Silverliner-VI-RFP-Addendum-11.pdf

September 3, 2026

Dear Proposers:

Attached is Addendum No. 11 to SEPTA's Request for Proposal No. 25 - 00300 - AMJP

- Silverliner VI Rail Cars.

The proposal due date and time scheduled for Friday, October 30th, 2026, at 04:30 PM remains unchanged. All proposals must be delivered to my attention by the closing date and time to be considered for the award. The proposals must be sent to SEPTA’s General Offices, 1234 Market Street, 11th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Any inquiries regarding this proposal must be directed to Michael Piselli of the Procurement and Supply Chain Management Department at (215) 580-8364 or mpiselli@septa.org.

Thank you for your interest in the Authority.

Sincerely, Michael Piselli Manager, Contract Administration Procurement & Supply Chain Management mailto:mpiselli@septa.org

Addendum No. 11

Request for Proposal No. 25- 00300 - AMJP

Silverliner VI Rail Cars Addendum No. 11

To All Bidders:

The following constitutes Addendum No. 11 to SEPTA's 25-00300-AMJP –Silverliner VI Rail Cars.

Addendum No. 11 must be acknowledged by inserting the date of the Addendum on the Addenda Response Form. Failure to do so may render a bid as non-responsive.

General:

1. Questions and Answers (208-263) are attached.

ADDENDUM NO. 11

ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SHEET

SEPTA’s RFP No. 25-00300- AMJP Silverliner VI Rail Cars.

The attached addendum to the Contract Documents is hereby part of the same and is incorporated in full as part of the Project. Proposer shall acknowledge Addendum No. 11 by completing and returning the Addendum Acknowledgment Sheet with the Technical Proposal.

FIRM NAME: (typed or printed)

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE:

TITLE:

NAME: (typed or printed)

DATE:

Addendum No. 11 includes:

1. Questions and Answers 208-263

No. Reference Question Answer

10.23.D

10.23.D Except as otherwise required in these specifications, energy measurement shall comply with the requirements as detailed in the relevant parts of EN 50463, EN 50591 and relevant standards referenced therein to permit verification of energy consumption.

- According to your response in 'RFP - Addendum 3', you indicated that a modified version of EN 50463 could be proposed.

We would like to propose modifying the accuracy verification method.

Under EN 50463-2, the maximum percentage error varies based on the accuracy class for the maximum(Umax2) and minimum(Umin1 and Umin2) values of catenery voltage. Instead of following this, we would like to propose applying Accuracy class 0.5R and verifying that a maximum error of ±0.5% is satisfied across actual catenary voltage range of 9.5kV to 13.5kV. If this is not acceptable, could you please provide your preferred voltage range?

Additionally, we would like to request modifying the relevant test procedures within the EN 50463-2 standard so that they are conducted based on this proposed voltage range. Please confirm if this proposed approach would be acceptable.

Proposer shall follow typical voltage range of IEC 60850 for Umin2 at -20% and Umax2 +/-20% of the SEPTA’s nominal 11500v, i.e. 9200-13800 volts, for the particular purposes of EN 50463-2 compliance. A maximum 0.5% error as per Class 0.5R for this voltage range will be acceptable as proposed.

2.9.10.C

Section 2.9.10.C states that the efficiency of the WSP scheme, during all specified modes of braking and within the specified limits, shall not be less than 90%.

However, there's no commonly defined method or standard to calculate WSP efficiency.

So, is it allowed for WSP system to fulfill the performance speciifed by EN 15595 in terms of stopping distance elongation?

2.9.10.C.1 defines the ratio to calculate the efficiency of the WSP scheme. No relief needs to be granted.

15.6.5.5 The parking brake test is part of static commissiong. Please allow it.

The parking brake must undergo design qualification/engineering testing prior to its inclusion in static commissioning test. Note that the specification does not obligate the carbuilder to perform the parking brake test as part of the dynamometer test.

12.19.E.1

We would like to employ the service-proven parking brake units. And its manual release force is 22-45lbf.

Please clarify if it is acceptable.

This is acceptable given that the carbuilder proposed force falls in the range of a momentary pull force applied by a 5th percentile female which aligns with

APTA PR-M-S-006-98.

12.20.5.A.3

Section 12.20.5.A.3 states that Control logic cabinet(s) on each car shall include LEDs for indicating system states and faults.

There is no LED in morden brake control unit including WSP functions.

So, It is proposed that the system states and faults are transmitted to Cab and can be made visible at driver's display.

Please clarify if it is acceptable. This is acceptable.

TS 11.16.6.a.1 We would like to ease unloading condition of 25% at 2 inches to 65% at

2.5 inches.

Accepted. However, this shall meet APTA-PR-M-S-014-06, and full compliance with TS 11.16.6 shall be demonstrated via simulation as per the provisions of TS 11.16.6.A.2.

16.5.2 We would like to replace ASTM A572 gr 50 to ASTRM A588 which is equivalent material. Specification of the material

SEPTA does not object to proposed material substitution, however, carbuilder to submit a full equivalency and analysis for approval to demonstrate that the material is suitable for the proposed application. For clarification, ASTM A588 is in TS 16.5.2, and SEPTA interprets the carbuilder's request as replacing A588 and using A572 grade 50 instead.

16.5.2 We would like to replace ASTM A352 gr LCC to AAR M201 which is equivalent material. Specification of the material

Generally, SEPTA does not object to the proposed material substitution, however, carbuilder to submit a full equivalency and analysis for approval to demonstrate that the material is suitable for the proposed application. Please note, AAR M-201 is currently part of TS 16.5.3.2 A2, 16.5.3.3, and 16.5.3.4;

Not used in TS 16.5.2.

16.5.2 We would like to replace ASTM A352 gr LCC to AAR M201 which is equivalent material. Specification of the material

Generally, SEPTA does not object to the proposed material substitution, however, carbuilder to submit a full equivalency and analysis for approval to demonstrate that the material is suitable for the proposed application. Please note, AAR M-201 is currently part of TS 16.5.3.2 A2, 16.5.3.3, and 16.5.3.4;

Not used in TS 16.5.2.

10.9.10.A.1

Intermediate lubrication are mendatory to warranty the bearing lifetime, and performance as the motor is a complex design with high performance in recent days.

We assume that the specification was made a while ago. If this concerns

Intermediate lubrication for traction motor bearing grease cavity is acceptable provided that grease cavities are readily accessible to permit addition of lubricant without de-trucking. This operation shall not incur damage to, nor require disassembly of, any equipment. Excess grease shall be allowed to escape during relubrication.

2.1.9.C-D

A 40-year corrosion-free service life cannot be guaranteed. Painted components will meet 960-hour ASTM B117 salt spray requirements with acceptance criteria per ASTM D714/D610. Unpainted components will be protected with Tectyl or equivalent, and fasteners will utilize zinc plating or equivalent corrosion-resistant coating.

If Tectyl coat is not maintained the 40-year corrosion free service cannot be achieved. We would like to ask SEPTA to include tectyl maintenance term or ease the requirement.

SEPTA's preference is to limit the use of corrosion control coatings to small components or locations where conventional paint systems cannot be effectively applied. For components where a paint system can be utilized, SEPTA generally prefers a painted finish due to its established maintenance and inspection practices.

SEPTA recognizes that the service life of a paint system cannot be guaranteed for the full 40-year vehicle design life and acknowledges that periodic maintenance, repair, and recoating will be required. The use of corrosion control coatings shall be submitted for approval.

2.2.5.E

Related to the ground brush comment above regarding TS 11.4.2.F, Current design requires axle-end mounted ground brush that requires to be removed to access the axle center. However, the operation is easy and could be performed with standard tools. The design is advantageous as it prevents ingress of water or alien objects. We ask SEPTA to permit such design.

SEPTA believes the response in addendum 9: "TS 10.10.10 explicitly requires gear unit mounted ground brush system, therefore axle end ground brush is not expected." resolves this concern.

10.10.11.A.2

The ground brush interface that we would like to suggest is made of bronze, however it is installed on journal bearing end cap, not pressed on the axle.

We kindly ask SEPTA to ease the clause to have such ground feature.

SEPTA believes the response in addendum 9: "TS 10.10.10 explicitly requires gear unit mounted ground brush system, therefore axle end ground brush is not expected." resolves this concern.

10.10.11.A.3

We would like to ask SEPTA to ease the clause as the lifecycle of the ring(brush) to be one year as the consumable (the brush) only last for period of one year. The Carbuilder's request is denied.

10.10.11.A.4

This clause asks the carbuilder to provide protection against injury, ingression of alien objects or dirt and also be accessible with easy removal.

Therefore, we suggest ground brush system on the axle end with covers that provides protection and easy access. However, this is contradictory to the clause 2.2.5.E. We kindly request SEPTA to ease the related clause.

SEPTA believes the response in addendum 9: "TS 10.10.10 explicitly requires gear unit mounted ground brush system, therefore axle end ground brush is not expected." resolves this concern

10.10.11.A.4-a

The housing for ground cover is made of cast iron. However, there is redundancy with the ground brush. And the brush assembly has three brushes providing fail safe three-point contact. Please kindly perimit housing made of cast iron.

A housing made of cast iron is acceptable provided the ground brush housing assembly is electrically insulated from the gear unit. The Carbuilder shall ensure that brush failure does not result in injurious current through any bearings.

TS 10.10.10.A.4.a will be modified as follows: "The ground brush housing assembly shall be electrically insulated from the gear unit made of nonconductive material so that brush failure does not result in injurious current through any bearings."

11.1.1 Section 2

Minimum curve radius is 220 feet. We would like to confirm if the track is active. Also kindly provide where in the depot this track is located if possible.

The specification has been changed in Addendum 10 to modify this value to 250 feet.

11.7.F

Requesting a waiver to remove the wear limit marking on central bearing components that wear on both top and bottom surfaces simultaneously;

making the application of a meaningful wear limit marking inaccurate. The part is to be replaced during the planned overhaul intervals and has sufficient wear life to not require periodic, in-service evaluation between overhauls. This is acceptable.

16.4.1.4.A

Would it be acceptable to specify ASTM F1941 as an alternate plating specification for fasteners? ASTM F1941 includes additional details related specifically to fasteners. This is acceptable.

16.5.3.3.A Can SNT-TC-1A certification be allowable as an alternate? SNT TC 1A is widely recognized across transportation and heavy industry sectors and provides a robust, employer-based certification framework.

SEPTA notes that this allowance was added in Addendum 10 (ASNT-TC- 1A). NDT inspectors shall be Level 2 or Level 1 working under a Level 2.

16.6.3.5.A For cast steel components using AAR Grade materials, would AWS

D15.1 be acceptable as an alternate specification for welded joints?

TS 16.6.3.3 A.4. requires general welding to be performed as per AWS D1.1 or D15.1. Note however that under TS 16.6.3.3 A.1. all WPSs shall be qualified; pre-qualified WPSs are not permitted.

11.2.3.B

CDRL 11-05, 11-07

Please clarify that CDRLs 11-05 and 11-07 do not require the submission of FEA model files, but instead require a report documenting the FEA model inputs and outputs. The FEA models contain intellectual property (IP) and proprietary information that cannot be transferred directly. It is understood that SEPTA may, at its discretion, conduct live review sessions. In such cases, the reporting methodology may be agreed upon during those sessions to satisfy the requirements of CDRLs 11-05 and 11-

07. Confirmed per TS 11.2.3.B.

11.2.5.B

Please clarify whether twist loads are required to be applied during laboratory testing. If so, could a waiver be requested to allow the twist load cases to be evaluated analytically rather than as part of the laboratory testing program?

Twist load cases have been analyzed for other programs. In addition, FEA structural model validation further supports the correlation between the FEA model and physical testing, providing confidence in the analytical results for the twist load case.

Physical testing already includes vertical, lateral, longitudinal, and brake equipment load cases, which require a significant commitment of equipment and resources. Adding the twist load case would significantly increase the complexity of the test setup and could introduce additional safety risks to personnel.

The twist loads can contribute to stresses in critical areas, and should be reflected in the static and fatigue testing. Therefore the Carbuilder's request is denied.

15.4.8.3.7.A

Since the proposed bolster is intended to be part of the air suspension volume, a waiver is requested to allow evaluation of the maximum service pressure fatigue load case analytically rather than as part of the laboratory testing program.

Applying maximum service pressure during fatigue testing of the truck presents a significant safety risk to both personnel and test equipment.

During testing, personnel are required to perform periodic inspections of the truck frame and bolster while the test article remains pressurized. In the unlikely event of a structural rupture or sudden release of air pressure during an inspection, personnel could be exposed to serious injury and test equipment could sustain substantial damage. Because of these risks, this load condition has been evaluated using FEA rather than physical testing on previous programs. The complete truck assembly is analyzed under the combined effects of vertical, lateral, longitudinal, and braking forces, with the maximum air spring pressure applied simultaneously.

In addition, validation of the FEA structural model further supports the correlation between the FEA results and physical testing, providing confidence in the analytical results for the maximum service pressure load case.

SEPTA requires physical testing for the base fatigue test as described in TS

15. However, SEPTA may allow for a reduction of the test article pressurization to minimize risk to personnel and test equipment during the required periodic inspections for the frame and bolster with Approval.

232 2.7.E to 2.7.I

While the Contractor will fully perform the catenary power supply analysis and measurement as required in Clause F, a short-term measurement prior to PDR cannot capture all worst-case transient phenomena, dynamic grid stability issues, or long-term degradation of the existing infrastructure. For the Contractor to optimize the traction and auxiliary power system design, a clear and quantifiable baseline for the "significant distortion" must be established. Designing a car to accommodate an undefined, unlimited level of infrastructure distortion without any baseline poses an unquantifiable technical and commercial risk to the project.

1. Could SEPTA please provide the historical data, maximum Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) limits, worst-case voltage/current transient profiles, and impedance characteristics of the existing catenary power supply system?

2. Please clarify if SEPTA will agree to limit the Contractor’s liability to the power quality boundaries specified in this Technical Specification (or provided historical data).

3. Furthermore, we kindly request SEPTA to amend Clause E to state that "The Contractor shall ensure compatibility within the mutually agreed power quality envelope, and shall not be held liable for car system anomalies caused by infrastructure power supply distortions that exceed such agreed criteria.

If SEPTA cannot provide the historical power quality data, the Contractor proposes that the data captured during the measurement period specified in Clause F (e.g., Total Harmonic Distortion within XX%) shall be officially approved and established as the Baseline Interface Condition.

Consequently, any damage or component failure (including inverters and

SEPTA acknowledges the Carbuilder's concerns but will not exempt warranty requirements for out of specification catenary conditions. The vehicle design is specified to protect itself from unusual catenary operating conditions, including transients and component overheating such as may result from excessive harmonic distortion.

The Carbuilder is responsible for evaluating the catenary and including sufficent design margins to ensure the vehicle is sufficiently protected and capable of operating in the environment. SEPTA will support contractor's catenary evaluation efforts stipulated in 2.7.F to the extent necessary in case extended monitoring and measurement periods or locations are requested.

To mitigate the Carbuilder's concerns:

1. SEPTA notes that delay due to catenary conditions out of specification limits is not a chargeable failure.

2. SEPTA notes that TS 2.7.E is not intended to override the THD boundary condition for operation as specified in TS 2.9.1.3.E.

3. TS 2.7.I will be amended as follows: "The Contractor shall note that where any characteristics of the actual system are outside of the details provided in this technical specification, the characteristics of the actual system supersede any details included in this technical specification."

2.9.9.C 2.9.9D

Is it acceptable to define the measurement start reference as the point when the traction inverter controller recognizes the command?

The measurement start reference should measure response time from the time when the Master Controller is moved into the zone corresponding to the new command.

2.9.10.A The proposer complies with the application of spin control algorithm.

However, there's no specific value to be considered to wet and dry rail condition. Can SEPTA provide the adhesion level on both rail condition?

Dry rail adhesion is known to be appreciably in excess of what is needed to develop tractive/braking efforts required by TS and accordingly spin/slide activity is not expected on a clean dry rail.

For a purpose of TS 2.9.10.A compliance, average adhesion of 11% that is consistent with clean wet rails condition is considered. Specification shall remain unchanged.

10.5.4.F-3 10.5.4.F-4

The proposer requests clarification on the meaning of 'other memory.' We can propose a PTU with the capability to access fault and analog signals.

Furthermore, static test using the PTU is applicable for verifying digital I/O signals, fault logs, and gate signals of the traction converter/inverter using only the control voltage. Is this acceptable? This is acceptable.

10.19.1.D

The proposer understands that the pneumatic ground switch is not included in the train-set design, as a manual grounding switch is provided in accordance with Section 10.15. Therefore, the operation of the pneumatic ground switch is not applicable to this requirement. Is this acceptable?

This is acceptable. The specification will be modified to removed this reference.

10.19.2.A-5

Meeting this requirement is technically impossible under open-circuit conditions at the secondary terminal of the current transformer. Operating a current transformer with an open secondary circuit can damage or even destroy a current transformer and generate potentially dangerous voltage on the secondary side.

The proposer respectfully requests that SEPTA exempt the requirement for the open-circuit condition

Requirements remain unchanged. Design of the current transformer and its integration with the rest of the circuit should minimize or eliminate possibility of device damage arising from operation with the open secondary winding circuit, including cases of accidental disconnection of interface connectors, if included in the circuit. This may be achieved by various means. Proposed approach should be detailed in the carbuilder's proposal.

10.2.8.B-3

As there is no commercially available product that supports operation inhibition by using PTU, the proposer respectfully requests an exemption from this requirement by SEPTA. This requirement will be removed.

23.1.17.B.1

Single point failure principle does not apply to Bogie Safety as there exist some mechnical single-point of failures such as Wheel and Axle that may lead to a hazards of Cat 1 and they are put under control through proper design parameters, safety margin and QA control but cannot be eliminated.

Single-point failures that result in a Hazard Risk Index (HRI) of 1 or 2 are not permitted. HRI is determined by the combination of hazard severity and likelihood. HRI values of 1 and 2 correspond to risks classified as Unacceptable or Undesirable under MIL-STD-882C/D. While a single-point failure may exist that results in a Category I or Category II hazard severity, the design and supporting analyses must demonstrate that the associated hazard does not result in an HRI of 1 or 2.

Additionally, TS 23.1.17.B.1 does not provide any blanket exceptions to this requirement.

13.12.2-A.2.c 13.12.1

2.1.9

Provide licenses as necessary for SEPTA to use the software for the design life of the vehicles.

TS 13.12.1 names Infodev as the APC supplier. Infodev’s APC solution requires an annual subscription. Please confirm the duration of the annual subscription: end of the warranty period or design life (40 years as per TS 2.1.9).

Specifically for Infodev's APC solution, licenses are only required through the end of the warranty period. No other changes to the licensing requirements apply, including if the carbuilder proposes an alternative APC supplier.

21.1.1.4 21.5.A.3

RFI to 21.1.1.4..A -RAM Design Criteria*The car shall be designed and constructed to have a minimum period of 184 days between periodic maintenance servicing by shop personnel, except for HVAC filter replacement.

RFI to 21.5.A.3 -Maintainability Requirements In the design of the car, the Contractor shall not require that maintenance (such as topping off fluids or adjusting parts), be performed more frequently than at 30,000 mi (48,280 km) intervals, except for washer fluid or where permission has been given by SEPTA for a shorter interval

The converter air inlet filter requires replacement at intervals shorter than 184 days. In addition, FRA regulations require wheel inspections every 92 days, preventing compliance with the specified 184-day maintenance interval.

We would like to know if exceptions to the 184 day servicing interval can be granted for equipment above.

SEPTA notes that in Addendum 9, allowance has been granted to allow other filter types to be replaced at 92 day intervals subject to approval. SEPTA also notes that the 184 day maintenance interval requirement is seperate from its inspection practices as required by the FRA.

21.1.1.4

RFI to 21.5.A.5 -Maintainability Requirements (Table 21-4)

- The Truck MTTR may be above two hours.

We would like to know if exceptions to the MTTR standard can be granted for equipment above.

The carbuilder may propose a different value as part of their proposal and compliance matrix.

10.4.5

Traction system supplier requests SEPTA approval of an Overvoltage Protection (OVP) resistor solution instead of a brake resistor.

Based on proven application of AC traction projects globally and on the demonstrated compliance with braking performance requirements under non-receptive line conditions , and the sufficient transient energy absorption capability provided by the OVP resistor, using an OVP resistor is considered the optimal solution for the Silverliner VI project.

Modern control systems allow very fast dynamic response in controlling voltage transients, allowing the use of an OVP resistor to quickly stabilize the DC link. Use of an OVP resistor will optimize the overall equipment footprint on the car, decrease weight, and lessen maintenance activity. The Carbuilder's request is denied primarily due to concerns with additional wear on friction brake material.

10.2.8.B,C

Traction system supplier proposes an alternative approach to line current monitoring. As an alternative to install a dedicated Line Current Interference Monitoring Unit, HRC proposes utilizing the existing Line Harmonic Filter (LHF) current measurement as the primary means of monitoring line harmonic current. Under the proposed architecture, a current sensor will be installed in the Line Harmonic Filter section to continuously measure the LHF current.

This measurement will be processed by the control system to monitor the total harmonic current injected into the line. Should the measured current exceed a predefined threshold, the control system will automatically disable the line converter and isolate the system to prevent non-compliant operation.

The ICMU may be a standalone physical unit or distributed solution making use of any traction system components. However, intended ICMU functionality to detect exceedances in the signaling bands should be respected regardless of implemetation. The proposal shall detail impacts to maintainability and reliability to allow SEPTA to evaluate the proposed ICMU solution effectively.

It is not clear if proposed approach to monitor total harmonic current is in compliance with this requirement or not as it may be possible to have excessive levels at a particular frequency band without exceeding total harmonic current limits.

TS 15.8.10

In dynamic noise test, noise source is dependent of rail roughness and track decay rate.In ISO 3381 and 3095, reference track is defined for type test purpose.Its impact on noise also can be investigated (ISO 3095 Annex C).

Consequently, rolling stock noise level is the impact of track on noise in addition to measured noise level. If no other requirements in track condition for type test, ISO3381/3095 track requirement is taken into account.

Please kindly review our proposal.

SEPTA expects the rail conditions at the dedicated test location to be a non-contributing factor for dynamic noise testing non-compliance and does not anticipate the need for additional specification language change at this time.

However; in the event that dynamic noise issues can be shown to be rail related, SEPTA may consider the adoption of additional standards towards the resolution of any such outstanding issues.

Silverliner-VI-RFPInstructions-to-Proposers/

Silverliner-VI-RFP-Contract

VI.C

/TS 15.8.8.8

/TS 2.1.8

The Contractor respectfully requests to delete the auxiliary load power requirement (45.895 kW/car) from the Liquidated Damages (LD) assessment in Clause C and Section 2.1.8.A.2.

Most of auxiliary load power is used by the HVAC and heating systems.

Auxiliary load power for these systems depends entirely on operational factors outside the Contractor’s control, such as driver temperature settings, passenger numbers, weather changes, and door opening times.

Charging penalties for variables in the operational domain is unfair to the Contractor.

Section 2.1.8.B requires using EN 50591, which uses standardized weather profiles for simulations. Real 1-year operating data will naturally differ from standardized simulation conditions. In fact, EN 50591 Clause

7.1 explicitly states that "simulation of energy consumption for transient conditions in the HVAC system is difficult and not state of the art in view of a precise prediction of energy consumption." Since the governing standard itself admits that predicting real-world dynamic HVAC energy usage is technically inaccurate, imposing financial penalties based on 1-year real operations is technically unreasonable.

Therefore, the Contractor requests that auxiliary load power be completely excluded from the Liquidated Damages (LD) assessment.

Furthermore, the Contractor respectfully inquires about the technical baseline and source data for the specified 45.895 kW/car limit. If SEPTA provides the measured operational data from the existing Silverliner V fleet, the Contractor is committed to delivering equal or superior auxiliary performance for the new vehicles under the same conditions.

The requirements have been changed in Addendum 10 and the upcoming contract redline for the carbuilder to propose an energy consumption prediction and validate it.

TS 21.7.1.A

TS 21.7.1.2.3

Regarding the "Reliability and Availability Demonstration Test", the targets are the "Car-level Reliability(MDBD, MDBF-all) and Availability Targets" and Subsystem-level "MDBF-all" Target defined in Table 21-3. The evaluation of Car-level Reliability (MDBD, MDBF-all) and Availability is performed in the test period for cars that meets the condition (achieving a cumulative mileage of over 10,000 service miles after Conditional Acceptance). Cars included in the test remain in the evaluation period until the Train-level reliability and availability targets are achieved; however, even if not all cars are included in the reliability and availability test and the cars included in the test period are not evaluated cumulatively for 12 months(Depending on the time of evaluation, some cars included in the evaluation period are not evaluated cumulatively over 12 months), the car-level reliability evaluation is considered complete if the car-level "MDBD" and "MDBF-all" targets are met during the demonstration test. This is because cars delivered initially will fall outside the warranty period by the time all cars are included in the Reliability and Availability Demonstration Test and due to the feature of cars being delivered sequentially, the 12-month cumulative value cannot be evaluated for cars that were recently included in test period. On the other hand, the Subsystem-level Reliability test is defined to evaluate whether the target is satisfied only when all cars have been in reliability test for at least 12 consecutive months, in accordance with the requirements of 21.7.1.2.3.a.

To summarize, for the car-level Reliability and Availability evaluation, the test is considered complete if the target value is met during the Reliability and Availability Demonstration Test period, regardless of whether all cars are included in the evaluation period and evaluated cumulatively for 12 months;

however, for the Subsystem-level Reliability evaluation, all cars must be included in an evaluation period of at least 12 months.Is it correct to understand the Reliability and Availability Demonstration Test in this manner?

For clarification, in TS 21.7.1.2.A.3.a will be amended as follows "All cars have been in The reliability test has occured for at least 12 consecutive months."

TS 21.7.1.2.A.3.a

While it is a reasonable requirement that all cars be included in the reliability, availability evaluation of the subsystem, considering that cars are delivered sequentially, applying a minimum 12-month cumulative evaluation to all cars results in forcibly extending the warranty period of the initial delivered cars to align with the evaluation period of the final delivered cars.

Therefore, we request the modification of the Reliability and Availability Test Completion conditions as follows.

TS 21.7.1.2.A.3.a : "All cars have been in reliability test for at least 12 consecutive months."

-> "All cars subject to the evaluation period have been in reliability test, incorporating up to 12 trailing months per car on a rollingbasis until substystem reliability requirements are achieved."

For clarification, in TS 21.7.1.2.A.3.a will be amended as follows "All cars have been in The reliability test has occured for at least 12 consecutive months."

10.9.9.A.1

Grease cavities shall contain sufficient lubricant to allow operation for 7 years without relubrication.

- Traction motor bearing grease inevitably undergoes temperature rise and subsequent thermal degradation during operation. Since this cannot be resolved by increasing the grease cavity capacity, regular grease injection is essential to ensure adequate lubrication and prevent bearing damage.

Our service-proven design requires grease injection on an annual basis.

The design allows for easy maintenance (grease injection) via a grease nipple, ensuring good accessibility and convenience for maintenance work.

Therefore, we kindly request that the specification be revised to change the requirement from '7 years without relubrication' to an annual (1-year) relubrication.

This is acceptable provided that grease cavities are readily accessible to permit addition of lubricant without de-trucking on an annual basis. These operations shall not incur damage to, nor require disassembly of, any equipment. Excess grease shall be allowed to escape during relubrication.

13.2

Regarding the Content Lab, the primary objective of this clause is to validate the proper functioning of content and the overall customer experience. Therefore, replicating the complete set of onboard hardware in an off-board lab is considered an over-specification. Setting up an identical fleet of all onboard equipment—including displays, amplifiers, PEIs, and speakers—in a ground-level lab leads to an unnecessary duplication of assets and a waste of physical space and cost.

The functional integration, interface compatibility, and structural integrity of the hardware itself will already be thoroughly validated and proven through our standard Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) and the Type Test on the first trainset. Consequently, since the physical replication of this hardware is entirely redundant, we respectfully propose to delete the requirement for the Content Lab.

For clarification, the equipment in this requirement is to maximize customer experience by ensuring the validity of content before it is programmed into the vehicles, and troubleshooting future potential issues with the PIS in accordance with TS 13.20. This is required as per TS 27.4.2. This requirement remains unchanged.

8.1.2.G

The end-of-life (EOL) warning function for LED drivers in TS 8.1.2.G and CDRL 08-02 requires extra hardware to record and save the operating hours of each light.

However, TS 8.1.2.K specifies that the light life is over 15 years (about 120,000 hours) based on 20 hours of daily use.

This means an EOL warning would happen only once in 15 years, but the system must continuously run and manage data during this whole time.

As a result, the cost to build the system and the effort to maintain it are much higher than the actual benefit.

In addition, unlike complex electrical equipment, burnt-out lights are easy to see and simple to replace.

Therefore, we kindly ask to remove the EOL warning requirements in TS 8.1.2.G and CDRL 08-02.

Requirements for EOL warning function in TS 8.1.2.G and associated CDRL 08-02 are no longer required.

1.11.A 9.1.1.C

Changing the LVDN voltage from 37.5 VDC to 72 VDC requires design changes for all DC-powered equipment. Most importantly, it requires more battery cells, which increases vehicle weight and creates space issues for equipment layout.

Additionally, SEPTA's existing trains and maintenance facilities are built around 37.5 VDC. Changing this voltage removes parts compatibility with the current fleet and makes it impossible to reuse existing shop infrastructure, leading to high operational inefficiency.

Therefore, we recommend keeping 37.5 VDC to optimize vehicle weight and space while ensuring compatibility with SEPTA's current fleet and maintenance system. The Carbuilder's request is denied.

TS 21.3_Table 21-3 Subsystem Reliability

Requirements for MDBF-ALL

We request adjustments to the reliability targets for some subsystems.

When comparing the reliability targets of the previous SEPTA project (SEPTA V project), although the overall vehicle level target (Car-level MDBF-ALL 10,000 miles) remains the same, the target for specific subsystems defined in Table 21-3 has been adjusted to a much higher level compared to the previous project. Therefore, we worry that there will be cases where the reliability targets for specific subsystems are not met even though the overall vehicle target is achieved.Therefore, we request an adjustment to the targets for the following subsystems based on previous SEPTA project applying appropriate higher target value.

(1) Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning

- 150,000 mile ->100,000 mile

(2) Automatic Train Control

- 300,000 mile -> 200,000 mile

(3) Communication Subsystems

- 100,000 mile -> 70,000 mile

(4) Interior and Exterior Appointments

- 150,000 mile -> 100,000 mile

(5) Propulsion Subsystem and Control

- 150,000 mile -> 120,000 mile Accepted except for Communications Subsystems which shall remain at

100,000 miles.

TS 1.11 Definitions "Failure, Chargeable"

> Clarification Required:

Clarification is required to determine whether the phrase "during the recommended preventive maintenance interval" refers to the specific point in time when the scheduled preventive maintenance inspection is performed, or if it means prior to reaching the scheduled preventive maintenance interval (premature).

> Proposed Interpretation/Alternative:

If loss of function or equivalent degradation discovered within the recommended preventive maintenance cycle is considered a failure, the original purpose of preventive maintenance—'pre-defect identification and replacement'—could be evaluated as a penalty; therefore, it is necessary to include it as a Chargeable Failure only in cases of 'premature loss of function,' where component degradation occurred prior to the recommended preventive maintenance cycle and early replacement was unavoidable.

The item definition for "Failure, Chargeable" shall be updated as follows:

"Item degradation discovered during the recommended or regular preventive maintenance interval or maintenance inspection that causes the results in premature loss of function or near loss of function of that item (excluding consumable items). Note: Due to the subjective nature of classifying such instances, upon the Contractor's request, the discrepant item(s) shall be retained for review on SEPTA's property for a period not to exceed 14 days."

TS 21.6.4.A.6

Regarding the potential inconsistency between TS 21.3.1.A.2 and TS 21.6.4.A.6, we propose an alignment of scope for data consistency. To ensure an effective FRACAS process, 'SEPTA furnished equipment' needs to be excluded from the scope of the FRACAS Report. The specification remains unchanged. The carbuilder will still be required to monitor reliability for SEPTA-furnished equipment, if any. Please refer to Addendum 3, question #16 for further clarification.

TS 21.6.2.4

The 'At any time' period may include very short time intervals or early operating periods (early failure periods) where it is difficult to secure statistical significance, making it impossible to properly evaluate the reliability of the subsystem. The RAM Demo. is generally performed by comparing the failure frequency relative to cumulative operating distance or time with a target value, rather than using a point estimate of the failure rate; for this reason, the Reliability test completion condition in

21.7.1.2 is specified.

Therefore, we request that the relevant requirement be modified as follows.

=> If at any time during the test, The failure rate of any subsystem exceeds the allowable rate (including the reliability and availability allocated by the Contractor for major components) according to Reliability demonstration test condition,~

The TS section referenced is referring to the Reliability and Availability monthly progress report. As for the Proposer's concern, please refer to the requirement specified in TS 21.7.1.A.1.

TS 21.9

CDRL 21-01

We request that the submission time for the RAM Program Plan be modified to 'Updated throughout the design process' so that it is updated and resubmitted whenever changes occur after the CDR submission, similar to the System Safety Program Plan in CDRL 23-01.

=> The RAM Program Plan shall be submitted at CDR and updated throughout the design process. all Design Reviews.

The Carbuilder's request is denied. In the event there are no revisions to the RAM Program Plan during a particular design review phase, the carbuilder shall resubmit the same revision attesting that no changes have been made.

10.10.1 General

C.2

The specification 10.10.1 does not allow split gear unit design that separate at the bearing. HRC suggests to use split gear type that is proven in use for many other projects.

Split gear type is new technology introduced with flexible coupler that provides connection between the motor and the driving gear, absorbing relative displacement while delivering tractive effort effectively.

Split gear type comes with advantages at much lower cost : less man-hour during inspection and overhaul as it has better accessibility and less parts required for removal for maintenance. Also, traction motor removal is not mandatory for driving gear inspection and overhaul.

Therefore please kindly make ammendment to the specification and allow HRC to use split type gear.

Carbuilder may propose an alternative gear/coupling unit configuration as part of their proposal. The proposal should include reliability history, assembly/disassembly process requirements, maintenance requirements, and inspection protocols.

259 26.1.7.A.4

It appears that the response to Addendum 3, Item 10 has not been reflected in Table 26-1. Please confirm whether the highlighted yellow section should be understood as a quantity of 0.

Proposer's understanding is correct. Hard copies of draft manuals will not be required except for the Operator's Manual. Please note, TS 26.1.7 requires electronic submission of each draft Conditionally Approved.

260 9.7.2.G

According to Addendum 5, Item 61, it was confirmed that the battery capacity shall be calculated based on a 90-minute endurance requirement for CFR-mandated loads (e.g., emergency lighting and communication systems), Video Surveillance System (VSS), and Event Recorder, while a 60-minute endurance requirement applies to all other remaining DC loads.

However, we noted that Addendum 10 still states a 90-minute endurance requirement for all DC loads.

To ensure an optimized battery design, please confirm that the battery capacity calculation should be performed in accordance with Addendum 5, Item 61 (90 minutes for CFR loads/VSS/Event Recorder, and 60 minutes for other DC loads). Confirmed.

261 N/A

If any item previously confirmed in Addenda 1 through 9 is omitted in Addendum 10, we will proceed with the design based on the details confirmed in Addenda 1 through 9. Please confirm if this approach is acceptable. Confirmed.

2.5.1.B

Silverliner-VI-RFP-Contract VI.B

According to Section 2.5.1.B, the Target Weight is set equal to or less than that of the Existing Train, with Liquidated Damages (LD) applicable upon failure to meet this requirement. However, the updated Technical Specification incorporates various scope additions and capacity upgrades compared to the existing train—such as an increased number of side doors and displays, expanded APU and HVAC capacity, an increased battery cell count, and other equipment/system upgrades—making it technically impractical to maintain the original Target Weight.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the Target Weight criteria be reasonably adjusted and relaxed from 145,000 lbs (65,770.89 kg) to 150,000 lbs (68,038.86 kg) to accommodate these newly required specification additions.

Proposers may propose a different AW0 target weight as part of their proposal and compliance matrix. Modifications to the rejection weight limits will not be accepted.

263 Silverliner-VI-RFP-Contract VI.C

Based on Addendum 9, Item 187, we confirmed the requirement revision made in Addendum 10.

Could you please confirm if this means the Energy Efficiency LD in Contract VI.C is now removed as well?

The Energy Efficiency LD remains in the contract but has been modified in the upcoming contract redline. The carbuilder shall propose an energy consumption prediction as part of their proposal and validate the prediction as per TS 15.8.8.8.