Naval Research Laboratory, Attn: Code 3230, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20375-5326

66 -- FAST STEERING MIRROR SOL N00173-00-R-JW03 DUE 062000 POC James P. Waldenfels, Contract Specialist, Code 3230.JW (202)767-3003, Carol Parnell, Contracting Officer WEB: Click here, http://heron.nrl.navy.mil/contracts/rfplist.htm. This notice, Amendment 0001 to RFP N00173-00-R-JW03, is issued to answer questions and revise terms of the RFP. (This RFP was issued as an unrestricted, combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this and the original notice.) Question 1 (paraphrased): Regarding mirror optical performance, we need some clarification on how the peak and average incident optical power is defined. Are we correct in interpreting this specification as 10 megawatts peak power over the duty cycle of 100 pulses? Working backwards from 25 watts average power results in either 10 megawatts peak or 250 megawatts depending on how this is defined. Similarly, it's not clear on how to apply the 750 millijoule/cm^2 to get 25 watts average. It follows that the correct energy interpretation affects assessment of mirror flatness performance (thermal absorption). Please indicate if we have interpreted 3.1.1 correctly oroffer any further clarification of this requirement. Answer 1: Peak incident laser flux is 750 millijoule/cm^2 per pulse, and the average power is 25 watts in a 1 cm^2 beam. (Regarding the relationship of the 25 watts and 750 mj/cm^2, the optical footprint of the laser on the mirror is relevant in addition to the information given in the specification. This footprint is about 1/3 cm^2. Hence the 750 mj/cm^2.) The pulse width is 1 nanosecond, at a 100 PPS pulse rate. From another viewpoint regarding power, -- peak power = pulse energy/pulse duration = .25 joule/10^-9 sec = 250 Mwatts peak. Question 2: A possible approach to this program might be to have NRL do the mirror coating as customer furnished equipment, since this coating is also likely needed for other optical elements in the overall LADAR system. This might allow better consistency in system performance as well as possibly being more cost effective. Answer 2: The RFP is NOT revised to accept this suggestion -- NRL is procuring a complete, assembled, tested FSM. Question 3. We have a viable solution for your announced RFP, but the assigned proposal time, about a week, appears too short. Answer 3: The proposal due date and time are extended to 8:00 AM, Eastern, June 20, 2000. The acceptable methods of delivery are expanded to also include facsimile transmission (202) 767-6197) and email as a Word document(s) to waldenfels@contracts.nrl.navy.mil. Either or both may be used as the sole or backup delivery modes, but NRL may select a proposal as "the" proposal from any of the methods if multiple methods are used. Offers must be received by the deadline. Offerors are cautioned that email delivery is sometimes delayed for hours due to server behavior, and that other traffic may, particularly other offers, may occupy the facsimile machine and preclude delivery. An offer that is being received by facsimile by 7:30 AM will be considered if substantially complete by 8:00 AM. Mr. Waldenfels will attempt to accommodate requests for confirmation of delivery of proposals. Any further amendments to this solicitation will be available via the Internet at the URL address shown below. The two supplementing specifications and Exhibits A and B of the Contract Data Requirements List will also be available on the web. Paper copies of the RFP and any amendments will not be provided. For information regarding the solicitation, contact James P. Waldenfels. at phone number (202) 767-3003 or at fax number (202) 767-6197. Posted 06/15/00 (W-SN465172). (0167)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0286 20000619\66-0011.SOL)