Copy of 2026.07.10 - Questions #2 - U2623.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Argon Piping Supply, Installation and Testing
- Solicitation number
- 73573
About this file
This file is a Questions and Answers document addressing clarifications on the Argon Piping Supply, Installation and Testing solicitation (Solicitation Number 73573) issued by the Department of Energy Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. The Q&A responses, submitted on July 3 and July 10, 2026, address eleven contractor inquiries regarding project scope, specifications, and technical requirements.
Key clarifications include: the 2" pipe for the trench is within contractor scope and consists of RMC or PVC conduit (depending on location) with a 12" minimum bend radius, serving as a pathway for future fiberoptic cable; the BIM model referenced in Appendix 3 will be linked separately; the sheave beam is rated for 12.4 kips hoist capacity with lifting lugs designed for 20 kips; pipe support brackets and anchorages are delegated design responsibility of the contractor, subject to specific anchoring requirements in drifts and caverns per Detail 5 on drawing U-FD-SS-801, with mandatory probe testing to verify shotcrete thickness; the SDSTA will remove brattice and significant obstructions (decking, piping, valves) while the contractor handles minor obstructions such as hoses; the overhead crane at the 4850 level will be operated by SDSTA for contractor use; and welding methodology using backer rings instead of purge dams is addressed as a potential alternative approach. The proposal due date for this solicitation is July 27, 2026.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
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
Questions to Client
| U2623 - LBNF Argon Piping Supply and Installation | 46230.0 |
| Thyssen Mining Questions to Client |
| # | REF. DOCUMENT | QUESTION | RESPONSE | SUBMITTAL DATE |
| 1 | Please provide a copy of the presentation shown during the pre-proposal meeting. It was mentioned that one would be sent out. The presentation in the meeting invite is slightly different. | Provided | 03/Jul/26 | |
| 2 | During the pre-proposal meeting, it was mentioned that the Appendices would be revised and uploaded on Fermi document site. Is this still in the works? | Unclear. Anyone take notes on this? | 03/Jul/26 | |
| 3 | Nothing stated about supplying 2" pipe. |
SOW document: pg 4-9, section 4.4.1. [In addition to the Argon Gas pipe, a 2” RMC conduit for data cable shall also be installed in the trench and borehole terminating at the west wall of the Ross Ramp].
Drawing S-FD-C-402_R7. Detail 3 [shows 2"Ø PVC CONDUIT] Who is supplying the 2" pipe for the trench?
What are the material specifications?
Any limitations to bend radius? Due to what is inside.
| Does it need it own bore hole through the Shaft Wall? | Supply of 2" pipe is within this scope. It is RMC or PVC depending on location and is a pathway for future fiberoptic cable. 12" minimum bend radius. It does not need its own borehole. See sheet S-FD-E-101 for additional info. | 03/Jul/26 | ||||
| 4 | SOW document: pg 4-11, section 4.4.3. [A coordinated BIM model, included in Appendix 3, shows existing and newly constructed utilities, as well as the intended location of the Argon pipe relative to these utilities]. | |||||
| Please provide the BIM model. It is not included in Appendix 3. | To be linked | 03/Jul/26 | ||||
| 5 | What is the Sheave in the Headframe rated for? If longer lengths of pipe sections are to be lowered in the shaft, understanding the load capacity of the sheave will be required. | Per Appendix 4, SHEAVE BEAM, the sheaves are designed for the hoist capacity (12.4 kips) and the lifting lug is designed for 20 kips. | 03/Jul/26 | |||
| 6 | SOW document: pg 4-12, section 4.4.2.1 [The Subcontractor is responsible for surveying each location in the shaft where pipe supports are to be installed, developing shop drawings for A&E approval, and fabricating and install pipe supports at these locations]. | |||||
| Drawings for Brackets and Supports. | ||||||
| Are they fully designed by the client or will the Contractor be responsible for the design as well as the anchorage? | This is a delegated design to be provided by the Contractor, with the following stipulations for anchorage in the drifts and caverns: |
1) Argon pipe support anchors shall follow Detail 5 on U-FD-SS-801. Delegated design shall take into account thickness of shotcrete in determining the length of anchor needed to ensure minimum embedment into rock.
2) Argon support anchors shall maintain minimum anchor spacing from other Muth, Rapid Fire, and Jarrell anchors as provided by Arup.
3) If contractor cannot ensure proper embedment into the rock, a larger minimum spacing to all other anchors may be required based on argon anchor support loads. Strongly suggest local probes at each anchor location to determine shotcrete thickness.
4) If minimum spacings cannot be maintained in congested areas, alternative support designs may be required that maintain minimum spacing to all anchors.
| 5) Argon anchors shall be pull tested to project requirements. | 03/Jul/26 | ||||
| 7 | Can we remove all the brattice from behind the skips for the duration of the build as no material is being skipped? This would be very useful while chasing the pipe and for installing the pipe brackets in the upper sections. | Yes, all brattice will be removed by the SDSTA for the project duration | 03/Jul/26 | ||
| 8 | Who is responsible for removing the obstructions in shaft i.e. decking platforms from former work in shaft, piping ,valves, or hoses protruding into the pipe compartment etc.? | Minor obstructions (hoses) will be the responsibility of the Contractor. SDSTA will remove significant obstructions (decking, piping, valves). | 03/Jul/26 | ||
| 9 | Will the over head crane at the 4850 be available to load pipe on the manlift? | The SDSTA will operate this crane for use by the Contractor if useful. | 03/Jul/26 | ||
| 10 | Is there a navisworks model of the shaft? Or even portions of the shaft. |
Something similar to what was provided for the 4850L.
For example; where the main support brackets will be located or the expansion loops will be installed. A model similar to the one for the 4850L.
| We understand the question period has closed but this would help us understand pipe routing, accessibility, and shaft/wall conditions so we can clarify any of the vague times (or equipment) we have worked into our schedule & cost. | 10/Jul/26 | |
| 11 | Welding Method. Instead of using purge dams inside the pipe for each weld, can backer rings be used? |
The ring would be placed inside the end of the existing pipe, clipped or tacked in place, then the new pipe slid over it. The weld would then happen at the joint and the back plate would be fused with the weld.
Pro: This would also aid in stabilizing the joint.
Pro: Make the alignment easier (less time) Pro: Simpler to weld the thin walled pipe with a backer.
Pro: Easier than having to pull the purge dams out the top of the new pipe or snake the apparatus out through an expansion loop Con: Creates a smaller diameter at the joint. 10/Jul/26
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .