Thermal Vacuum-Compatible Gravity Offloader System

Change to Special Notice: The Capability Statement response date is changed to October 14, 2015. Special Notice This Special Notice is both a Sources Sought and a Request for Information (RFI). Responses to this Special Notice will be used to gain technical and market information. Responses to this Special Notice may be used to determine whether the requirement, should it materialize, will be made on a competitive, limited, or sole source basis. This is neither a formal request for proposal (RFP) nor a formal request for quote (RFQ). The Government will not reimburse any costs associated with the development and submission of materials in response to this request. No solicitation is available at this time; however, should such a requirement materialize, no basis for claims against the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) shall arise as a result of a response to this Sources Sought notice or NRL's use of such information as either part of our evaluation process or in developing specifications for any subsequent requirement. Description of Effort The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Code 8200 (Spacecraft Engineering Department), is requesting information and a ROM estimate of cost and delivery schedule for one Gravity Offloading System as defined in the Statement of Work (SOW), NCST-S-GR025. Additionally, a ROM estimate of cost and delivery schedule is requested for the option of a third and fourth lift point. This offloader is for the use of various current and future space robotic and deployable programs. It is critical to exercise as much of the actual range of performance of a robotic arm system as possible during ground testing in order to reduce the risk of an on-orbit failure. The specified gravity offloading system will enable ground testing for a wide array of robotic arm systems, from 0.7 meter [2.5 ft] long arms that can only lift 0.45 kg [1 lbm] payloads to arms that are 3.7 meters [12 feet] long and can support 200 kg [441 lbm] payloads. A primary goal of this RFI is to determine how NRL wishes to proceed with a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) anticipated to be released in 2015. Complementary goals of this RFI are to gauge industry interest, capabilities, and relevant heritage experience to manufacture, assemble, and test a thermal vacuum (TVac) compatible gravity offloader. It is the goal of the NRL to maximize relevant heritage experience and minimize risk and cost. It is anticipated that a competitive RFP will be released in November 2015 with the contract being let approximately April 2016. If this occurs, delivery of the gravity offloader would be in May 2017. Options for additional lift points may be exercised at some point in the future. Examples of likely key evaluation criteria for a future RFP are: 1) Relevant corporate and key personnel heritage experience and know-how, 2) Relevant heritage hardware performance, 3) Cost/cost realism/past cost performance, 4) Schedule/past schedule performance. If a solicitation is issued, it is anticipated that it will call for a firm fixed price (FFP) contract. Interested parties should submit the information requested herein, as well as a ROM/cost and schedule estimate. The contractor shall have heritage in the manufacture of gravity offloading systems. The contractor shall have heritage developing systems that perform inside TVac chambers. The contractor shall provide the key personnel required to successfully execute this program. Key personnel positions include, but are not limited to: Program Manager, Lead Mechanical Engineer, Lead Controls Engineer, and Lead Test Engineer. NRL considers the key personnel to be absolutely critical to the successful execution of this program. Key personnel qualifications are judged to be more critical than prior corporate heritage. Background It is critical to exercise as much of the actual range of performance of a robotic arm system as possible during ground testing in order to reduce the risk of an on-orbit failure. However, in order to minimize mass and power many flight robotic arm systems are designed and optimized for the micro-gravity environment of space. As a result, they often cannot operate fully or at all in a 1g environment. This can severely limit, or even eliminate, the amount of ground testing that can be performed in order to reduce the risk of on-orbit failure. A TVAC compatible gravity offloading system can significantly mitigate this risk by allowing extensive ground testing in the flight environment. There is no incumbent contractor. Resources In order to aid industry in evaluating their ability to provide the requirement, a draft Statement of Work has been attached and is provided with this RFI. Capability Statement Organizations responding to this RFI are requested to provide a Capability Statement. The Capability Statement should indicate whether the Contractor is capable of providing the required Gravity Offloader System. The Capability Statement should also state whether the organization can meet the objective values stated in the specification or, if not, provide the values that can be met by the organization's product. The Capability Statement must state whether the organization's product is commercial item, non-commercial item, developmental item, or services and provide support for that determination. RFI Technical Questions NRL is requesting responses to the following technical questions: 1. Where are the cost and complexity break points for both the operational temperature range and the survival temperature range? 2. Where are the cost and complexity break points for the offloaded mass, and how does the mass range effect the offloading accuracy? 3. Where are the cost and complexity break points for the offloader vertical range of motion? Is accommodating the vertical range of motion for the T-slot floor configuration with a maximum height of 584 cm [230 inches] significantly more difficult and/or expensive than accommodating the vertical range of motion for the thermal vacuum chamber configuration? 4. Are there any other significant cost drivers? If so, what are they and where are their break points? 5. Are there any significant requirements or other information required that has not been provided in the SOW? 6. What has the contractor done in the past to ensure the safety of spaceflight hardware under test? Specifically, how do the proposed hardware and software safety features including hard stops, soft stops, and comparing the item under test's location telemetry with the offloader's location telemetry compare with what has been done previously? 7. How have previous designs operated during the setup phase, i.e. have the lift points and trolleys been commanded to an initial position, move into position manual, etc? 8. What hardware configuration(s) has the contractor used previously for the end of the offloader lift points? How has the contractor previously interfaced to items under test? 9. Describe how your previous gravity offloader work applies to this one, and discuss the complexity of this offloader relative to previous work. 10. How does the offloader know how much offloading force to apply? Is this mass entered manually on the console, or does the offloader lift point sense the weight hanging from it and automatically respond by applying an equal amount of offloading force? 11. Following delivery and buyoff, what would be the expected cost for the vendor to provide an on site calibration? 12. Following delivery and buyoff, what would be the cost of delivering all of the test equipment that is required to perform the acceptance test, or is this cost included in the proposal? It is expected that the acceptance test may require a vacuum compatible X-Y stage, or perhaps X-Y-Z stage. In addition to this, there may be other equipment required for the acceptance test. 13. Has the contractor ever designed an offloader that was fed pre-planned trajectories in order to increase the offloading accuracy? Is this worth the added accuracy? Would the complexity and cost increase be significant? Contractor Response Format Please transmit responses by e-mail to Grace Pennington, Contract Specialist, contact@example.gov, in either Microsoft Office or compatible software or in .pdf formats. NRL asks that interested parties, at a minimum, supply the following information: 1. CONTACT INFORMATION a. Name of company and point of contact (POC) b. Telephone number, fax number, address, and e-mail address of POC c. DUNS number d. Business size and number of employees e. Proposed NAICS code f. Proposed PSC code 2. CAPABILITY STATEMENT AND RESPONSE TO TECHNICAL QUESTIONS a. Capability Statement and information about offered products or services that meet the requirements listed in this RFI. b. Response to the technical questions listed above. 3. Pricing and Schedule a. Cost estimate b. Detailed schedule including the items in Table 6-1 of the SOW. c. An itemized cost breakdown for all hardware deliverables, including the following options: i. Cost of the specified Gravity Offloading System ii. Itemized cost for the option of adding a 3rd lift point iii. Itemized cost for the option of adding a 4th lift point 4. Assumptions A list of assumptions, if any, which were considered in formulating the response. 5. The contractor should include the following in their proposal: a. Any opportunities for additional cost reductions. b. The proposed Acceptance Test Plan. c. Estimated mass of the hardware to be installed inside the TVAC chamber. Disclosure of Information NRL will not publicly disclose proprietary information obtained as a result of this RFI. To the full extent that it is protected by law and regulations, information identified by a respondent as Proprietary or Confidential will be kept confidential.