Leg 4 and H2 Heater - QandA - 10Sep25.pdf

Question Number Reference Documents Section/Page Number Question Government Response

Leg 4 and H2 Request for

Prototype Proposal

The RPP does not define an acceptable font size for tables and graphics. Does the

Government approve of font size not smaller than 8 for Tables and Arial Narrow, size 8 for

Figures, as long as they remain legible?

This has been clarified in Amendment 0001. See Leg 4 and H2 Heater - Request for Prototype Proposal Amend 0001, Prototype Proposal Submission Details.

Leg 4 and H2 Request for

Prototype Proposal

A title page is excluded from page count. As there is a 10-page limit, is a Table of Contents and Glossary of Acronyms required? If those are required, will the Government also exclude the Table of Contents and Glossary of Acronyms from the page count?

This has been clarified in Amendment 0001. See Leg 4 and H2 Heater - Request for Prototype Proposal Amend 0001, Prototype Proposal Submission Details.

Leg 4 and H2 Request for

Prototype Proposal

Atch 2 - Prototype Proposal

Evaluation Methodology

Atch 2

The RPP lists five (5) evaluation subfactors under Factor 2- Business Process. In Atch_2 only four (4) evaluation subfactors are listed under Factor 2. Subfactor 4: Data Rights to

Conceptual Design Proof of Concept' does not appear in Atch 2. Will either the RPP or

Atch 2 be updated with the correct evaluation subfactors for Factor 2?

Atch 2 - Prototype Proposal Evaluation Methodology has been corrected to include a sheet for Factor 2 Business Process Subfactor 4: Data Rights to

Conceptual Design Proof of Concept.

Leg 4 and H2 Request for

Prototype Proposal

The paragraph numbers for subfactors 1-5 appear to have a numbering issue in the instructions. We believe that Subfactor 3 - Technical Approach should be paragraph 3, Subfactor 4 - Data Rights and Conceptual Design Proof of Concept should be paragraph 4, and Subfactor 5 - Prototype Schedule should be paragraph 5. Please update if the

Government agrees with this numbering.

Paragraph numbering has been corrected in Amendment 0001.

Atch 1 - Statement of

Objectives

Leg 4 leaving H2 Heaters and downstream of CV.C.5 valve cluster is excluded from scope.

Should this also be included for inspection/suitability determination?

All ducting from the discharge connection from the heaters to the CV.C.5 valve cluster is already rated for the requested design condition and will not require inspection. The duct will not require evaluation except for the flexibility analysis required to show that the changes downstream of CV.C.5 will not affect the upstream ducting.

Appendix A - Reference

Drawings (Distro D) Pages A-41 and A-44

How far into C1 plenum does the scope of the hot leg continue into the C1 Plenum? Just past the 90 deg turn at DE-T13? To the stiffening rings RG-T20?

The downstream interface is the upstream face of the existing front bulkhead, which is shown in reference on several drawings, including 5-30-D83, D84, D98, D99, and D128 (A-45 through A-49), but is called out on 5-30-D159, D160, and D161 (A-51 through A-53).

Performance Parameters

(Distro D)

AV.C1.3 is shown in scope. It is also stated that AV.C1.3 must be kept active to isolate from the mixing header. Is the duct between AV.C1.3 and the C1/C2 mixing header in scope as well? Or just up to AV-C1.3?

All of the 6’ ducting, including AV.C1.3, connecting the existing Mixing Header to Leg 4 is within scope up to, and including, the interface between the Mixing

Header and the 6’ duct.

8 General Are there materials requirements for the airside of the heat exchanger to prevent rust & dust, such as the stainless in the main ducting?

Item 36 in Attachment 1 that requires the new ducting to be consistent with the existing materials would still apply for the Leg 3 (heater inlet) ducting, which is

SA240 Type 316 stainless steel.

9 General Are there increments of heater operation required to obtain turndown conditions or to provide redundancy?

The system is intended to be continuously variable. No redundancy is required.

Performance Parameters

(Distro D) Pages 7-8

There are a number of requirements related to the internal plenum at the inlet of Test Cell

C1. It was previously understood that the scope of this solicitation was to end at the bulkhead on the upstream stream flange of the existing plenum and the internal plenum would be the subject of a separate solicitation. Can the government confirm the scope boundary of this solicitation?

The scope does end at the C1 front bulkhead at the inlet of the test cell at the current plenum Leg 4 isolation point.

Performance Parameters

(Distro D)

Should all existing ducting, valves, supports, equipment, and hydraulic skids be inspected to the requirements in Attachment 1 and current industry standard or to the requirements as defined on the reference drawings?

Each component is being evaluated to determine if it will be suitable for continued use under the new design conditions, so it will need to be evaluated with respect to the new conditions in Attachment 1.

Appendix D - Design

Reviews (Distro D)

The Government has asked for a concept design review and milestone for phase one. This review and its details are not listed in Appendix D. Will the Government issue an amendment to include this in Appendix D as a Design Review requirement?

***in process***

Leg 4 and H2 Heater

Request for Prototype Proposal

Questions and Answers

As of 10 September 2025