Attachment_7_-_Bidder_Questions_0003.pdf

Trinity River Division GSU Transformer Replacements Central Valley Project, California Solicitation No. 140R2024R0002

Questions from Pre-Bid Site Visit

CALIFORNIA-GREAT BASIN

REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION OFFICE

TITLE: Trinity River Division GSU Transformer Replacements

SOLICITATION NO.: 140R2024R0002

Questions/Answers by: 2024-09-13

1. Can the contract period of performance be extended from 1950 days to 2315 days?

a. Yes, see amendment 002 which increased the period of performance to 2900 days.

2. Can you provide clarification of the intent of Specification Section 48 19 22, Paragraph 1.04.B. This paragraph includes the statement that “All transformers shall have the ability to be installed at any power plant”.

a. Specification Section 48 19 22 – Isolated Phase Bus, Article 1.04B states: “Design the isolated phase bus connection point to be the same height for all three power plants. All transformers shall have the ability to be installed at any power plant. For modifications to the existing bus, see Section 26 05 05 – Selective Demolition for Electrical.

b. Specification Section 48 19 23 – Electrical Power Generation Transformers, Article 1.05.A.16 states “Design the transformer’s low voltage bushing heights to be the same at all power plants; allowing for installation of any transformer at any plant.”

c. The intent of the specifications is to make it clear that the isolated phase bus connection heights are to be the same at all three plants. This will allow for Reclamation to be able to move the transformer between plants in the future and as needed.

3. Specification Section 48 19 23, Para 1.05 gives clearance information, is there a weight restriction for the new GSU’s?

a. There is no weight restriction on Reclamation facilities with respect to the transformer; however, the bidder must verify transportation routes which may have weight and other restrictions depending on the route chosen. Specifics on transportation can be found in Section 48 19 23, Article 1.06.

4. Specification Section 48 19 23, Para 1.06 indicates the new GSU’s should ship empty, dry air/nitrogen filled. We’d like to ship the units disassembled and oil filled, is this permissible?

Amendment 003

Central Valley Project, California Solicitation No. 140R2024R0002

Questions from Pre-Bid Site Visit

a. Section 48 19 23, Article 1.06 assumes the transformer will be disassembled into a shipping configuration. If the bidder determines that the weight to cost ratio is cost effective to ship the transformer filled with fluid, then it will be acceptable. Note that the transformer cannot be shipped with oil (in terms of mineral oil) and must be shipped with the insulating fluid defined in Section 48 19 24 – Transformer Insulating Fluid.

5. Please confirm the intent is for the GSU’s to remain permanently mounted on the wheelbase, this is relevant to the Seismic design and Seismic anchorage design for the units.

a. Yes, the transformers will remain permanently mounted on the wheelbase at each location.

6. It is not clear that there are nameplate photo’s for each of the GSU’s for each of the plants.

Specific to JF Carr, Table 1 of 48 19 23 calls out the base impedance at 12.2%. The nameplate photo indicates 10.4%. Can Reclamation provide a representative photo of one of the GSU’s from each plant?

a. The Judge Francis Carr transformers are specified in Table 2 of Section 48 19 23 – Electrical Power Generation Transformers. Table 1 is specific to Spring Creek as listed in the heading of the Table.

b. The impedance values for the new transformers are specified in Section 48 19 23, Article 2.01 (Table 1: Spring Creek, Table 2: Judge Francis Carr, Table 3: Trinity).

For clarification, the impedance values of the new transformers will not match the existing transformers. Value from Section 48 19 23 are listed below:

a. Spring Creek Powerplant: 12.2% on a base of 41MVA

b. Judge Francis Carr Powerplant: 10.4% on a base of 35MVA

c. Trinity Powerplant: 8.9% on a base of 30MVA

7. Please Confirm the new GSU’s are to have the base impedance per Table 1 of 48 19 23?

a. Yes, the impedance values for the new transformers are specified in Section 48 19 23, Article 2.01 (Table 1: Spring Creek, Table 2: Judge Francis Carr, Table 3: Trinity).

For clarification, the impedance values of the new transformers will not match the existing transformers. Value from Section 48 19 23 are listed below:

a. Spring Creek Powerplant: 12.2% on a base of 41MVA

b. Judge Francis Carr Powerplant: 10.4% on a base of 35MVA

c. Trinity Powerplant: 8.9% on a base of 30MVA

8. Sheet 12 of 117 of the Drawings is Westinghouse Drawing 248-D-225. This appears to be the drawing for Spring Creek, is this correct? Can a similar drawing be provided for Trinity and JF Carr?

a. Correct, as listed in Section 52 00 00 – Drawings, Table 1 is specific to Spring Creek.

Drawing sheet number 12 is within Table 1 and therefore specific to the Westinghouse Transformers found at Spring Creek.

b. Similar drawings for Judge Francis Carr Powerplant and Trinity Powerplant are provided in Amendment 003. Drawing sheet numbers 45: Judge Francis Carr and 85:

Trinity.

9. Other than matching, to the extent possible, the configuration of the new GSU’s to match the old Units, are there any specific requirements for components to be in a specific segment?

a. Yes, specific requirements are provided in Section 48 19 23 – Electrical Power Generation Transformers.

b. Additionally, the new transformers should not match the existing transformers to the extent possible. The new transformers must meet the requirements of the Specifications.

10. How far in advance of a given plant outage, especially for the 2nd and 3rd plants, would Reclamation allow the units to be delivered and stored onsite?

a. For the purpose of proposal development, onsite storage should be assumed to be no greater than 3-months prior to the outage for each facility.

11. Fluid Type – Hitachi Energy (HE) has had issues with Midel in the past and is proposing to use Nycodiel Synthetic Ester Fluid. We are seeking your approval to use this fluid as an alternative to Midel. More information on this fluid can be found at https://www.nyco-group.com/products/nycodiel-en/. We would welcome a technical discussion with USBR staff on this topic if you like.

a. The Specifications do not require a particular manufacturer. Requirements for the transformer insulating fluid can be found in Section 48 19 24 – Transformer Insulating Fluid. Documentation showing the fluid meets the requirements (definitions, testing methods, and resultant values) must be provided for the chosen manufacturer and type of fluid.

12. Source Location – the HE South Boston does not have much familiarity with synthetic ester.

HE proposes to use our Poland factory to source these transformers. The downside is that this factor would not comply with Buy American. HE is seeking USBR input on if sourcing the transformers from outside the US will be accepted.

a. Yes, an outside US factory is acceptable for all large power transformer manufacturing.

b. Specifically, Poland is listed as a designated country per Section I – Contract Clauses, FAR 52.225-11.

13. Short Circuit Testing – The Trinity spec allows for factory to provide recent SC test of similar design. HE has a similar design short circuit test report that can be provided. HE is seeking confirmation that a short circuit test on the specific design for Trinity is not required.

a. Per Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, if a bidder has a past Short Circuit Test Certification from an applicable testing facility for a similar design, it should be provided in the proposal.

b. As specified in Section 48 19 23 – Electrical Power Generation Transformers, Article 1.04.C.4.n, the transformer must have similar electrical characteristics and must include the type of insulating fluid specified in Section 48 19 24 – Transformer Insulating Fluid, synthetic ester, to be considered ‘similar’.

14. The current deadline to submit questions is tomorrow, 9/13. We request a two-week extension from when the question we submitted on 8/19 is answered to submit additional questions.

a. The question submitted on 08/19 was answered during the Site Visit on August 26th as well as posted with Amendment 002 on September 13th. See below for the question and answer:

a. Would it be acceptable for the manufacturer to design the transformers for FR3, but test them with mineral oil at the factory? The transformers would be filled with FR3 at site.

1) Per Section 48 19 23 – Electrical Power Generation Transformers

Article 2.04.A, the transformers are to be designed, impregnated, tested, filled on site, and operated with synthetic ester fluid.

Alternate insulating fluid for impregnation and/or factory testing is not acceptable.

2) Please also note that FR3 is a natural ester fluid. Please see Section 48 19 24 – Transformer Insulating Fluid for requirements on the specified synthetic ester fluid.

b. The Government has also officially extended the question deadline to Monday, October 14th which is posted with Amendment 003. This extension for question will not result in an extension for proposals due which remains November 1st, 2024.