Attach._17 _Trinity_Rewinds_Questions_21 77 and_78.pdf

Solicitation R15PS00287 Specification No. 20-C0841 Amendment No. 0007 Attachment No. 17

Trinity Powerplant Generator Rewinds

Questions and Responses 21, 77, and 78

Question 21: Presence of lead in existing coating is mentioned in RFP Section C, Specification no 20-C084. Following items are listed as possibly having lead containing coatings:

Stator frame structure, including key bars (Specification 02 83 30, item 1.08 and Specification 48 13 62, Item 1.04)

Rotor rim and spider, including key bars (Specification 48 13 73, Item 1.05) Considering limited abatement scope of work, would the Government accept to have the coating removed by use of solvent cleaning instead of sandblast? Solvent cleaning would allow the efficient and safe recuperation of hazardous material without costly Containment Structure, eliminating at the same time the risk of powerhouse air/dust contamination associated to sand blast work.

Response 21: Please provide your proposal in accordance with the applicable standards, laws, regulations and requirements detailed in Specification Section 02 83 30. Typically, solvent cleaning is for removing oil, grease, soil, and other soluble contaminants and does not remove coatings.

Question 77: 1)Spec. No. C-20841, page I-19, “FAR 52.246-21 – Warranty of Construction”.

Paragraph (b) of this section specifies a warranty period of 1 year from Final Acceptance.

Paragraph (k) specifies an extended warranty period of 5 years instead. We would ask for your confirmation of the applicable duration of the warranty. Also, in case any parts were to be replaced under warranty, will there be a “sunset” deadline for the warranty on replaced parts?

2) Delivery: is delivery at site of the equipment required prior to the start of the outage, or is it acceptable to deliver it to site after the outage has started, as long as the equipment is delivered before the time when it is required for its actual installation?

Response 77: 1) For each successfully completed unit, the Warranty of Construction discussed in FAR 52.246-21 begins at Government acceptance of the unit and extends for a period of one year and covers all work performed under the contract. The extended warranty discussed in specification section 43 13 71 and FAR 52.246-21 shall begin upon the completion of the 1-year Warranty of Construction and extend for a period of 4 additional years and shall cover the armature winding, stator core, rotor poles as well as inspection procedures at specified times among other items of work. The contractor's warranty with respect to work repaired or replaced will run for either 5 years if discovered in the first year, or 4 years if reported in years 2 through 5.

2) It is not necessary that all materials and equipment be on site prior to the beginning of the outage. It is necessary that the submittals covering the work to be performed in the outage must be approved and that the materials must be manufactured in time to meet the contract milestones.

The contractor must demonstrate to the OGR that materials and equipment will be delivered to the site in time to meet project milestones.

Amendment No. 0007 Attachment No. 17

Question 78: After review of the data gleaned by our man at the site and the drawings made available on the high pressure lift system, there seems to be an absence of check valves for each thrust shoe unless they are external and left off the drawings provided. Also in our usual calculations giving us optimum placement of the High Pressure groove and port, it is not located in the optimum position.

My question to you is, Would the Bureau entertain the thought of modifying the thrust shoes to place this HPL groove and vertical port in the proper position and allow for installation of an internal Inserta® Check Valve and carrier in each thrust shoe.

If this is not an option you would like to take advantage of, we will continue with our proposal as a subcontractor to the primes for supply of the system as per specification, but still need to know what kind and where the individual check valves would be placed.

Response 78: As part of the solicitation General Electric drawing GE-699E274 (Reclamation Drawing number 416-MD-52-59) clearly shows the location and number of check valves for the existing thrust bearing high pressure lift system. This is a 1960 GE design and there may not be a check valve for each individual thrust bearing shoe.

It is the intent of this section of the specification to relocate and provide a modern replacement for the high pressure lift system. If the system requires a check valve for each bearing shoe to meet the performance requirements of the system, that is acceptable to the government and the bearing shoe modifications are to be included in the total cost of the system.