140R4023R0014_Questions_and_Answers_-_Amendment_0008_0008.pdf

140R4023R0014 – Butterfly Valve Replacement at Blue Mesa Powerplant

Questions (# 52 - 83) and Answers

52) HPU – Hydraulic Actuator System: Is there any condition wherein the HPU is to control both valves at the same time?

Answer: This is unlikely. However, this is required per Section 35 22 16 Hydraulic Operating

System paragraph 2.03 A 6. "The hydraulic operating system shall be capable of operating both

TSV(s) simultaneously.”

53) HPU – Hydraulic Actuator System: In the case of an emergency, is there a possibility the two valves are to close at the same time?

Answer: This is unlikely. However, this is required per Section 35 22 16 Hydraulic Operating

System paragraph 2.03 A 6. "The hydraulic operating system shall be capable of operating both

TSV(s) simultaneously.”

54) HPU – Hydraulic Actuator System: Is there any operating timeline in which to close the

Valve Discs?

a. Normal Standard

b. Emergency Condition

Answer: Per Section 35 22 15 Turbine Shutoff Valve paragraph 1.04 P 6, valve closing time shall be 2.5 minutes for both the normal and emergency conditions. Please note the reference listed is from most recent version of specifications posted.

55) HPU – Hydraulic Actuator System: In the event of power failure what operating time is expected?

Answer: The operating time for closure of the TSV upon power loss shall be 2.5 minutes.

56) Per I.27 – WBR 1452.246-81, Alternate I, Failure to Meet Performance Warranties – Bureau of Reclamation (Mar 2022), this section outlines the penalty for performance for the new butterfly valves at $50,000 per each 0.1% increased head loss, and that the site testing certainty is as much as +/- 0.75%.

The interpretation of this section is that the 0.1% head loss increase is related to the net head of the measurable span, not a 0.1% of the measured head loss itself. For example, the net head of the unit is estimated to be 10 bar, with a loss across the butterfly valve of 0.1 bar (i.e. 1% head loss). This statement is interpreted to mean that the penalty is triggered if the measured net head decreases by 0.01 bar (0.1% of the 10 bar) and not 0.0001 bar (0.1% of the 1%). This reasoning is reinforced by the ability to measure the performance, using pressure transducers capable of measuring 10 bar, are not capable of measuring differences of 0.0001 bar.

As the site testing uncertainty is as much as +/-0.75%, the understanding is that the penalty would not be imposed if the delta in head loss was within this error band, i.e. the penalty would not be triggered unless the total head loss was greater than the error band, 1.5% + 0.1% increased. Please confirm if these assumptions are correct.

Answer:

The 0.1% is derived from the difference between the head loss of the existing valve as measured by the contractor, and the head loss of the new valve as installed. For example, if the existing valve is found to have a head loss of 10 feet across the valve, the new valve should have a head loss of that or less. The penalty would be applied if the new valve head loss exceeded the existing measured head loss. If the new valve were found to have a head loss of 10.01 feet across the valve, that would be a 0.1% increase in head loss. This level of accuracy should be achievable with commercially available pressure transducers.

The second assumption is correct, where the .1% head loss penalty is not imposed if the measured differential head loss between the existing valve and the new valve is within the uncertainty band.

57) According to Turbine Shutoff Valves 35 22 15, item 1.04, P.3. (page 302 of the specification): “TSV shall be capable of opening against a differential head of 360 feet.” This is interpreted that the requirement is to consider opening the valve with 100% differential head

(pressure). Is this understanding correct? Most customer requirements in the industry require a

10% differential pressure.

Answer: The turbine shutoff valves are not required to open against a differential head of 360 feet. The turbine shutoff valves are not required to open except under near balanced pressure conditions. The turbine shutoff valves are required to close against a differential head of 156 psig under full flow conditions per Section 35 22 15 paragraph 1.04 I 5.

58) Please provide the drawings of the currently installed valves and the valve chamber / powerhouse.

Answer: Drawings provided upon request, email Brandi Clark, Contract Specialist, brandiclark@usbr.gov to request copy of Drawings.

59) The project description Item D calls for one 149-inch diameter Ellipsoidal Dished Head –

Drawing 622-D-60047.

a) Please advise where this is to be included in the Price Schedule A.

b) Is this item described in detail in the specifications?

c) The specs call for a Dresser coupling – by Ferguson. Are there Spec and Plan Sheet details?

a) The Ellipsoidal Dished Head should be included on CLIN A-12, Metal Piping.

b) Specifications Section 35 21 95 Metal Piping contains the requirements for the dished head, see paragraph 1.04 1 c. and 2.01 E.

c) Pdf page 120, sheet number 116 (Drawing 208-A) of the Solicitation drawing package is the Dresser Coupling drawing and specification from the original installation. See

Specifications Section 35 21 95 Metal Piping for additional requirements for rehabilitating the couplings.

60) In the questions-answers table submitted with amendment 003, question 8 requires a 156 inch valve, which is larger than the upstream conduit, which is sized 149 inches. Presumably, this is why section 01 14 12 – 1.04 Q references the minimum value of 149 inches. A 156 inch valve would require a new diverging pipe spool section on the upstream side, and a steeper converging pipe spool on the downstream side. Taken together, a 156 inch valve would be unnecessarily more expensive and have higher losses overall, by a good margin. Please reconsider the value to allow at least a 149 inch valve as stated in section 01 14 12 – 1.04 Q

Answer: Government intent is to replace in kind. Provide 156-inch diameter TSVs in accordance with Specifications Section 35 22 15 and as shown on drawings 622-D-60045 through 622-D-

60047.

61) Per I.27 – WBR 1452.246-81, Alternate I, Failure to Meet Performance Warranties – Bureau of Reclamation (Mar 2022), this section outlines the penalty for performance for the new butterfly valves at $50,000 per each 0.1% increased head loss, and that the site testing certainty is as much as +/- 0.75%.

Due to error bands in the onsite testing expected as high as +/- 0.75% which is larger than the increment of performance to be guaranteed, it is suggested that the CFD performance of the new design be used as the defining performance for guarantees and liquidated damages. The CFD calculations are generally conservative in calculation and therefore the prototype will have better performance than the simulated CFD calculation. Additionally, the existing valve can be modeled in CFD for comparison.

Answer: Per Specifications Section 35 22 15 paragraph 1.04 E. “Evaluate and provide Cv of new

TSVs utilizing CFD analysis or equivalent. Cv of new TSVs to be verified during

Commissioning.” CFD may be used to determine the Cv of the new valve, and site testing shall be used to verify the value determined in the CFD. Per paragraph 1.04C, Cv of existing valve shall be determined by field testing as detailed in Section 35 22 15 paragraph 1.07. The field testing of the existing valve will be the baseline for the performance of the new valve.

62) Under 35.22.15 2.05 K 2.b, it is stated regarding the hydrostatic testing of the TSV:

“The TSV valve body shall be tested under an internal hydrostatic pressure equal to twice the rated pressure of the valve.”

This is not per the ASME 'Boiler and pressure vessel code' Section VIII, UG99 which requires

1.3 times the maximum allowable working pressure (rated pressure). This may be up to 1.5 times for consistency with the rest of the specification, specifically article 2.03 E.1.a, in section

35.22.14 but not 2.0 times. Please confirm.

Answer: Hydrostatic testing shall be done at twice the rated pressure of the valve per specification 35 22 15 2.05 K 2 B.

63) The specifications require that design and drawings shall be stamped by a Registered

Professional Engineer.

Would the Government accept that design and drawings of the TSV, Hydraulic Operating

System, Ring Follower Gate and any other components mentioned in the Specifications, and for which stamping by a Professional Engineer is required, be done by a Registered Professional

Engineer outside the United States (e.g. Canada)?

Answer: A Registered Professional engineer outside the United States would be acceptable, provided the professional engineer requirements for that country meet or exceed the requirements for a P.E. in the United States. Additionally, all other requirements of specifications Section 35 22 15 paragraph 1.06 A shall be met.

64) CLINs V through Y request a price for replacement parts for the ring follower gates, though the “Quantity and Unit” listed is “40 pounds”. Could the government clarify its expectations for the scope of these CLINs?

Answer: The Government anticipates that during the rehabilitation of the Ring Follower Gates, some appurtenant components like seats, guides, bushings, glands, etc.… will need to be replaced. For bidding purposes, the total weight of replaced equipment was estimated to be 40 pounds. The CLIN’s are broken out into metal type, to simplify the estimating of unit price of

$/lb of that material. The bid value should reflect replacement of the given part assuming it weighs 40 pounds.

65) With respect to the 156” Butterfly Shut Off Valves, we respectfully request your consideration and prior approval as follows:

Valve Material

For Body and Disc approval of A536 GA 65-45-12 materials.

Reason for Request

With A516 Gr 70 Material, for this large of a size valve, it is very difficult to provide a weld that is in full conformance with the preparation welding documents as specified.

Please consider that material A536 Gr 65-45-12 has the same Chemical Composition as A516 Gr

70 and we guarantee the quality is equal to or better than A516 Gr 70.

We will guarantee the quality of the casting per NDE Test (MT).

Answer: Ductile iron valve bodies are not allowed. Valve body material shall conform to the requirements in Specifications section 35 22 15 paragraph 2.01 A 5 b.

66) The bid guarantee value (par c) of FAR Clause 52.228-1) is usually capped at 3MUSD

(percentage or 3M$, whichever is less). Can you confirm that the amount is indeed capped at

3MUSD ?

Answer: That is correct. In accordance with FAR 28.101-2(b), “…The bid guarantee amount shall be at least 20 percent of the bid price but shall not exceed $3 million.” Clause 52.228-1 has been updated to reflect this.

67) Can USBR tell us what is the millwright labor classification, as it is not currently listed as a labor category in the Blue Mesa Wage Determination sheet?

Answer: In accordance with FAR 22.406-3 Additional Classifications, Contractors are responsible for complying with the minimum wage and benefits requirements for each classification performing work on the contract. If the applicable wage determination does not list a classification considered necessary by the contractor for performance of the work, the contractor must initiate an SF-1444, “Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and

Rate,” at the time of employment of the unlisted classification.

The contractor submits the completed SF-1444 to the contracting officer. The contracting agency reviews the SF-1444 before submitting the conformance request to the U.S. Department of Labor

(DOL). The DOL will complete the process and return the completed letter back to the contracting agency for distribution to interested parties.

For reference if submitting the SF-1444, the Service Contract Act WD # 2015-5435 for the same area lists the rate for 23640 - Millwright at $28.05. This rate plus $14.25 of Fringe is an acceptable wage.

68) Can you clarify whether the Contractor shall supply the required hydraulic fluid for the new

HPU and valve?

Answer: The Contractor is required to supply the required hydraulic fluid for the new HPU and valve. See attached revised specifications 35 22 16 – Hydraulic Operating System.

69) In section 35 22 21 article 3.8, it is requested to machine the seats, guides and shims to the dimensions as shown on the informational drawings. However, the condition of these parts are not known at this stage, and they may already be within the specified tolerances. We suggest that this machining be covered as an option, and separately for the seats and guides. If the seats on the embedded parts are to be replaced, their mounting surface may also need machining to meet the tolerances. Can you provide optional bid items for each of these items?

Answer: It is acknowledged that the level of effort required to meet the specified surface finishes of the seats and guides is unknown until disassembly. This work may, or may not, require in-place and/or shop machining. This should be accounted for in the lump sum payment bid A-19 and A-20. List all assumptions in proposal. Also see Clause 52.236-2 Differing Site Conditions.

70) Section 09 96 20 (coatings) specifies instructions for the coating of pipe and piping under tabulations 02 and 04. We understand that the inlet and outlet sections of the penstock around the butterfly valve or ring follower gate does not qualify as ‘pipe’ or ‘piping’ and is not to be recoated. Please confirm that our understanding is correct.

Answer: Confirmed. Note that per specifications Section 35 21 95 paragraph 3.02 F 3 any areas on the existing penstock where field welding is performed shall be prepared and recoated following Section 09 96 20. If existing coatings are damaged, repair per Specifications Section

09 96 20 paragraph 3.08 A and Specifications Section 01 56 10 paragraph 3.04 A.

71) Section 35 22 15, article 2.02, H, regarding flanges and flanged connections, it is stated the

Contractor shall “limit any and all irregularities or warping in the face of all flanges to 0.0015 of an inch” Please clarify if this includes the existing upstream and downstream flanges connecting to the new valve and if the site re-machining of these faces shall be included in the base scope.

Answer: No machining of existing upstream and downstream flanges is covered in the base scope. Specifications Section 35 22 15 paragraph 3.01 B requires examination of the existing flanges to ensure the existing flanges are in suitable condition for leak-free TSV installation. Any defects found shall be reported under RSN 35 21 95-2 with a repair alternative, cost estimate and schedule impact.

72) Section 35 21 14, article 1.04 requests the disassembly of the sleeve type coupling to facilitate removal of the existing butterfly valve. While loosening of the followers and the middle ring is required to shift the sleeve and create a 1’’ gap (based on the informational drawings), this gap is sufficient for the removal of the existing valve and installation of the new valve components. Can you clarify if the complete removal of the sleeve type coupling is needed?

Answer: Per Specification Section 35 21 95 paragraph 1.04 B 2 a outlines the requirements of the coupling rehabilitation. If all these items can be completed without complete removal of the couplings or damaging the existing pipe, then complete removal is not required.

73) 35 22 14 – 17, 2.03 Contract Source Quality Testing:

E.2. - The specification requires “drip tight” acceptance for the valve pressure testing. Could the

Government confirm if DIN EN 12266-1 (rate G) is acceptable as a standard to confirm to? Or if

ISO 5208 is acceptable? Or confirm if another industry standard should apply?

Answer: Per specifications section 35 22 14 paragraph 2.03 E 2 c “If valve is not drip tight (no leakage), valve is unacceptable”.

74) For Factor 3 (Project Schedule), USBR is asking that we present two schedule options for the replacement with the new TSV’s (sequential and concurrent removal of the butterfly valves and their replacement).

There is also work restrictions which specify that interruption of service window available to

Contractor is for 6 consecutive weeks per outage window and Butterfly valve removal and TSV installation work should not occur during winter months (December-February) with hatches removed due to potential snow and freezing temperatures.

Due to the above work restrictions, it would not be possible to do a sequential replacement of the

TSV’s, it needs to be concurrent.

Is it mandatory to provide such a sequential scenario?

With the concurrent scenario, is it acceptable to work on two shifts or increase the 6 weeks outage window? If flange face machining is required, this 6 weeks window might not be sufficient.

Answer: Factor 3 – Project Schedule has been updated to state, “The schedule shall include a sequential, a concurrent, or both (a sequential and concurrent) removal of the butterfly valves and their replacement with new TSVs.” With the concurrent scenario, include proposed shifts to accomplish the schedule. If sequential option is not possible, show that in submitted schedule.

75) The specification mentions that the Government will provide at a minimum, 48 hours advance notice for return of outlet works to service.

a. Contractor shall install ellipsoidal dished head to return outlet works to service within 3 days if required for water release requirements.

b. Contractor shall maintain the ability, and have a plan in place, to close existing butterfly valves or new TSVs to return outlet works to service within 3 days if required for water release requirements.

The above requirement might be very difficult to meet once we start the installation of the new

TSV’s, is it possible to provide an exception to this requirement? For the RFG, this requirement could be met.

Answer: The outlet works must be returned to service in accordance with the specifications.

76) In Section 01 31 19 – 1.04 Project Coordination – 4. Design and Progress Review Meetings, USBR requires that the Contractor Project manager and project engineer attend the weekly progress review meeting. Is it acceptable if the Project Manager and Project Engineer call into the weekly meeting or is it mandatory that they attend in person every week ?

Will there be other work going on when the contractor is performing its scope of work ?

Answer: Weekly progress review meetings will be done virtually.

77) In Section 02 83 35 Removal and Disposal of Coatings Containing Hazardous Materials, USBR indicates that the Contractor will be considered the co-generator of hazardous waste in accordance with 6 CCR 1007-3 Part 262.

According to this section is the Contractor co-generator of all hazardous waste or only the waste generated by the contractor?

Answer: Contractor shall be considered a co-generator of all hazardous waste on site. This is a federal regulation and applies to all states.

78) Spec Section 01 11 00 – 1 Section 1.04 A.3. Supply and design of two reinforced concrete pedestals, steel pedestals, or re-use of existing reinforced concrete pedestals….

a. Can the BOR provide allowable contact pressure or the load rating of the existing pedestals?

b. Are there any additional FIO drawings that show the rebar configuration of the existing pedestals?

a. Specification FIO Drawing 622-D-48 contains the valve weight and concrete working stress requirements from original installation.

b. Additional FIO drawings showing the rebar configuration of the existing pedestals and structure to be provided.

79) Spec Section 26 05 04 – 3 Section 3.03 Contractor Field Quality Testing Paragraph’s A. &

D. Paragraph A states to Perform testing on conductors and cables to be re-used and items 1, 2, and 3 distinguish the cables. Paragraph D states, If any conductor fails continuity or insulation continuity or insulation resistance testing, remove and replace cable and conductor. Are we to include the cost to replace the cables in the base bid since we won’t know if they are viable until testing, or will cables in need of replacement be handled with a Contract Modification if this condition is encountered?

Answer: Generally, assume that all conductors would be reused except for new power cables to the valve. List all assumptions in proposal.

80) Spec Section 01 14 30 Interruption of Service Section 1.03 Project Conditions Paragraph

A.4. -

a. How many 6 consecutive week shut-down windows are allowed within the outage window?

b. What is the minimum time between shut-down windows?

c. What is the duration to un-water and re-water the penstock system for a shut-down?

a. Contractor may request multiple shutdowns within the outage window (October 1 through April 30) as long as hydrologic, water demands (i.e. water is on spillway, required releases, etc.), and power demands are met. The shutdowns shall be coordinated and approved by the COR.

b.

1. There is no minimum time between shut-down windows for the turbine shut off valve (TSV) scope of work.

2. Ring Follower Gate Rehabilitation calls for 4 outages, see below and see Section

35 22 21 paragraph 1.05 B. These outages are indicated as being different than the ones needed for the TSV outages (1.05 C). The outages described indicate that there should be enough time between the outages to rehab the entire gate prior to reinstalling.

3. Inspection Outage

4. Outage 1, RFG 1 removal (install blind flange)

5. Outage 2, RFG No.1 Install, RFG No. 2 Removal (install blind flange)

6. Outage 3, RFG No.2 Install

c. Estimated at half a day.

81) Page 93 of the Solicitation – Factor 3 Project Schedule – Factor 3 states “The schedule shall include both sequential and concurrent removal of the butterfly valves and their replacement with new TSVs.” These two different approaches to sequence have different cost implications due to the work restriction windows. Currently, we don’t see how to provide separate pricing options for the separate sequences. Please advise how the BOR would like the pricing differences for the two sequences presented in the Offer?

Answer: If there are two different prices between the sequential and concurrent schedules, offeror shall fill out Section B (Schedules A through Y) for each schedule. Offeror shall notate on the Section B which schedule (sequential or concurrent) is applicable to which price and the price shall be treated as an alternate price in accordance with Clause 52.236-28 Preparation of

Proposals – Construction.

82) Per specification 35 22 15, 1.06 A.4. and B. 3, the valve and actuator’s design and drawings shall be stamped by a registered professional P.E., please confirm stamp by our factory engineers from Europe is acceptable? Or if it needs to be a P.E. stamp from a USA registered engineer.

Answer: A Registered Professional engineer outside the United States would be acceptable, provided the professional engineer requirements for that country meet or exceed the requirements for a P.E. in the United States. Additionally, all other requirements of specifications Section 35 22 15 paragraph 1.06 A and B shall be met.

83) Specification 35 22 15, 2.01 B. 11. G, please explain what is the “Tapped block type end caps” for hydraulic cylinder.

Answer: Hydraulic cylinder end cap should be a block with tapped holes allowing it to be fixed via threaded fasteners.