QandA N6426720Q0232 Amendment0001.docx

DEPT OF NAVY SOL# N6426720Q0232 - Questions and Answers

Q1. 2.1 General, the specification calls for the instrument footprint to be 25 x 35 cm. Is this is the specific dimension of one vendor’s instrument?

A1. As far as we know, these are not the exact dimensions of any manufacture’s specific unit. The stated dimensions are several cm larger (in each dimension) than the actual measured footprint of the units we’ve used for testing and method development. The overall space requirement is a bit larger, but our specification lists footprint.

Q2. Will the Navy allow for instruments with different footprint dimensions (but very close in size to that requested) in order for other vendors to compete on this bid?

A2. Yes. As stated in 2.1 of our specification, calibration laboratory workbench space and mobility/transportability are important concerns for the Navy, especially for shipboard use. If a vendor has a unit that is “very close in size” to these measurements, but a bit larger, we wouldn’t exclude them on that count alone.

Preface The following information is a preface that applies to the below questions: The Navy’s requirement to detect 5 ppm hydrocarbon contaminants in Novec 71DE solvent (maximum) is not a simple measurement to make. It requires a high-quality FTIR spectrometer. The following questions (2.4.2.2 – 2.6) address technical features of the FTIR spectrometers that have been used to develop this Navy-specific application. The Navy’s over-riding concern is that a departure from our spec in any of these areas could not be fully evaluated without conducting extensive testing using actual units. The Navy has been working on this project since 2013, beginning this work with an instrument that was selected specifically for this application. We deliberately selected components normally found on larger bench-top units (such as gold-coated mirrors) and other features that would provide long-term stability and reliability but at the same time packaged these features in a unit with a smaller footprint than a full-size bench-top unit. Since that time, the Navy has performed extensive testing, procedure development, and instrument evaluation, including purchasing additional instruments of the same model to investigate potential instrument-to instrument variability on analysis results.

Navy calibration laboratories are currently operating under a waiver from the Chief of Naval Operations to give the Navy Metrology R&D Program time to complete the development of this method and to work with SYSCOMS to field the method to Navy labs. The waiver permits labs to continue using CFC-113 to clean oxygen test instruments, even though the use of this solvent has been prohibited elsewhere in the Navy. The deadline from Chief of Naval Operations to fully transition does not provide time for the Navy Metrology R&D Program to conduct the thorough testing and evaluation that would be required to evaluate instruments with different technical specifications than those listed in our requirement. The Navy’s PLS analysis method that we’ve already developed cannot run on an instrument that has different technical specifications and the Navy will not accept an instrument that requires the Navy to repeat an extensive development effort.

Q3. In 2.4.2.2 Reflective Components, the specification calls for all mirrors in the FTIR Spectrometer shall be gold-coated to maximize optical throughput in the mid-IR Range (400 cm-1 – 4000 cm-1). Is this a specification from one specific instrument vendor?

A3. This is the Navy’s specification. More than one manufacturer of FTIR spectrometers uses gold-coated mirrors.

Q4. Will the Navy allow for instruments that have aluminum-coated mirrors? If an instrument with non-gold coated mirrors can perform the intended measurement in the mid-IR Range (400-4000cm-1) and meet the other specifications of the bid, then that instrument must have enough energy throughput even with aluminum mirrors.

A4. No. The reflectivity of aluminum is different from the reflectivity of gold, with gold-coatings generally having higher reflectivity in the mid-IR range and therefore providing greater optical throughput and higher sensitivity. Gold also offers greater long-term corrosion resistance and durability than aluminum. The Navy developed their analysis method using instruments with gold-coated mirrors, not mirrors coated with aluminum. If the manufacturer does not offer a unit with gold-coated mirrors, then their unit will not meet the Navy’s requirement.

Q5. For the Vibration and Wear Resistance, is the specification as written in this section specific to one vendor’s instrument design? The most important part of the specification is the first sentence, which calls for an instrument that shall be able to withstand vibrations from nearby equipment in Navy calibration labs and withstand vibrations typically found in shipboard environments without adversely affecting measurement.

A5. The most important part of the Navy’s specification is that we have listed key features in the equipment that enabled us to achieve success in developing our analysis method, as well as those features that are required for fielding to various Navy locations. Ensuring that our FTIR measurements will be free from adverse affects of vibrations to the greatest possible extent is critical to successful deployment. The Navy requires an interferometer design that provides maximum resistance to the adverse affects of external vibrations.

Q6. Will the Navy accept an instrument that can withstand vibrations from nearby equipment in the lab and typically found in shipboard environments? Our FTIR instruments are used on many Navy ships already and they do not suffer from vibration found aboard those ships nor are they subject to increased maintenance.

A6. No, the Navy cannot accept another design for vibration resistance without documentation of the technology being used and documentation that the performance of that design is equivalent to that which we have specified.

Q7. For the alignment, will manual alignment or adjustable interferometers be acceptable?

A7. Long-term interferometer stability is an absolute requirement for this application. The Navy needs to rely on a PLS calibration that is developed on one unit to remain stable over time at multiple installations on multiple units. This requires FTIR spectrometers with an interferometer that is stable over time. In addition to other requirements noted above, the design we have specified provides high baseline stability and high wavenumber stability, both of which are required for our PLS method to work reliably.

Q8. Will the Navy either remove this specification or allow instruments that include dynamically aligned interferometer systems?

A8. No. By its very nature, dynamic alignment requires measurement of misalignment in order to correct that misalignment. The Navy requires permanent alignment and high interferometer stability for this application in part to avoid having to rebuild a PLS calibration and to ensure the accuracy and reliability of a fielded PLS calibration over time and to avoid having to build a PLS calibration for each unit. Equally important, the Navy requires PLS determinations to be accurate over time on all fielded units since this is a safety-of-life application.

Q9. In 2.6 Detector, the specification is clear and we have no concern with the request and can supply a temperature controlled detector; however, we would like to confirm if the TEC cooled detector is necessary. How do you run your background (i.e. open beam or solvent background)?

A9. The Navy requires a temperature-controlled detector to ensure that our PLS determinations will be accurate even when the ambient temperature fluctuates.

Q10. The Bid requested that a single price be offered for either the FTIR with KBr optics or the FTIR with ZnSe optics. While we can do this, there is a price difference between these two versions and without knowing how many of each version the Navy wants, we may be forced to quote the higher priced version for both the KBr and ZnSe version. It would be more cost beneficial to the Navy to either specify how many of each version the Navy intends to buy, or to allow the vendor to quote each version independently with unique pricingIs this something that the Navy would allow or provide?

A11. The Navy is asking for a single price for the interferometer. Given the opportunity for a future option, the Navy cannot provide this specification at this time.