FASPP_Q A__5.pdf

FASPP – QUESTIONS & ANSWERS #5

QUESTION: If we are able to meet the minimum warranted production requirement at the USGS Menlo Park site without carports, can we exclude carport systems from our proposal for this site? Carports tend to be more expensive than rooftop systems and it may be possible to provide the government a higher NPV if we exclude carports at this site.

ANSWER: Yes, the minimum warranted production requirement may be met with any combination of permissible PV locations. Carports are not required.

QUESTION: How will the government calculate the weighted average price to beat? Will the government use the minimum warranted production requirements for this calculation? Or, will the government use the production provided by each respondent for each site, and calculate a different weighted average price to beat for each respondent’s bid?

ANSWER: Yes the Government will use the given Offeror’s minimum warranted production requirements as stated in the Offeror’s Price Schedule for this calculation.

QUESTION: If our engineers are unable to meet a minimum size requirement without violating established industry and internal company design standards will good design practice win out over meeting estimated size requirements?

ANSWER: No, we need to maintain the production minimums in order to equitably evaluate proposals and assure we meet internal goals. However we recognize that the Shea FB (Santa Rosa) and Peckham FB & USCH (San Jose) are very constrained sites and are likely to be causing the most problems.

Therefore Amendment 13 is reducing the minimum kWh production requirement for the Shea FB to 75,000 kWh, and the Peckham FB & USCH production requirement to 150,000 kWh.

QUESTION: We would like to confirm that there is no bid bond on the GSA Region 9 FASPP solicitation and only performance and payment bonds are required. Is this correct?

ANSWER: This is correct.

QUESTION: Given the changing dynamics of the project would the Government consider a 1 week deadline extension?

ANSWER: We’re becoming concerned about allowing time for the financing, design and construction process to allow system completion before the reduction in the solar investment tax credit in December 2016. Therefore Amendment 13 extends the due date for proposals to Monday August 31, but we are not extending for a full week. Amendment 13 makes a number of changes but we do not believe these changes in general add a significant proposal development burden; most relax requirements in some way.

QUESTION: The minimum and maximum capacity requirements for the National Archives, Clifton Young FB, Carson City, and Mare Island are [repeats existing numbers]. At the National Archives building there is a 870,000 minimum production requirement (also known as a performance guarantee), but the Government won’t buy more than 875,000 at that same location. This leaves Contractors with a 5,000 kWh band to produce within, and commercial guarantees are more commonly in the 80%-90% range. Would the Government consider revising the minimum output to reflect 80% of the maximum?

ANSWER: We agree the band is too tight for these three locations and would place the contractor at excessive risk of not getting paid for all production. Therefore Amendment 13 is making the following changes:

Ryan (National Archives): Maximum is being increased to 960,300 kWh.

C.Clifton Young: Minimum is reducted to 480,000 kWh; maximum is increased to 640,000 kWh

Carson City: Minimum is reduced to 370,000 kWh; maximum is increased to 410,000 kWh.

QUESTION: Section 3.4 [of the Forest Service site statement of work] requires, “Any area of the existing parking lot used to install PV supporting structures shall be sealed to the current expanse of asphalt (see section 8.2).” Please clarify how much of the parking lot must be sealed, i.e., does installation of canopies in a parking lot require that entire parking lot and all adjoining asphalt roads and driveways be sealed and re-striped?

ANSWER: As stated in the Forest Service Site-Specific Scope of Work, the Offeror/Contractor will only be responsible for sealing and re-striping the parking lot areas where the carport PV system(s) are installed by the Contractor, in accordance with Section 3.4.

QUESTION: Section 6 of the SOW contains multiple options for extending the paving, relocating electrical service at the annex, etc. However, the Price Schedule does not address these options. Please clarify how we should provide pricing for these options and/or provide an updated Price Schedule.

ANSWER: Offeror/Contractor should provide the Power Purchase Agreement kWh price—and identify what (Main Building Roof, Main Parking Lot, Annex Building Roof, Entrance Paving Expansion, Main Parking Expansion, Overflow Paving, etc.) is included in the kWh price (see Amendment 3 change to L.4.1.2.2). Additionally, the Forest Service changed the wording in Section 6 of the SOW.

QUESTION: We have discovered one additional issue—the SF 1449 does not appear to be attached to any of the solicitation documents. The RFP requires us to complete certain blocks of the SF 1449 as part of our proposal, so please provide the SF 1449 to all bidders.

ANSWER: This will be posted to FBO not later than Monday 8/24/2015.

QUESTION: Section L.4.1.2.2: Please clarify what is meant by “System Type and Mode of Operation (Utility Interactive)”

ANSWER: We agree this is confusing and unnecessary. Amendment 13 removes this from L.4.1.2.2

QUESTION: This question relates to section “L.4.1.2.1 Subfactor 1—Production”. This section states that “Estimates of AC energy delivery of the system (kWh) shall be based on Standard Test Conditions (STC) of 1000 W/m2 solar irradiance, 25°C PV module temperatures, and a wind speed of 1 m/s.” We assume that this clause means that the power rating of the solar modules used in the designs and PVWatts analysis should be estimated using STC. We assume that the GSA requires the actual estimates of AC energy delivery to be calculated using PVWatts based on the inputs to PVWatts such as weather data, system sizing, module type, loss factors and other variables. Can you please confirm this?

ANSWER: This is all correct, except we will allow PVSyst or HelioScope to be used in lieu of PVWatts.

QUESTION: This question relates to Section “C.8.1 Total Array Output Warranty”. Will the GSA accept a more up-to-date and robust Fundamentals Approach to warranty performance testing as developed by experts at the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory? The attached paper describes the improved accuracy of performance calculations when using the Fundamentals Approach in place of the Performance Ratio approach described in IEC 61724 and the Weather-Corrected Performance Ratio report. In general, use of the Performance Ratio method can result in biased results depending on seasonal variations in boundary conditions. The Fundamentals Approach to performance testing described in the attached paper was created by many of the same experts who authored the Weather-Corrected Performance Ratio, but represents a more up-to-date methodology that overcomes the limitations inherent in the Performance Ratio methodology.

ANSWER: We investigated this, to include getting an opinion from the NREL author of the paper cited, and concluded we should stay with the existing requirement to use the weather adjusted performance ratio method, using weather data from the nearest weather station.