Amendment 03--RFP LBNF-357714-JD-Approved.pdf

AMENDMENT TO SOLICITATION

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE OF AMENDMENT:

November 25, 2024

SOLICITATION NO.

RFP LBNF-357714-JD

DATE ISSUED:

September 17, 2024

PROJECT NO.

N/A

PROPOSAL DUE DATE:

December 10, 2024

TITLE OF PROJECT:

LONG-BASELINE NEUTRINO FACILITY ARGON RECEIVING

Offerors must acknowledge this Addendum prior to the hour and date set forth in the solicitation by one of the following methods:

1. By completing the Subcontractor Annual Representations and Certifications (SARC), or

2. By separate fax, letter, or email.

If by virtue of this Addendum you desire to change a proposal already submitted, such change may be made by email, provided such email clearly references the Solicitation number and this Amendment number and is received prior to the proposal due date.

Amendment No. 3 is issued to extend the offer closing date, enact a scope adjustment and answer questions as follows:

THE OFFER CLOSING DATE IS HEREBY CHANGED TO DECEMBER 10, 2024 AT 5:00 P.M.

CENTRAL STANDARD TIME (CST-CHICAGO).

Scope Change: Per the technical presentation provided during the Site Visits, Fermilab has deleted LSZH from the scope. The new requirement is: CMP cable (communications multipurpose plenum).

Additional File: The file “Q&A Appendix 1 – ARF Layout with labels” is attached to this Amendment. This document was inadvertently omitted from a previous Amendment.

Responses to offeror questions:

Question No. 1: Analyzing the P&ID to create an instrumentation list, our firm is interpretating the ¼ valve in angle as a strainer (circulated valve in the screenshot). Could you confirm if our firm`s interpretation is correct? Or this valve has other function?

Answer No. 1: Yes, it is a strainer

Question No. 2: The P&ID shows couplings and flexibles in the lines. We do not have specifications or the couplings in the technical specification. Our firm is considering the couplings and flexibles in the scope of delivery. Could you please confirm if this consideration is correct?

If the couplings are in the scope of supply, could you please specify the type of the couplings?

Answer No. 2: The flexibles are part of the truck connecting to the Argon Receiving Facility (therefore, not in the scope). The couplings on the side of the Argon Receiving Facility are in the scope.

The couplings shall allow for a safe and efficient connection with a LAr truck. Each tanker has the same port. The flexible parts come with the truck, the line at the Argon Receiving Facility can be rigid up to that point and terminate with the matching connection (that will be on the flex hose from the truck).

The standard Argon Connection is a CGA fitting. They come in two standard sizes for argon 2.5” and 1.5”. It is our understanding that the 2.5” size is the common one on LAr Trucks, but the offeror should verify (AR-250). The truck will have a delivery hose to connect to the customer station (Our station, that the successful offeror for RFP LBNF-357714-JD would be providing).

Here are a few useful links and images (NOTE: This link is an example. FERMILAB is not recommending or endorsing this supplier):

https://www.cryoorder.com/pdf/CGA%20Bulk%20Fittings%20and%20Flanges/Ratermann%20C ryogenics%20Prop%2065%202019_CGA%20Fittings%20Pages_348_365.pdf https://www.opwces.com/products/fittings-adapters/fill-assembly-for-bulk-liquid.html

This is what would be on the customer side (Our side):

https://www.cryoorder.com/pdf/CGA%20Bulk%20Fittings%20and%20Flanges/Ratermann%20Cryogenics%20Prop%2065%202019_CGA%20Fittings%20Pages_348_365.pdf https://www.cryoorder.com/pdf/CGA%20Bulk%20Fittings%20and%20Flanges/Ratermann%20Cryogenics%20Prop%2065%202019_CGA%20Fittings%20Pages_348_365.pdf https://www.opwces.com/products/fittings-adapters/fill-assembly-for-bulk-liquid.html

You can often purchase a fill assembly with many of the standard components. Check valve, strainer, PSV, and hose purge valve

This is what would be on the truck’s Delivery hose.

Question No. 3: Since the pad has already been poured for the above ground argon tanks, etc., could we get the concrete pad technical data (thickness, compressive strength, rebar, etc) to understand implications for foundation and anchorage design of all equipment?

Answer No. 3: Attached are all drawings (Concrete Pad Drawings.zip).

Question No. 4: Since the Linde tanks are low on volume with respect to the spec requirement (ony 12,049 gal net), would FERMI prefer the other two tanks be larger volume – STD 15,060 gal net volume? Total volume with all 4 tanks would be 54,218 gal. – all could be filled with 11 trucks (ave. 5000 gal/truck). With STD 13,060 gal tanks (below spec required volume), total volume with all 4 tanks would be 50,217 gal. – all could be filled with 10 trucks (ave 5000 gal/truck). Please confirm if STD VS – 13K tank would be desirable even though it would be below spec. net volume requirement.

Answer No. 4: It would be preferable to have the total volume at 200 m3 minimum. This would mean that better option would be the one with larger tanks. However, you may include an alternate in your proposal for a lower volume and an associated cost reduction for our consideration.

Question No. 5: With the Linde tanks having different plumbing configuration, etc, the plumbing will need to be modified, especially to meet automation and pressure build requirements. Will this be the job of the installers while on site?

Answer No. 5: Yes

Question No. 6: Since the compressor will need to be installed indoors to prevent freezing of the condensate, can it be located in the same purity building as the analyzer system, or another building? If so, the building will need to be properly sized for the extra equipment and will need to be heated, ventilated, and have a condensate floor drain. It is assumed that the same building will house PLC control panel. Please confirm.

Answer No. 6: For the compressors: It would be up to the selected Subcontractor to provide any additional buildings/structures. If the compressors were to be housed in the purity shed, a declaration of their non-negative impact on the rest of the housed equipment would be necessary. For the PLC: As per Section 9, point 9 of the SOW: “Where possible, these terminal connection points and control boxes shall be located indoors (i.e., the purity shed) or, if not possible, provided a roofed-over location.”

Question No. 7: Regarding the solid model, where the 8” pipe goes into the concrete slab on the solid model, is this the actual location and cannot be moved?

Answer No. 7: No, the pipe will interface with the system outside of the concrete slab (please see the attachment “ARF – pipe connection)

Question No. 8: Regarding the I/O system, we assume all required works in the 3rd party Ignition SCADA system are executed by the local contrcator/system integrator. We supply all information of the PCS 7 system by using OPC UA. There is no direct communication to the S7-400 PLC allowed and therefore the OpenPCS7 station is added.

Answer No. 8: Yes, the system will be executed by Fermilab.

Question No. 9: Is there a Process Design Specification where the Control Philosophy is being described on what steps should be automated of unloading LAr trucks?

Answer No. 9: This would be part of the final design. Fermilab will provide general outline. However, maximum automation is to be assumed. Fermilab wants to have as little operations done by the personal as possible. The truck driver shall be able to connect to the Facility, “push a button”, and have the equipment do all testing, acceptance/rejection, and flow control for them.

Question No. 10: Should we supply the compressors on-site for this facility? Or will there be compressed air available?

Answer No. 10: The Subcontractor shall supply the compressors for this scope.

Question No. 11: Which voltage may we assume available on-site? (110 or 480 V? )

Answer No. 11: As per Table 9-4 in the J-4 – Argon Receiving Facilities – SOW: 1080 kW at 480 VAC and 21 kW at 208VAC

Question No. 12: Are the Linde Tanks per ASME or PED code? What is the serial #?

Answer No. 12: The tanks are per PED. Serial numbers: 20009498, 20009499

Question No. 13: Who will be responsible for warranty, spare parts, and any issues that the Linde tank could potentially have after shipment/installation, and also given its age and outdated technology etc?

Answer No. 13: Fermilab is responsible for such issues related to the Government Furnished Equipment (i.e.

Linde tanks).

Question No. 14: Does Fermi have a list of contractors or approved vendors with the appropriate insurance for electrical, cranes, and civil contract work?

Answer No. 14: Selection of suitable sub-contractors is the responsibility of the offeror. You are free to utilize resources already doing work at the site or those familiar with the Homestake mine, but for liability reasons Fermilab cannot provide a list or certify that these vendors have the appropriate credentials.

All other provisions remain unchanged.

Fermi Research Alliance, LLC P.O. Box 500 Batavia, IL 60510 M.S 123

Jeremy Duncan LBNF Procurement Specialist

(865) 300-0443