20-0071 RFP AMD 1.docx

DOCX document 2 MB Posted

Attached to
ELECTROMECHANICAL DRILL CABLE(UW-MAD)[20-0071]
Solicitation number
20-0071
Issued by
Wisconsin

About this file

This Amendment #1 to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 20-0071 is issued by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Purchasing Services for the procurement of electromechanical drill cables. Amendment #1 was issued on April 27, 2020, to address questions received from proposers, extend the deadline for written questions to May 1, 2020, and extend the proposal due date to May 11, 2020, at 2:00 PM CDT. The cable specifications require a design capable of operating in extreme temperatures as low as -50°C and must support a static end load of approximately 2,000 pounds, with provisions for higher pulling forces to dislodge frozen drill heads. The cable assembly must incorporate 20 AWG conductor pairs with a minimum impedance of 50 ohms, achieve attenuation of 25 dB/km at 1 MHz, include water-blocking protection against pin-hole breaches in the jacket, and feature a minimum safety factor of 2.5:1 (MBL:SWL ratio). The cable must be delivered by August 2020 to the Physical Sciences Laboratory at 3725 Schneider Drive, Stoughton, Wisconsin 53589. Proposal prices and terms shall remain firm for sixty days from the proposal date to opening.

The RFP requires email submissions to bids@bussvc.wisc.edu with a maximum file size of 25MB, with proposals organized in four tabs including the signed RFP form, vendor information, client references, specification responses, cost proposal, and other supporting documentation. The specification clarification questions and answers provided extensive technical guidance, including drum dimensions (41.75" ID, 42.5" OD, 66" length, grooved for 0.97" OD cable), sheave wheel specifications, and termination interface requirements that must align with existing drawings and connector part numbers. The University emphasized that while improved termination methods may be considered, the cable grip must support the full working load of the cable indefinitely without relative movement to ensure the drill head can be safely raised and lowered. Previous cable failures documented included outer jacket cracking, jacket separation, water ingress into strength member layers, and electrical conductor breakage, which informed the current design requirements. No incumbency status, set-asides, or specific funding sources were identified in the amendment.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
20-0071 RFP.docx DOCX document
20-0071 RFP AMD 3.docx DOCX document
20-0071 RFP AMD 2.docx DOCX document
DrillCableRFPQuestionResposesSLIDES_20200427.pdf PDF

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

AMENDMENT #1 to Proposal No. 20-0071

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

MADISON, WISCONSIN 53715-1218

AMENDMENT #1 to Request For Proposal

THIS IS NOT AN ORDER

OFFICIAL SEALED

Proposal Number: 20-0071

NO PUBLIC OPENING

AMD #1 Issue Date: 04/27/2020

Due Date: 05/11/2020 2:00 PM CDT Agent: JEFF WHITMAN

Questions regarding this proposal – see Section 2.6

For Submittal Instructions & Proposal Response Format – see Section 2.2 and 2.3

Proposal prices and terms shall be firm for sixty (60) days from the date of the proposal to the opening, unless otherwise specified in this Request for Proposal by the UW-Madison Purchasing Services.

If NO BID (check here) ☐ and return.

AMENDMENT #1 / 20-0071 / ELECTROMECHANICAL DRILL CABLE

Amendment #1 is issued to answer questions received from proposers, extend the deadline for written questions to May 1, 2020 and extend the proposal DUE DATE to May 11, 2020 - See revised Section 2.1.

If this amendment is not returned, it shall be assumed your original proposal meets all conditions of the amendment.

All other terms and conditions remain the same. Please revise and submit your bid accordingly.

In signing this bid, we have read and fully understand and agree to all terms, conditions and specifications and acknowledge that the UW-Madison Purchasing Services bid document on file shall be the controlling document for any resulting contract. We certify that we have not, either directly or indirectly, entered into any contract or participated in any collusion or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free competition; that no attempt has been made to induce any other person or firm to submit or not to submit a bid; that this bid has been independently arrived at without collusion with any other bidder, competitor or potential competitor; that this bid has not been knowingly disclosed prior to the opening of bids to any other bidder or competitor; that the stated statement is accurate under penalty of perjury. I certify that the information I have provided in this bid is true and I understand that any false, misleading or missing information may disqualify the bid.

By submitting a bid, the bidder certifies that no relationship exists between the bidder and the University that interferes with fair competition or is a Conflict of Interest, and no relationship exists between such bidder and another person or firm that constitutes a Conflict of Interest. Further, bidder certifies that no employee of the University whose duties relate to this request for bid assisted the bidder in preparing the bid in any way other than in his or her official capacity and scope of employment.

The Bidder certifies by submission of the bid that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency.

Company Name:

Company Street Address:

Company City, State & Zip:
Date:

Signature:

Type or Print Name:

Title:

Telephone Number: ( )
Fax Number: ( )

Email address:

Fein Number :
DUNS #:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO RFP #20-0071

Q1.Would it be possible to review the existing design?
A1.Yes, see Specification Clarification Slide 6. This is the specification we sent to a previous vendor in 2008.
Q2.What are the winch drum dimensions?
A2.The drum is grooved for 0.97” OD cable. ID of grooves is 41.75” and OD is 42.5”. The drum is 66” in length. See Specification Clarification Slide 9 for the drum’s part number.
Q3.Are the sheaves solid wheel sheaves?
A3.Yes. See Specification Clarification Slide 2.
Q4.What are the sheave wheel dimensions, overall OD and groove?
A4.See Specification Clarification Slide 2.
Q5.Can a complete layout of the winch and sheave placement be provided?
A5.See Specification Clarification Slides 1-5.
Q6.Is it possible to consider a wire armored cable solution as opposed to synthetic strengthened?
A6.It could be considered, however metal on the outside of the cable is not preferred because 1) tape needs to adhere to it well and 2) the metal could be abrasive against the rubber hose. A thermoplastic outer jacket is proven for this application and departing from that would introduce risk and uncertainty.
Q7.Can the field failures and lessons learned referenced in the specification be elaborated further?
A7.Specific failures were not well documented. Below is our best recollection.

Mechanical: Cracking of outer Hytrel jacket, only occurred on cables constructed with a Kevlar strength member. One cable in particular exhibited full jacket separation around perimeter of cable at periodic positions along length, possibly initiated by shock loading from cable jumping from layer to layer on cable reel. There may have also been issues with bonding of overmolds to the cable jacket, allowing water ingress.

Electrical: There were instances of lost communication with drillhead on multiple cables. Not all of the failure modes are understood or well-documented. In one case, it is believed that tension load was somehow applied to the conductors, possibly due to water ingress into the strength member layer from a damaged section of jacket.

Q8.Comment regarding Section 4) - para 6.: The construction of the existing cable is unknown, but bonding of the outer sheath to the fiber strength member is neither possible nor desirable, in order to allow the cable to flex freely. The mechanism by which the electrical assembly water-tightness is breached is also unclear. The water-tight seal should be made to the polyurethane inner sheath, in which case flooding of the textile layer would not matter.
A8.It was suspected at the time that water ingress into the strength layer somehow prevented the strength member from performing as intended, and enough load was put onto the conductors to break them. The evidence of this is that the cable with broken conductors had also experienced outer jacket damage, exposing the strength member. Upon examination many months later, the strength member layer still had water in it along the entire length of cable.

When water ingress re-freezes during re-wind operations, the cable is rendered less flexible and severe damage may occur when the affected cable segments pass over a sheave or are wrapped around a drum. For this reason possible water ingress into strength members should not be permitted if either the jacket or an over-mold assembly is breached by a small opening.

A cable jacket that can slide relative to the strength member may not be able to support the drill head when a cable grip is applied. The design must ensure that the weight of the drill head in air can be transferred to a braided synthetic cable grip applied to the cable. The drill head must be supported indefinitely without relative movement between the cable grip and the strength member. Also note that in emergencies a cable grip has been applied mid-cable to temporarily support the load.

Q9.Comment / Question regarding Sections 4.1.1.3 & 4.1.1.4): MBL:SWL ratio 2.5:1 is extremely low for textile, and would in fact be a concern for steel wire armour. The elongation in the assembly is likely to be of the order of 2.5%, which is damaging. Given the multi-pair assembly, steps can be taken to mitigate strain in the electrical components, though this would be a topic of development. However the effect of such elongation on fiber fatigue, in combination of tension and bending, is an unknown. Why was such a low safety factor utilized?
A9.We require a safety factor of 2.5 or greater. A cable with a higher safety factor than 2.5 is acceptable.
Q10.Comment / Question regarding 4.1.1.10): The described termination is unlikely to be able to recover the full working load of the cable, though clearly the end-load must be less than the SWL as the weight of the cable must be supported. A more suitable termination design may be possible with understanding of the end-load(s) concerned. Can more detail be provided on the cable termination interface? Is there a possibility of accepting an improved method of termination?
A10.We are open to an improved method of termination, however the dimensions and connector P/N in the drawing must remain the same. See Specification Clarification Slides 7 and 8 for more info on the interface between cable and drill head.

The static end load on the cable is approximately 2000 lb. However, should the drillhead become stuck in the ice we need to exert higher-than-normal pulling force to dislodge. Being able to only support the drill head may not be adequate. If movement of the drill head is stopped for an extended period while water flow is also stopped, the drill head may be partially frozen in place. The cable grip would then have to support the cable tension required to free the drill head. Hence the cable grip should be able to support the working load of the cable at a minimum, not just the weight of the drill head in air. The load rating of the end terminations must be explicitly provided if different than the cable full working load.

Q11.Comment / Question regarding 4.1.2.1) - A. iv: A 20 AWG pair of Z0 = 100 Ohms with solid insulation is extremely large diameter. There are challenges in manufacturing a pair with such thick insulation however, more pertinently, there does not appear to be an assembly configuration compatible with the final diameter requirement. Attenuation 25 dB/km @ 1 MHz is possible with 24 AWG (0.22 mm²) pair. This is compatible with dimensions of 18 AWG power pairs, and better fits within the total diameter envelope. Would this be acceptable?
A11.Conductor size must be 20 AWG. This cable sees a lot of stress and smaller wires are more likely to fail. We can tolerate lower impedance if the attenuation spec is met. We can probably allow a minimum impedance of 50 ohms if it's necessary to enable a workable design.
Q12.Comment / Question regarding 4.1.2.1) - B. i. Drain wire in a practical pair design is likely to be 0.14 mm² (~26 AWG). Is this acceptable?
A12.We may not be able to accept a single drain wire this small. We probably can accept multiple drain wires this small which reach the stated goal for total wire cross-section, or which come close.
Q13.Comment regarding 4.1.2.1) - E. We are unable to offer water-blocked conductors. See also 4.1.2.3 and next comment.
A13.See response to Q14.
Q14.Comment / Question regarding 4.1.2.3). While we can and must void fill the assembly against the effects of hydrostatic pressure, the compound concerned is not and cannot be a water-block. Water-blocking compounds do not work against the combination of high hydrostatic pressure and repeated flexure.
A14.It must not be possible for water to penetrate signal pairs in the event of a small (pin-hole) breach in the cable jacket or in an over-molded assembly. The signal pairs must be filled and have no gaps that could allow water penetration. Foam is not a suitable filler due to high water pressure at depth.
Q15.We need a cross sectional diagram of the existing cable with the type of insulation, jacketing, type of shield, support members, etc.
A15.See Specification Clarification Slide 6.
Q16.Where and how did the original cable fail? How many feet into the cable and what could have caused it(bending, torqueing, abrasion, temp, etc.)?
A16.See responses above.
Q17.When does the cable have to be delivered and where?
A17.The project baseline schedule indicates this cable must be delivered by August 2020. Our schedule is of course impacted by current events but has not yet been replanned. You can see from our assignment of points that lead time is an important consideration for evaluating proposals.

Deliver to:

Physical Sciences Laboratory University of Wisconsin - Madison 3725 Schneider Drive Stoughton, WI 53589

Q18.What is the lowest temp that this cable will be operating in?
A18.-50 C

Specification Clarification Slides

Double-click on the icon below to review the slides provided for clarification of specifications.

2. Preparing and Submitting a Proposal

2.1. Applicable Dates:

Date

Event

04/13/2020
Date of Issue of the RFP
05/01/2020
Written questions due
05/11/2020 – 2:00 PM CDT
RFP Due Date (Local Madison Time)

2.2. Submittal Instructions:

ONLY EMAILED PROPOSAL RESPONSES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

All completed proposals must be e-mailed to bids@bussvc.wisc.edu, with the RFP number and vendor name in the subject line. Proposals must be received and date/time stamped prior to 2:00 p.m. CDT on the stated bid due date.

RETAIN A COPY OF YOUR PROPOSAL RESPONSE FOR YOUR FILES

Submitting a proposal to any other e-mail address than bids@bussvc.wisc.edu does not constitute receipt of a valid proposal by Purchasing Services. Proof of transmission doesn't constitute proof of receipt. E-mail submissions of signature pages must be a scanned copy of the document with ACTUAL signatures and initials (not typed or electronic signatures) and should be received prior to 2:00 p.m. CDT on the stated due date.

Contact Purchasing Services for assistance. purch@bussvc.wisc.edu The Maximum file size that can be accepted is 25MB.

2.3. Proposal Response Format:

Proposals should be typed and submitted on 8.5 by 11 inch paper and bound securely. The response should be organized and presented in the following order. Each section should be separated by tabs or otherwise clearly marked. The contents within each tab should reference the section or attachment number assigned in the RFP. Failure to submit as indicated may disqualify your proposal.

Tab 1:

· Request for Proposal form signed by an authorized representative of proposing company - Cover Page.

· Vendor Information Form, Attachment A

· Client Reference List, Attachment C Tab 2: Responses to specifications in Section 4 – Requirements and Specifications Tab 3: Cost Proposal, Attachment B Tab 4: Other

RETAIN A COPY OF YOUR PROPOSAL RESPONSE FOR YOUR FILES

2.4. Incurring Costs:

The State of Wisconsin is not liable for any cost incurred by proposers in replying to this RFP.

image2.png image3.emf

DrillCableRFPQuestionResposesSLIDES_20200427.pdf image1.png

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .