Questions_Set_2.pdf
PDF 218 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Frequency Converters Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA4801-18-Q-1116
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency_Converter_PWS_(REVISED).pdf | ||
| Questions_Set_3.pdf | ||
| Frequency_Converter_PWS_(REVISED).pdf | ||
| Site_Visit.pdf | ||
| Site_Visit.pdf | ||
| Frequency_Converter_PWS_(REVISED).pdf | ||
| Questions_Set_1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Frequency_Converter_PWS.pdf | ||
| Combo-Frequency_Converters.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
1. The first one state that you need (30) 45-kVA units and (2) 90-kVA units and the second calls for (34) 45-kVA units. What should we be focused on? Does the (2) 90-kVA units make up the additional (4) 45-kVA units or do you want (34) 45-kVA units?
RESPONSE: Through assessing the unique qualities of Hangarettes 9, 10, 11, & 12 (being explosion proof); it would be advantageous to use (2) 90 KVA SSFCs to power all 4 hangarettes due to how the existing wiring and connection points are in place. Furthermore, although specified in the PWS, seeing the unique qualities of the hangar will clarify any confusion. Also, that is correct that if providing (2) 90 KVA SSFCs, they would replace the need for (4) of the 45 KVA SSFCs. However, if not feasible or the company does not offer 90 KVA units, thus the rationale that both sequences were provided in the PWS;
regarding either (2) 90 KVA SSFCs & (30) 45 KVA SSFCs / or / (34) 45 KVA SSFCs // which in total come out to power the same amount of hangarettes (34 each). The award is still going to be made to lowest price technically acceptable in accordance with the solicitation.
2. If all units are to be fixed mounted, why are you asking for casters and input cable with defined length on the 90-kVA units?
RESPONSE: The cable racks need to be elevated in a way that when the cable is rolled up, the bulk does not drag or hit the floor in order to prevent premature wear of the conduit. We were requesting fixed casters (spacers) in order to raise the height of the cable racks if mounted on the floor; opposed to fixing the flat base of the cable racks on the floor. Unless the manufacturer has a designed cable rack that equates for the bulk of the cord when it is wrapped up. Furthermore, the extra 15 foot of wire is in regards to connection hook up of the mounted floor racks (if racks cannot be assembled on the SSFC units). Especially in hangarettes 9, 10, 11, & 12 if (2) 90 KVA SSFCs are provided and floor mounted racks need to be installed. Planning of this was in regards to having to have a special connector for the explosion proof connection point that exists in the hangarettes and then having to connect that conduit to the reel; unless the manufacturer has a work around to include all output cable assemblies as one unit. Thus, the site visit will help define what is explained in the PWS and CLIN 0002. Either way, if cable racks cannot be connected to the SSFC unit, a remedy for chafing/excessive floor wear of the output cable will need to be addressed.
File details come from the government source that posted it.