80MSFC24R008_Question Responses.pdf

Q1: The enclosed publication, “Advancements in Low Leakage Valves for Long Duration Missions”, has an inline isolation valve design (reference Figure 23). Is a 90 degrees low leakage isolation valve to be used with EMA or other actuator methods acceptable?

A1: There is no requirement for fluid interface orientation.

Q2. Please clarify the default position (i.e. open or close) for the valve? Additionally, if the system loses power, what position is the default position or fail in place?

A2: There is no requirement for configuration and / or fail safe position.

Q3: Please clarify the Flow & Pressure Drop Specification at 14lbm/sec (1420 GPM) LH2 at 30 psig inlet pressure with less than 5 psid. While the isolation valve in the “Advancements in Low Leakage Valves for Long Duration Missions”, only tested to 180 GPM LN2, the significantly higher flow rate will be integral to the internal valve design and test planning.

A3: The paper is included for reference only. All performance requirements come from the specification. Verification method for flow requirements (including the media used) is for the offerer to propose.

Q4: The specification document paragraph 3.4.1 Operating Temperatures specifies the operating temperature range from -423oF to +120oF. However paragraph 3.2.4 Flow and Pressure Drop specifies a flow rate and pressure drop for a temperature of -430oF. Please clarify the operating range of the valve.

A4: -423 °F is the correct value.

Q5: The specification document paragraph 4.3.1.4 LH2 Temperature Leakage and Performance specifies testing at LH2 temperatures. However, paragraph 3.2.3.2 Internal leakage specifies internal leakage should be less than or equal to 1 SCIM of gaseous hydrogen. Please clarify the phase of hydrogen for leakage testing.

A5: We anticipate liquid hydrogen to be supplied to the valve inlet and any internal leakage to flash to a gaseous state as it exits the valve.

Q6: The requirement stated in the specification document paragraph 3.2.7.4 indicated a full time position indicator is required. Is this specification suggesting that MSFC may modulate the low leakage isolation valve?

A6: The intention is to indicate whether the valve is in a fully closed or fully open state, not necessarily to indicate positions in between these states.

Q7: In our cost proposal, should we consider the possibility of performing Hydrogen testing at MSFC?

A7: Utilization of MSFC facilities is not a requirement, but can be requested per “Government Resource Requests” in Part IV, Section L of the solicitation.

Q8: Can MSFC provide preferred method of measuring internal leakage at the valve outlet?

A8: We do not have a preferred method.

Q9: The solicitation provides a detailed description of the evaluation criteria and process. There are some conflicting statements as to the priority of the evaluation criteria that needs clarification.

The Basis of award, reference page 204 of solicitation, states “…award(s) will be made to the Offeror(s) who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, meets the mandatory qualification gate, is determined to be technically acceptable, price has been determined to be fair and reasonable, and provides the lowest evaluated price.” However the process for evaluation shows step 2 as selection of the lowest costed proposal to be reviewed for award. Step 5 claims the SSA will then select the Offeror’s proposal that is determined to be the “best value”. Please clarify prioritization of criteria for award.

A9: Offers that meet the Mandatory Qualification criteria, will be evaluated by the Government using the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. As stated in the solicitation aspects of the evaluation process will occur in parallel, and not intended to be strictly sequential