1. 1 An Overview of the Request for Proposals for Production of NCSX Modular Coil Winding Forms [RFP 04-016F] July 12, 2004 P. Heitzenroeder, F. Malinowski, L. Sutton, D. Williamson, B. Nelson, H. Neilson

2. 2 Outline 1.Statement of Work (SOW) Highlights 2.Specification Highlights 3.Proposal Preparation 4.The Selection Process 5.Basis of Award 6.Questions and Answers Areas of significant change compared to those used for the Prototype activities are highlighted in red in the slides which follow. DISCLAIMER: This presentation highlights areas of significant of change and outlines the selection process, but it is the Offeror’s responsibility to review and evaluate the formal documentation provided in the Request for Proposal and provide his offer on that basis.

3. 3 Scope Six Type A, six Type B, and five Type C winding forms per the specification. –Winding forms are to be produced in accordance with the Subcontractor’s MIT / QA Plan Needs to be approved prior to the beginning of production. Managing it after approval will primarily be the subcontractor’s responsibility. –Deviations to the approved MIT plan needs to be included in the weekly report. –PPPL’s prior written approval is required only for deviations which may adversely affect schedule or conformance to the product specification Completion of the Sixth Type C winding form – i.e. finishing the “pre-production” Type C winding form that is to be produced under the present Manufacturing Development / Prototype Fabrication Subcontract. 1. SOW

4. 4 Deliverables Eighteen winding forms conforming to the Specification. –A shipping release is required prior to each shipment. Process history documentation Tooling & Software specifically fabricated or generated for the performance of this SOW shall become the property of the US Government. –CAD/CAM files need to be maintained for at least three years. Weekly Reports –Similar to the current ones (technical, administrative, quality activities) but with emphasis on notable problems and issues and with digital photos. Monthly Reports –These reports will replace the present Earned Value Reports. –The monthly reports focus on schedule progress (including actual and forecast) for each planned task or deliverable. –A narrative explanation of schedule delays is required. 1. SOW

5. 5 NCSX-CSPEC-141-03 Highlights The weight % min/max of the chemical constituents of the alloy is required. –Please submit with proposal. –The successful offeror’s formulation will replace Table 3-1. The chemical composition shall be controlled and verified for each casting and for each heat. The Subcontractor’s guaranteed minimum mechanical properties which meet or exceed those given in Table 3-2 are required. (please submit with proposal) –The properties will apply to both the casting alloy AND the weld material. –The successful offeror’s table of properties will replace Table 3-2. –The properties need to take into account the range of chemical constituents in the alloy! –Elastic modulus is now included and the Charpy V- notch requirement has been increased. –The mechanical properties need to be controlled and verified by testing for each casting. 6 specimens are required for each test (2 from each of 3 zones for testing at RT and 77 K). Test data must be referenced to specimen ID. –Material sufficient to make (6) 3” x 3” x ¾” specimens shall be provided (ref: 4.2.2.4). Zone 1 Zone 3 Zone 2 2. Specification

6. 6 Repairs NCSX-CSPEC-141-03 now addresses several classes of repair: –Non-weld repairs (i.e. defect removal by grinding) –Weld repairs Minor (welding procedure qualification needs to show evidence of compliance with magnetic permeability & mechanical properties requirements). Major (like before, but with permeability testing of the cavity included) Repairs in high stress areas (defects <0.125” shall be removed by grinding; others require PPPL evaluation for disposition). 2. Specification

7. 7 Tolerance Requirements Have Changed Max. weight now specified As cast wall thickness is now +0.25 / -0.00. The general profile tolerance is + / - 0.25” as before. 2. Specification

8. 8 Why Have The Tolerances Changed? The wall thickness changed to assure that the winding form would have strength equal to or greater than the analytical model. Previously the shell thickness was 1.125” + / -0.25”. –The min. shell thickness could have been 0.875”. If so, the shell stiffness would decrease, resulting in increased deflections which could affect performance. What would happen if If, in production, the wall thickness HAS a negative tolerance and fell undersize? –A non-conformance would be written. –In most regions the stresses are low. NCSX would evaluate the non- conformance. If the thin region is small (i.e., extending <25% of the local width), and in a low stress region we would accept “as is”. If it was in a high stress region or its size would result in a structural concern, the low region would have to be filled in with weld material. A max. weight limit is necessary. –To assure that the lift weight stays within our crane limits. –To assure “stellarator symmetry”. Widely different winding form weights, for the same coil form type, would result in widely different electromagnetic time constants and structural behavior which could affect performance. 2. Specification

9. 9 There Are Several Changes in the Inspection Requirements A “post machining” liquid penetrant inspection is required (Ref. 4.2.7.2.2, 3.2.1.6.2 and 3.2.1.6.3 ). –Defects <0.125% deep to be removed by grinding. –Defects >0.125% deep to be repaired by welding). Radiographic inspection of high stress regions (<10% of the machined areas) is required (Ref. 4.2.8.1). –The radiographic technique must have a sensitivity of at least 1% of the thickness being inspected. –Areas will be defined in drawings to be provided. –Areas not meeting requirements of Sect. 3.2.1.7 need to be evaluated by PPPL to determine if excavation and repair is required or not. Surface cracks, which will be addressed by the liquid penetrant Inspection are the most significant. Since this will be a second radiographic test, is expected that most internal flaws detected by this inspection will be small and could be accepted “as is”. 2. Specification

10. 10 Proposals Are due Friday, July 30, 2004 at 2:00 PM Eastern time. –An original and 4 copies are to be submitted. Please clearly define the production schedule in your proposal. It is anticipated that a fixed price subcontract will be issued prior to September 15, 2004. Administrative and technical questions are to be submitted in writing to Larry Sutton, the RFP Coordinator. Proposals shall be as compact, explicit, and as descriptive as possible, with sufficient narrative to fully describe the offeror’s capabilities. 3. Proposals

11. 11 The Proposal Shall Be in Four Distinct Sections Section 1: General Information –Proposal information form provided in Part IV of this RFP. –A statement that the offeror agrees to execute and submit, before entering into a Subcontract resulting from this Solicitation; a “Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data”. Section 2: Past Performance of Modular Coil Winding Form Manufacturing Development and Prototype Fabrication and Capability for Modular Coil Winding Form Fabrication. –It is your responsibility, and in your best interest, to provide in writing in your Proposal all relevant information that addresses your Company’s / Team’s past performance and present and projected future capability as pertains to the criteria. Section 3: Subcontract Provisions –Provide a clear statement of the acceptance of the RFP sample Subcontract Agreement, including its General Provisions. If exception is taken to any part, identify by document and paragraph any changes, deletions, or additions you require. Section 4: Price Proposal –Submit in accordance with “Instructions for Submitting Price Proposal” in US dollars. 3. Proposals

12. 12 Qualification Criteria Offerors must currently be performing under a Princeton NCSX Modular Coil Winding Form Manufacturing Development and Prototype Fabrication Subcontract. –Team members can be added or substituted as long as the contracting organization is currently performing under the noted subcontract.

13. 13 Evaluation Criteria – Past Performance Factors (will account for 60% of score) 40% will be based on Prototype Compliance- techniques, achievements, and understanding in the following areas: –Dimensional tolerances –Mechanical and physical properties of casting alloy. –Weld repairs –Poloidal break –Magnetic permeability –Non-destructive testing –Surface finish –Handling of non-conformances 20% will be based Management (i.e., performance relative to Prototype subcontract) –Communication –Adequacy of Project Management –Response to technical issues and problems –Reliability of estimates (cost, schedule) –Adequacy of QA oversight –Quality of the MIT / QA Plans –Compliance with Subcontract requirements for QA documentation –Problems identified and corrective actions. 4. Evaluation

14. 14 Evaluation Criteria – Technical Capability Factors (will account for 25% of score) Adequacy and commitment of facilities and personnel and / or sub-contractual arrangements to support the production effort in the following areas: –Floor space –Casting –NDT testing –Heat treatment / stress relieving –Weld repairs –Magnetic permeabilty measuring and monitoring –Metrology –Machining –QA / QC Technical Approach Risk Management 4. Evaluation

15. 15 Evaluation Criteria – Management for MCWF Production (will account for 15% of score) Annual financial reports Organizational structure / reporting relationships Key personnel Letters of commitment from lower-tier subcontractors Evidence of sufficient machine, skilled labor, and floor space to produce the (18) winding forms ON THE SCHEDULE PROPOSED. If a large domestic business, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Description of any changes to the offeror’s QA program. 4. Evaluation

16. 16 Basis of Award Must clearly demonstrate the capability to meet all specified requirements to achieve a rating of Acceptable for a factor or sub factor. Subcontract award will be to the Offeror whose proposal contains the combination of those criteria offering the best overall value to PPPL and the Government. –More concerned with obtaining superior technical, project management, and business consideration features than with the lowest overall price. –Price may be the determinant should PPPL conclude that no significant difference exists between the proposals in other evaluative areas. –PPPL will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve only slightly superior technical, management, and business consideration factors. PPPL reserves the right not to make a Subcontract award if deemed in the best interest of PPPL and the Government. 5.

17. 17 Questions? We are glad to address any questions you have now. If other questions arise as you prepare your proposal, you are requested to submit them in writing (e-mail) to Larry Sutton –They will be answered in a timely manner. –Questions and responses that may be of general interest will be transmitted to both RFP recipients. 6.