F__Questions_and_Responses_0002.pdf

F. Questions and Responses

1. Question: SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

- Factor 4 – Past Performance page L-12.

You shall use the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (attached in Section J) to obtain past performance references for projects of similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude to this contract which were performed within the past six years for both your firm and your proposed major subcontractors.

We kindly USBR to consider ten years requirement instead of the six as stated for the past performance references. In addition, the requirement does not specify minimum number of references the contractor needs to provide.

Response: The solicitation requirements have been reviewed considering the question and are not being changed at this time. See FAR 42.1503(g) for additional information.

2. Question: L.10. WBR 1452.215-81 Proposal Instructions – Bureau of Reclamation (Mar

2021) - (b) Proposal Volumes. Offerors shall submit separate Volumes with the required number of copies as follows: Original hard copy and one (1) electronic copy (jump drive) must be compatible with Microsoft office products and/or Adobe PDF.

We kindly ask USBR the possibility of sending the offer by email, and or utilizing a platform to share the full offer content in comparison to hard copy and jump drive.

Response: See revised provision WBR 1452.215-81 Proposal Instructions- Bureau of

Reclamation (Mar 2021), use of a CD-ROM is added.

3. Question: Regarding the Requirement: Factor 6: Small Business Participation.

Bureau of Reclamation Small Business Targets Subcontracting Goals- Percentage of

Subcontracting Dollars excluding materials.

Please confirm the understanding that all materials like cables, pipping, valves, consumables, welding material etc. are excluded.

Response: The specification language speaks for itself.

4. Question: Section F, F.2.b What are the potential grounds for the Government terminating the Contractor’s right to proceed?

Response: The termination clauses FAR 52.249-2 Termination for Convenience of the

Government and FAR 52.249-10 Default (Fixed Price Construction) speak for themselves.

5. Question: Other than pages I-27 through I-30, are there any requirements for the % amounts of progress payments?

Response: The specifications and clauses speak for themselves.

6. Question: The weighted efficiency point A from Section B.2 is the guaranteed peak efficiency at net head 260 feet, but the weighted factor associated with this point corresponds to the full gate efficiency.

Please clarify if the guaranteed efficiency at point A is at peak or at full gate.

Response: The solicitation requirements have been reviewed considering the question and are being revised via amendment. See revised Schedule B.

7. Question: The weighted efficiency point B from Section B.2 is the guaranteed peak efficiency at net head 300 feet.

Please confirm that the guaranteed power at point B is the power at peak efficiency and not the power at full gate.

Response: The solicitation requirements have been reviewed considering the question and are being revised via amendment. See revised Section B

8. Question: Related to the previous question, point (e) from section E.4 mentions that a liquidated damage is associated with the warranted capacity in section B.2. The capacity usually refers to the maximum power available at full gate.

Please clarify your intent on the application of the liquidated damages, if the warranted capacity is applied at peak efficiency output or at full gate output.

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is not being revised at this time.

9. Question: Regarding the guaranteed power at point B from section B.2, shall it correspond

(refer to point 6. of B. Design and Performance Requirements from section 48 13 01 Part 2) to the tailwater "minimum with one unit running (3864 ft)" or the "normal one unit running (3866 ft)"?

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is being revised by way of this amendment. See revised Schedule B.

10. Question: Could you provide reports for the cavitation inspections and repairs needed on the existed runner with pictures/photos if available?

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is being revised by way of this amendment. See revised Division 51.

11. Question: If available, please provide plant/river yearly flow operational data including tail water level curves.

Response: See attachment “E”. Additional operational data is available on Hydromet:

https://www.usbr.gov/pn/hydromet/

12. Question: Section 48 13 08 Commissioning 3.01.C.11 – Would USBR please confirm that:

a) the Contractor will not be responsible to perform signature testing during commissioning or after the outage, and b) the Contractor will not have to set up vibration, strain gauge, or displacement measurements for commissioning or post-commissioning testing as are needed for the Pre-Shutdown Readings? If confirmed, we understand that this will be handled by the government and that the Contractor's personnel at site for commissioning are there only for adjustments and repairs.

Response: The specification speaks for itself.

13. Question: Section 48 13 04 Disassembly and As-Found Readings 3.02.B – Would USBR please confirm that the pre-shutdown (operational) readings will rely on existing plant instrumentation except for the following: Vibration in 3.02.B.5, and Strain gauge and displacement measurements in 3.02.B.6?

Please advise if the Contractor is responsible for any other permanent or temporary instrumentation for these readings.

Response: The specification speaks for itself.

14. Question: Section 48 13 01 – 4 Hydraulic Transient Analysis – Would USBR please confirm whether or not that the in-house developed transient analysis software, known as HYTRAN, would satisfy this requirement?

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is not being revised at this time.

15. Question: B-2 pdf page 20 – For B.2 Warranted Characteristics on pdf page 20, did USBR intend to have section B.2 (b) (1) (A) and B.2 (b) (1) (a) to specify different operating points?

What operating point gets listed for the fill in?

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is being revised by way of this amendment. See revised Schedule B.

16. Question: If available, could USBR please provide additional drawings of the casing showing more detail of the baffle vane?

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is being revised by way of this amendment. See revised Division 51.

17. Question: If available, could USBR please provide drawing of the hydraulic profile of the existing wicket gate?

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is not being revised at this time.

18. Question: If pressure taps already exist in the draft tube. Could USBR provide details of the location of the pressure transducer taps in the draft tube? Is there existing pressure pulsation data of the existing runner assembly available?

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is not being revised at this time.

19. Question: If available, could USBR provide pictures that shows the condition of the surface finish (roughness, rusting, voids…) of the existing water passage components: runner, wicket gates, stay ring and casing.

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is being revised by way of this amendment. See revised Division 51.

20. Question: Also, pictures that could identify the area, depth and location of any cavitation damage on the runner (blades).

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is being revised by way of this amendment. See revised Division 51.

21. Question: Could USBR inform how often repair for cavitation damage is needed and how long does it take usually for each repair?

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is being revised by way of this amendment. See revised Section 48 13 00.

22. Question: Could USBR inform when the existing vacuum breaker system works.

a. (Range of output and/or gate opening).

b. Does it make noise, if entrance to system is inside powerhouse?

c. Does this valve protect and admit air for load rejection at all gate openings?

d. Do the existing units have operational issues like stability (at which power/head), vibration, noise, etc.?

e. If available, could USBR provide details for operational records summarizing durations at different load settings from part load to full load.

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is being revised by way of this amendment. See revised Section 48 13 00.

23. Question: Regarding 1.02 PROJECT COORDINATION: a. Meeting shall be held weekly at the work site project office. Prepare agenda and distribute 24 hours before the meeting.

Please confirm the understanding that meetings shall be held weekly at the work site project office during the mobilization for installation and/or on-site work activities period?

Response: The solicitation requirements have been reviewed considering the question and are being revised via amendment. See revised Section 01 31 19.

24. Question: Section 48 13 15; 2.04.B – In section 48 13 15 para 2.01.A.1 it states the contractor is to design and fabricate a new lantern ring and gland. However, in para 2.04.B.1 and

2 there is a requirement for 100% dimensional and geometric inspection of the lantern ring and gland. Additionally, para 2.05.B and C require NDE such as visual and magnetic particle examination (MT).

Does USBR intend for the contractor to perform dimensional and non-destructive inspections of the packing gland and lantern ring even though they are being scrapped?

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is being revised by way of this amendment. See revised Section 48 13 15.

25. Question: Section 48 13 43; 2.01.B – Should proponents assume the brake ring segments will not be removed and should be machined while attached to the rotor? Can the generator floor support the weight of the rotor on stands so the brake ring can be machined at site?

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is being revised by way of this amendment. See revised Section 48 13 43.

26. Question: SECTION 01 31 30 CONTRACT DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM –

Would USBR consider replacing the entirety of Section 01 31 30 with a CDMS similar to the one currently being employed on the Mary’s Lake project for USBR? If not, would USBR provide specific examples of commercial software/platforms which are currently being used successfully which we could consider acquiring for the dedicated purpose of fulfilling the requirements of this section of the specification for Anderson Ranch?

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is not being revised at this time.

27. Question: Regarding the Table 01 33 00A, 01 31 30-1 Contract Document Management

System, Approval Data, within 7 days of Notice to Proceed. We kindly ask to extend the period for 21 days of Notice to Proceed.

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is being revised by way of this amendment. See revised Section 01 33 00..

28. Question: Regarding the Table 01 33 00A, 01 32 10-1, Construction Program Representative

Information, within 7 days after receipt of Notice of Proceed. We kindly ask to extend the period for 21 days of Notice to Proceed.

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is being revised by way of this amendment. See revised Section 01 33 00.

29. Question: Is there sufficient storage onsite to contain all the oil drained from the generator and turbine bearings?

Response: Your question has been considered and the solicitation is not being revised at this time.

30. Question: What is the manufacturer stated accuracy of the installed ultrasonic flowmeter system?

Response: The specification speaks for itself.

31. Question: Can you provide a table of generator electrical losses across the range of operation at unity power factor?

Response: The specification speaks for itself. See Section 48 13 00 Part 1.07 B.

32. Question: For the hydraulic transient analysis, is the minimum travel time studied intended to be the case where cushioning fails?

Response: The specifications speak for themselves, see Section 48 13 01 1.03 C.3.b (with cushioning).

33. Question: For the hydraulic transient analysis, are we to assume existing cushioning conditions or recommend cushioning details?

Response: The specification speaks for itself.

34. Question: For the hydraulic transient analysis, are the requested draft tube pressure curves intended to verify that we do not have column separation during shutdown?

Response: The specification speaks for itself.