Amendment No. 1 to RFQ No.2025026165.pdf

National Renewable Energy Laboratory Managed and Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

Request for Quote (RFQ) No. 2025025165

AMENDMENT NO. 1

“Autonomous Sputtering Tool – Main Chamber”

Amendment Issue Date: 06/ 24 /2025 Due Date for Proposals: 07/03/2025 Time Due: 5:00pm Mountain Time

1. Solicitation Type Best Value Selection

Submit offers to the NREL RFQ Contact below

2. NREL RFP Contact LuAnn Lindsay, Subcontract Administrator National Renewable Energy Laboratory 15013 Denver West Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Email: Luann.lindsay@nrel.gov

Amendment No. 1 Amendment No. 1 is hereby issued in response to questions received regarding the subject Request for Quote (RFQ). Please note that some questions may have been edited to address duplicate questions or to protect business-sensitive information provided in the original questions. The essences of the original questions are not affected. Questions are in no particular order.

Q. We are weighing the trade off with technical requirements and requested timeline. Will you accept bids that are significantly outside of this timeline?

A. Yes, we will consider all bids that meet the technical specifications. The timeline will also be considered holistically in concert with responsiveness to the technical specifications and the price. Note we would consider multiple bids from the same vendor—for example, if there are multiple possible configurations that are more complex than just including various possible components as separate line items.

Q. Would it be acceptable to submit a response to the above requirement that is structured as a formal design phase, with a deliverable being the design documents and cost to build? Rather than committing to a firm price to build from this specification?

A. We are open to a design phase in some format (i.e., final design drawings are not expected to be part of the bid but can come after more conversation), but establishing an approximate budget at the bid stage is very important to us, as is knowing the vendor’s capabilities (otherwise it is very difficult to decide between proposals). Note we would consider multiple bids from the same vendor—for example, if there are multiple possible configurations that are more complex than just including various possible components as separate line items.

Q. What is intended to go to 800°C exactly in the chamber? Our understanding is that it's only the substrate, but 1.1.4 implies that it is the entire chamber. Could it be clarified the expected temperature on the chamber walls and associated components connected to the chamber walls (i.e.

pressure sensors, optical windows, in-situ ellipsometer mechanism)

A. The substrate is intended to go to 800 °C. The specified base pressure of 1e-7 Torr should be able to be achieved at this substrate temperature. The chamber walls and associated internal components have no specified temperature but must operate normally when the substrate is at 800 °C.

Q. What exactly is the requirement in terms of action / reaction? Should the transfer system detect misalignment automatically, or is this a manual procedure? Is the 0.02 mm positioning repeatability on the realignment or any movement of the transfer system?

A. It is highly preferred for the transfer system to detect misalignment automatically. The 0.02 positioning repeatability refers to interfacing with the robot transfer system that will be external to the vacuum chamber.

We would like to avoid having to realign the robot if the transfer system is misaligned.

Q. What exactly is the minimum bakeout temperature required?

A. ~ 50 °C.

Q. Is Haynes 230 just an example or preferred / mandatory? Is a sound design with another alloy also acceptable?

A. Haynes 230 is an example. A sound design with another alloy with equivalent properties is also acceptable.

Q. Do the metrology equipment require integration into the machine software? By default, they have their own software on their own machine electronics. But should their controls and readouts be integrated into the same software that handles the entire machine (recipes, logs, manual control, etc.)?

A. Integrating metrology equipment into the chamber software is preferred but not a requirement.

Q. Is the film temperature measurement intended to happen specifically on the surface of the wafer, or is measurement of close-by points sufficient, i.e. back side of the wafer with a pre-measurement calibration of the wafer’s surface done a priori by a thermocouple bonded wafer ?

A. Measurement of film temperature via close-by points is sufficient. However, measurement on the surface of the wafer is preferred.

Q. Would a Laser-based Wafer Curvature Measurement System to determine film stress through curvature measurements fulfill that requirement?

A. Yes, this technique would fulfill this requirement. However, as most sample holders involve clamping the substrate, this would introduce extrinsic stress—we would like this factor to be taken into account so that we can measure the intrinsic film stress.

Q. What exactly is meant by “underlying data structures”, does it only apply to the APIs or the entire software? What is meant by “all software components”, is it expected to share the entire software architecture?

A. By “underlying data structures,” we mean comprehensive documentation of APIs methods and data structures (lists, dictionaries, sets, etc.), if supported. If the software accepts custom features, documentation of data structures used to build custom features. If open-source, we expect that the entire software architecture is available.

Q. How many USB 3.0+ ports need to be available?

A. At least 4.

Q. Are there film specification requirements?

A. No, because this tool will be used for a variety of materials.

Q. Is there a decreasing priority list for the requirements/future upgrades (some are in conflict with one another)?

A. Top priority: In situ instrumentation (particularly OES, plasma monitoring, and optoelectronic characterization, but excluding Raman). Sputtering source suitable for Ga. Python-based software API.

Etching. Substrate indexing and masking. If etching and/or masking are not included in the design, enabling future integration with another chamber becomes high priority.

Medium: Spare ports. 6” substrate compatibility. Process gas injection at substrate. DC substrate bias.

Heater control. DC and pulsed DC sources.

Lower priority: Camera. Load lock / chamber baking. Integrated control of in situ instrumentation. In situ Raman.

Q. We would have no way to meet the deadlines as published and would be non-compliant as indicated, if we are to propose a system that is in line with the requests. We can quote a copy an autonomous sputter system and we’re open to discussions on adding potential for analytical equipment. We’d expect that project to be 12-18 months depending on what’s integrated, but that would also be non-compliant with the RFP as published. We are still interested in bidding and would like to know what aspects are open for negotiation?

A. We will consider all bids that meet the minimum technical requirements. The timeline will also be considered holistically in concert with responsiveness to the technical specifications and the price. Note we would consider multiple bids from the same vendor—for example, if there are multiple possible configurations that are more complex than just including various possible components as separate line items.

Submit offers to the NREL RFQ Contact below