FASPP_Q A__4.pdf

FASPP – QUESTIONS & ANSWERS #4

QUESTION: Can the two metal towers on the south building [US Forest Service] be removed?

ANSWER: Yes, contractor will have option to remove towers. All safety and building codes associated with relocating equipment on the tower must be addressed. Current equipment on the larger tower includes air craft warning lights and one cellular communication antenna. Amendment 10 provides explicit permission to remove these.

QUESTION: Has an interconnection agreement with Island Energy been initiated?

ANSWER: Yes it has been initiated. If specific information is needed please provide another question.

QUESTION: With regard to exceptions, are the exceptions noted by a respondent only applicable to that respondent? Are the Exceptions confidential or will they be available for others to consider?

ANSWER: If an exception noted by a respondent is reviewed and rejected by the Government, it is applicable only to the respondent. If and exception noted by the respondent is rejected, the Government may, at its discretion, discuss an acceptable alternative exception with the respondent. If an exception noted by a respondent is reviewed and accepted by the Government, it is applicable to all potential offerors. The Government will issue an amendment for all Offerors incorporating the exception as a change to the terms of the solicitation. Note that amendment 10 makes revisions to this process.

QUESTION: Slide 5 of the RFP document “FASPP_site_visit_powerpoint_presentation_-_11- 11_May_2015.pdf” of the subject solicitation indicates the PPA is “Take or pay UP TO MAXIMUM”, however “Take or Pay”/Minimum Purchase Guarantee language does not appear to be included in the RFP documents.

Please confirm the solicitation does include a Minimum Purchase Guarantee or “Take or Pay” provisions, and confirm the level of the Minimum Purchase Guarantee or otherwise elaborate on the Government’s obligations with respect to paying for energy that was not delivered under applicable “Take or Pay” language.

ANSWER: The take or pay provision (note the expression “take or pay” is not used) is at section B.3.1, with additional references at B.4(2) and A.2.

QUESTION: We believe there is a discrepancy between the site statement of work document and the minimum and maximum capacity requirement PDF. The site statement of work document states on page 25 that the electricity usage for building 3 is 1.6 million kWh. However, the minimum and maximum capacity requirements document states that the maximum kWh that GSA will purchase is 812,000 kWh/year.

ANSWER: There is a discrepancy between the current kWh requirements and the original site photograph – the latter has labels with outdated kWh numbers. These numbers were replaced and the kWh numbers in the labels should be disregarded. We retained this photograph only because it has some additional information not in the new photograph (e.g., building numbers). Also note that the USGS campus qualifies for the PG&E net energy metering load aggregation program, so if electrical equipment has sufficient capacity it should be possible to interconnect at a single point. The Contractor will be responsible for meeting all PG&E requirements for load aggregation.

QUESTION: Will GSA consider revising leasing terms to 20 years in phase I, 10 years extension after that?

ANSWER: No. GSA is constrained by a 10 year multi-year authority for utilities, so the base period can only be 10 years. Also note this is not a lease.

QUESTION: Based on Electricity consumption at all locations, total capacity of Solar Power plant needed is around 12 MW. Roofing an parking lots don't have that much capacity. How do you want us to install these panels? Are we allowed to buy a piece of land and install dedicated power plant and supply these facilities? If yes, are we allowed to build total capacity at an independent location and supply these facilities?

ANSWER: This solicitation is for on-site PV generation only, not off-site. A solicitation for off-site generation would involve a different structure and different issues. We will not revise this solicitation to allow for off-site generation. Amendment 6 is clarifying maximum kWh production for each location, as well as minimum system capacity for each location. We are only trying to achieve “net zero” status for a sub-set of the buildings.

QUESTION: Will SMUD require an interconnection study?

ANSWER: The rooftop system will not require an interconnection study per SMUD. Offerors should verify requirements with SMUD.

QUESTION: What is the wind speed design standard for Forest Service – Mare Island?

ANSWER: Use City of Vallejo code standards.

QUESTION: Peckham F.B. - Will installation of solar modules be permitted on the structure that spans between the building roofs B and C?

ANSWER: Not at this time. This structure is complicated, and contains an Art in Architecture element, so requires too much time to determine what is acceptable to be included with the offers.

QUESTION: Shea F.B – Are there any trees that can be removed?

ANSWER: No.

QUESTION: US Forrest Service bldg. – Is the main parking lot a possible location for solar structures?

ANSWER: Yes. USFS requirements are clarified in Amendment 6.

QUESTION: Why is FAR 52.203-16 included? Our understanding is this applies only to acquisition support. We believe this should be removed.

ANSWER: 2.203-16 is removed by Amendment 6

QUESTION: Which employees does FAR 52.204-14 apply to on this energy purchase contract?

ANSWER: 52.204-14 is removed by Amendment 6.

QUESTION: Why is FAR 52.227-4 related to patents relevant to a energy purchase contract?

ANSWER: 52.227-4 is removed by Amendment 6

QUESTION: Why does Patent Rights apply to an energy purchase contract?

ANSWER: Patent Rights does not apply to this solicitation

QUESTION: Why is the investor being required to pay for bonds if the project is owned by the investor and the investor is taking the construction risk? Bonds raise the price of the project. Can we self-bond?

ANSWER: Contractors can self-bond.

QUESTION: Should FAR 52-229-2 and 52.232-1 not be removed from this energy purchase contract that is not based in the state of NC?

ANSWER: 52.229-2 and 52.232-1 are removed

QUESTION: Can you provide your interpretation FAR 52.232-18 as it relates to the 10 plus 10 year option PPA strategy

ANWER: 52.232-18 is removed

QUESTION: Can you explain how FAR 52.241-2 and 52.24-11 apply? We believe these should be removed?

ANSWER: 52.241-2 and 52.24-11 are removed

QUESTION: Should all three FARs 52.243-1, 52.243-1 (Alt II) and 52.243-4 be included?

ANSWER: 52.243-1 and 52-243-1(Alt II) are removed

QUESTION: Does FAR 52.212-4 take precedence over FARs 52.249-2 and 52.249-8?

ANSWER: 52.249-2 and 52.249-8 are removed.

QUESTION: We believe 52.222-4 on page 2 of the proposed PPA is incorrectly labeled. Should it not be 52.222-5?

ANSWER: 52.222-4 is removed and replaced by 52.222-5.

QUESTION: I could not find a Buy American Provision in the solicitation.

ANSWER: 52.225-11, 12 ands 13 are incorporated in Section I. 52.225-11 is in full text (and by reference). 52-225-12 and 13 are incorporated by reference.

QUESTION: Will the Government consider additional savings that could be achieved from a rate switch in the NPV of avoided cost in its price evaluation?

ANSWER: No, such savings will not be considered as this would add considerable complexity to the award methodology.

QUESTION: With respect to the NPV avoided cost calculation as described in M.1.7, please confirm the baseline cost to the Government from which annual savings are calculated, assumes the Price to Beat kWh rate, Max Purchase Obligation kWh quantity for each project site, and escalating at the Maximum Escalation Rate for each site.

ANSWER: The calculation will be based on a NPV calculation with the “price to beat” escalated at the maximum escalation rate as the baseline. The comparison will be with the Offeror’s warranted minimum PV energy delivered (not the maximum obligation), escalation, annual degradation factor, and kWh price considered. The formula will also consider as a cost 50% of the value of the system removal (for roof replacement) price discounted back from year 10.

QUESTION: Does the government anticipate issuing a Notice Of Intent To Award process, to allow contractor to confirm assumptions that could not have been confirmed at the site walk (ie. geotechnical investigation)?

ANSWER: No, this is a firm-fixed-price contract. The Government has provided as much information as has been readily available. In the event that unusual conditions are found which could not have been noted or reasonably foreseen from site visits and review of documentation then an equitable adjustment may be made.

QUESTION: Please clarify the intent of section C.6. If there are fees from the local utility provider other than the “impact studies” mentioned in C.6, who will be responsible for these fees?

ANSWER: Fees required by the local utility for impact or interconnection studies, engineering reviews, interconnection processing, incentive processing, or otherwise required by the local utility to implement the project must be borne by the Contractor.

QUESTION: Is the government (GSA) expecting vendors to provide proprietary insight into how they do pricing? If so, why do you need proprietary information to make this award? If you receive proprietary information, how can you insure there are no accidental or intentional releases of proprietary information in light of recent government computer mishaps.

ANSWER: We agree detailed cost information should not be necessary, so L.4.3.3 is changed in Amendment 12 to remove the requirement to submit cost breakout information. The Price Schedule still requires a total system installation cost, but nothing more granular than that. The installation cost is necessary for certain functions such as determining bonding amounts.

QUESTION: Section L.4.1.2.1: The solicitation requires the use of PVWatts to calculate production estimates. Most of the industry uses more powerful tools, such as PVSyst. Request that PVSyst be allowed to be used to calculate production estimates.

ANSWER: Amendment 12 is changing this to permit Offerors to use PVWatts, PVSyst or HelioScope.

QUESTION: Cottage Way Site: Removal of the existing solar system and restoration of the roof presents a significant risk as we do not know the condition of the roof underneath. Having each contractor make their own estimate of such a large unknown cost will make it very hard to compare proposals for this site. We also understand that the current PPA contractor is required to remove the system and restore the roof at the end of the current contract. Therefore, we would recommend one of two options at this site: a. Require the current PPA contractor to remove the system and restore the roof under the existing contract. We would then start work at the site once system removal and roof restoration is complete. b. Provide a budget number for removal of the system and repair of the roof for all contractors to use when preparing their proposals. Actual costs above this amount would be reimbursed by the government through an adjustment to the kWh rate for this site.

ANSWER: We have obtained new payoff numbers from Constellation for Constellation to remove all equipment and restore the roof to pre-existing condition allowing for normal wear and tear. The new payoff numbers are added to B.5 by Amendment 12.

QUESTION: Santa Rosa Site: There are very large pine trees that shade much of the roof and parking lot area. Is removal of these trees permitted? If not, we would recommend that this site be removed from the scope. If this site is kept, the PV will experience significant shading and degraded output, resulting in a higher kWh rate.

ANSWER: Tree removal is not permitted at this site. We have reassessed the site in light of shading issues, and Amendment 12 reduces the minimum kWh requirement for the site.

QUESTION: Menlo Park Site: Please confirm that we can remove trees on the interior of the parking lot.

ANSWER: Trees may be removed from the interior main parking lot.