Model: Optimized for operation up to 5 mbar. This model meets the general gas specifications but cannot support the 20 Torr water vapor requirement.

2. Extended High-Pressure Model: Capable of operating up to 50 mbar, fully supporting the 20 Torr water vapor requirement.

Please note that the Extended Model is more expensive and requires a 200CF (12-inch OD) chamber flange for mounting. Given that the components must connect to an existing custom-made reaction chamber, a 200CF requirement may present a mechanical compatibility issue.

- NIST ANSWER: The vendor provides their standard chamber to comply with 200CF analyzer flange (see above)

6. Could NIST please clarify:

1. Is the 20 Torr water vapor requirement a mandatory minimum specification?

2. If so, can NIST confirm that the existing custom reaction chamber is equipped with a 200CF flange to accommodate the necessary high pressure analyzer interface?

3. If the chamber interface is smaller than 200CF, would NIST prefer a quote for the standard model capped at 5 mbar?

- NIST ANSWER: 20 Torr is a mandatory specification to meet the future needs of potential users (e.g., electrochemical studies). As stated above, NIST will work with the standard vendor’s chamber.