MODIFICATION
66 -- Ion Beam Etch/Deposition System
- Notice Date
- 7/16/2004
- Notice Type
- Modification
- NAICS
- 334513
— Instruments and Related Products Manufacturing for Measuring, Displaying, and Controlling Industrial Process Variables
- Contracting Office
- Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Mountain Administrative Support Center, 325 Broadway - MC3, Boulder, CO, 80305-3328
- ZIP Code
- 80305-3328
- Solicitation Number
- RA1341-04-RP-4025
- Response Due
- 8/16/2004
- Archive Date
- 10/1/2004
- Point of Contact
- Jan Clark, Contract Specialist, Phone (303) 497-6320, Fax (303) 497-3163,
- E-Mail Address
-
jan.clark@noaa.gov
- Description
- The purpose of this amendment no. 0001 to Solicitation RA1341-04-RP-4025 is to provide the following for informational purposes only. The hour and date previously specified for receipt of offers is NOT extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this Amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation/synopsis or as amended by (a) acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of its offer submitted or by separate letter, fax, or email which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment number. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PIRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. Q: In the selection criteria, part 1c lists the age of components as a factor in any purchasing decision. Shall I take that to mean that a refurbished tool would be an acceptable response to this solicitation? A: Used and refurbished parts or system are acceptable. Used components will, however, be down rated in the scoring to account for reduced life expectancy. Q: Furthermore, part 2 details criteria regarding past performance. In the case of offering refurbished equipment, we would obviously not be the original equipment manufacturer of the machine in question, and as such any customer testimonial would be of little relevance to this specific offering. Would your technical user's recognition of the established name brand of a particular OEM's standard ion etch /deposition product be sufficient in place of such past performance testimonials? A: The Government would accept the name brand as indication of successful past units sold provided we can easily verify this. We will still require references to customers who have purchased or used similar systems so that we can get independent information ease of system use and reliability. Q: Would the fact that the system is demonstrable immediately negate the need to document past delivery time performance of a machine that is not our own product? A: Yes, if the system is fully operational at present we would not need any documentation indicating past delivery time performance. Q: Specification 1.1 mandates a chamber of less than .6m in diameter. Provided other physical constraints and ultimate pressure specified is obtained, would a minor deviation from this specification be acceptable? The chamber in question would be one of .65m ID. Specification 1.3 mandates an 8" conflat pumping port with no provision for a gate valve. So long as the ultimate pressure requirement is obtained, is the style and diameter of the flange a critical factor? Also, in the offering we may make, a gatevalve is already included on the system, and it's removal would not constitute any cost savings to the government. Should this be left on the system and taken as a value added component, or is there a firm requirement for no gate valve to be present? A: A chamber ID of 0.65 m is acceptable. The chamber dimensions are only rough guidelines. However, the required footprint limits must be met to allow installation in the existing space in the clean room. We could consider the requirements met if the system can meet the base pressure requirements with a different type of pumping port, which is of similar or larger diameter than an 8" conflate. The requirement that the system not come with a gate valve was to minimize system cost and complexity. If it is less expensive to leave an existing gate valve on the system then this would meet the requirements. Q: Specification 3.2 requires the use of 100mm targets. Would 125mm targets be unacceptable? Additionally: I see no requirement for deposition or etch rate monitoring. Shall we assume that such processes will not be monitored in real time, and rather determined after the fact and controlled by ion exposure times and beam current? A: 100 mm targets were specified to minimize system cost. If the proposed system is less expensive with 125 mm targets then this is acceptable. Q: The solicitation is worded with a requirement for a load lock to be quoted as an option. Would any proposal that does not include an option for a load lock be automatically disqualified, or would its merits be considered if the product represents itself as an attractive option? A: The system must be capable of adding on a load lock. The specification of the system must clearly confirm this. An offer will not be automatically disqualified if no load lock option is included with the offer; however, the scoring will be down rated accordingly. EMAILADD: MASC.Solicitation@noaa.gov EMAILDESC: NOAA, MASC Acquisition Management Division
- Place of Performance
- Address: 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO
- Zip Code: 80305-3328
- Country: US
- Zip Code: 80305-3328
- Record
- SN00625095-W 20040718/040716211726 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |