MODIFICATION
66 -- Recovery - The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Metallurgy Division requires One (1) Next Generation Metal Formability Test Facility with Four (4) Option year line items for one (1) Maintenance Contract each option year.
- Notice Date
- 2/17/2010
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- NAICS
- 334519
— Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing
- Contracting Office
- Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Acquisition Management Division, 100 Bureau Drive, Building 301, Room B129, Mail Stop 1640, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20899-1640
- ZIP Code
- 20899-1640
- Solicitation Number
- SB1341-10-RQ-0011
- Response Due
- 2/25/2010 12:00:00 PM
- Point of Contact
- Janet M. Lamb, Phone: 3019756205, Todd D Hill, Phone: 301-975-8802
- E-Mail Address
-
janet.lamb@nist.gov, todd.hill@nist.gov
(janet.lamb@nist.gov, todd.hill@nist.gov)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- Questions and Answers for the Next Generation Metal Forming System Solicitation (submitted on 2/17/2010): 1. With reference to the Biaxial extensometer, paragraph 3.1.8. The spec calls for a biaxial extensometer with a strain range of +/- 50%. While a range of +50% is no problem, a strain value of -50% is not practical for a standard extensometer. -10% is typical. A -50% range would be special design, and quite expensive. Can we get a confirmation on the actual expected plastic strain range in compression ? Reply to question 1: The vendor's observation is valid, and we would not expect to be taking this system into compression more than 10% because of expected buckling of the sample. 2.Secondly, previous discussions with the users, along with the existing Hi-Rate system we are working on for NIST, requires that the successful vendor supply the systems called out on the RFQ (X-ray diffraction system and non-contacting camera strain system) and coordinate the installation and training of these systems. It is not clear reading the RFQ that we would be responsible for doing the installation, training, and warranty of these systems or that we would just coordinate these services with those equipment suppliers. This makes a difference in that we are not familiar with the installation and training of these systems and if we had to, the systems would have to be marked up instead of being “passed thru” for the prices quoted originally to the user. Reply to question 2: It is expected that the main contractor would simply coordinate the services of their sub-suppliers in terms of installation, training and warranty. It is expected that the subs would provide these actual services.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOC/NIST/AcAsD/SB1341-10-RQ-0011/listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Address: 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20899, United States
- Zip Code: 20899
- Zip Code: 20899
- Record
- SN02066808-W 20100219/100217234600-dda1f40d381971e85919204127da4c89 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |