Q_As_RFQ 36C25724Q0115.pdf
PDF 58 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 6117--Amendment - Temple Solar Field Repair Project - Extend RFQ Closing Date and Post Q's
- Solicitation number
- 36C25724Q0115
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for repair work on a solar field at a Department of Veterans Affairs facility. The solicitation seeks fixed-price bids to replace damaged solar modules, inverters, and cables and make other repairs to address issues stemming from a cable tray fire of unknown origin. It provides clarification that the scope allows for equivalent or higher-wattage replacement modules and inverters to fit within the existing infrastructure, with anchors and wiring modifications if needed. No remote system access is available but on-site diagnostics can be done. General safety precautions are required for an escorted site visit but no formal PPE.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 36C25724Q0115 0001.pdf | ||
| VATE PLAN SET FINAL STAMP 3_02_12.pdf | ||
| 36C25724Q0115 0001_1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Temple TX VAMC 100 Perecent Drawings_AS BUILTS.pdf | ||
| 36C25724Q0115.pdf | ||
| 36C25724Q0115_1.docx | DOCX document |
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
Q & As
36C25724Q0115 - Temple Solar Field Repair Project
1. Is there an option to quote an alternate and complete redesign? The current options for solar modules would not fit as a 1:1 replacement, as the existing modules are substantially larger and have higher wattage. This will cause different inverter and stringing requirements and a different racking configuration. Most of the questions could be answered during the scheduled site visit. However, the module’s physical size on the raking system won’t matter much since the anchors could be adjusted to accommodate smaller or lager modules. The wattage of the modules shall be equivalent or higher than the existing (255watts modules), that’s the requirement. Also, there are not many modules to replace, the 20 required are for just in case they will be needed and for spare parts.
2. Regarding AE Soleron's acquisition by Bold Renewables and their stance on inverter availability, can you confirm if the units slated for removal and replacement are deemed irreparable? Bold Renewables mentioned they solely offer parts for repairs without manufacturing or reconditioning entire units. This is the main reason we are requesting replacement with same/equivalent inverters.
3. Considering the potential replacement of these units, could you provide insights into the anticipated costs and timeline associated with the engineering and design processes?
Additionally, what approvals would be necessary to proceed with this aspect of the project? This question borders on what the owner of the project should ask a potential vendor. The bidder ought to be able to assess that from the RFP and their knowhow.
Equipment purchases will only be approved after equipment catalogs and specifications are approved by the COR/VA personnel.
4. Understanding that a fire occurred in the cable tray, I am curious about the root cause.
Fires in cable trays, especially in relatively new installations, are uncommon. Was this due to a design flaw, workmanship issue, or any specific underlying cause? The system is not brand new. It was built 2012. Rodents sometimes eat cable insulations. That’s our suspicion.
5. Was there an established routine for infrared (IR) and visual inspections following the initial installation? I'm interested in understanding the maintenance protocols that were in place to prevent incidents like the aforementioned fire. The system worked perfectly well when first installed, produced enough energy as designed for several years with only occasional inverter tripping and resetting. No IR inspections were necessary to check out overheating spots. It was not recommended as part of the field maintenance.
6. Expressing some concern, our team is hesitant about pursuing a hard bid for a project that might benefit more from a time and materials approach, especially considering potential unforeseen circumstances. Could you share your thoughts or considerations regarding this aspect of the project? The contract is Fixed Priced as the RFQ issued states.
7. Is there a damage assessment report that can be shared with us? Sorry, no damage assessment report was made, no insurance policy to claim, just a repair job.
8. Are there existing as-built drawings for the system(s)? Yes, there is an as-built.
9. Will modifications need to be made or considered for the structure that contains the
Inverters? If not exact same inverters as existing, then anchoring and maybe rewiring to fit may be necessary.
10. What Brand is the current Cable Tray? No brand name is shown on the cable trays.
11. Is there a DC wire management plan? I do not understand this question. The field is already DC wired and in cable trays. There is no redesign of the system layout. AC is after the inverters.
12. RFI suggests the need for (20) modules on field #1, are these just in case or defined already as damaged needing replaced? Just in case modules, only 3 were identified as cracked/damaged.
13. Can you provide the remote login credentials for both fields to familiarize and begin simple exploratory diagnostics and troubleshooting? These findings may affect cost, time and needed materials to correct. Currently remote access is not available because we needed to maintain subscription to continue that service. But a laptop can be connected to the system to enable viewing of the system performance/trouble shooting.
14. Do you have any safety or site-specific requirements that we need to consider for the site walk? OSHA Safety Cards, PPE, Dress Code, Security Clearance, etc.? General caution, not to damage any property, electrical safety, not stepping on the solar modules. No PPE required but you may need to protect yourself, it’s not a walk in the park.
End of Q&A’s
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .