Eielson AFB RFI - Group 4.pdf

Eielson AFB Micro-Reactor - Request for Information – Group 4

1. Copy of 1998 USDA soil survey – page 24 of 120, integrated natural resources plan the below ground site characteristics?

a. Per Amendment 0004, see attachment JR4.1

2. Copy of EPA remedial investigation – page 26 of 120, integrated natural resources

a. Per Amendment 0004, see attachment JR4.1

3. Copy of Appendix H of integrated natural resources plan (this appendix is missing from the shared version)"The microreactor must support the 99.9% minimum availability requirement of 10 U.S.

Code § 2920 and affirm that all planning requirements of 10 U.S. Code § 2920 are taken into account.

a. Per Amendment 0004, see attachment JR4.1

4. Please consider revising L.7.2 Volume II/Factor 3 – Past Performance expanding the types of references provided and relevant project elements described, as referenced in L.7.2.2. “L.7.2.2 The offeror shall provide references for up to five of its largest project(s) of similar scope. This information shall be documented on the Past Performance Information Questionnaire. Project(s) cited and references should be recent (i.e., within 15 years of the date of the proposal), and 5MW or greater in size if applicable to the project. The references...”

a. It is the Contractor's decision on how to showcase their partners and subcontractors past performance.

5. On June 15, 2022 the EPA issued interim updated drinking water health advisories for PFOA and PFOS. The Eielson Air Force base site is known to have contaminated soil with PFOS. The updated EPA acceptable limits for PFOS may be below detectable limits using today’s technology. Many designs intend to be deeply embedded, which requires some excavation that would impact groundwater. Does the Department of the Air Force intend to help work with existing Alaska state agencies to ensure that the requirements for groundwater cleanup are physically feasible to attain?

6. C.15.1 states that scheduled outages should not exceed 4 hours per event and not exceed 2 events per month. This is not reasonable. It is recommended that the Government allow the contractor to provide a schedule and unscheduled outage plan that is ultimately agreed with the Government.

a. Per Amendment 0004, see Section C.15.1 for revised language.

7. What is the FFP from the USAF for make-up water to the steam supply system for the base heating system, or other uses over each of the 30-years?

a. These costs can be determined through lease negotiations as necessary / required.

8. What is the FFP from the USAF for municipal waste over each of the 30-years?

9. What is the FFP from the USAF for sewage and wastewater disposal over each of the 30-years?

10. What is the FFP from the USAF for the right-of-way for pipelines, electrical transmission lines and telecommunications lines for each of the 30-years?

11. Will the EPF use existing base telecommunications lines to access an external ISP connection? If not, can you provide clarity on the method the EPF will use to access telecom resources external to the base?

a. Yes, telecommunications will be integrated to base communications. Integration will require siting and design with the installation as required. Costs will vary based on site location, to be determined after down-selection.

12. Will the AF purchase all steam produced by the EPF as long as it falls within the normal operation capacity defined in C.14.5.1? Or would the AF entertain minimum steam purchase guarantees? It is understood that the RFP does not have a minimum steam requirement, but for the purposes of pricing, the steam production represents a large fraction of the energy being produced and sizing the facility to meet the requested steam production without any certainty of the value of that steam could prove challenging.

a. Per Amendment 0001, The Government does not contemplate minimum production quantities for steam. Steam shall be compensation IAW with Table 0003 - CLIN 0002, Steam Pricing and Production.

13. Our understanding is that, with the exception of any contaminants specifically named in the RFP (e.g., lead based paint), the contractor is not directly responsible for the costs of any cleanup required by the construction of the EPF. For example, we understand that PFOS/PFAS present a challenge at many sites on base, and our expectation is that the AF will certainly consider the cleanup costs in choosing an EPF solution, but that these costs would be paid directly by the AF rather than paid by the contractor and factored into the PPA price. Is that understanding correct?

a. Department of the Air Force will be responsible for costs associated with contamination caused by the Department of the Air Force that requires mitigation and/or remediation.

Any contamination caused by the contractor will be the responsibility of the contractor.

14. Amendment 2 revised the Table 2 estimated annual requirement for electricity to 39,420,000kWh/yr.

(90% of capacity of 5MWe Reactor). This allows 10% capacity of the reactor to provide steam. Table 3 annual requirement for steam remained at 508 Mlbs, which greatly exceeds the capacity of a 5MWe Reactor. We request the Government revise Table 3 annual steam requirement to be 10% of the capacity of a 5MWe reactor. This will facilitate pricing the contract value of electricity and steam to be equal to the capacity of the reactor versus pricing a contract value for electricity and steam that exceeds the capacity of the reactor.

a. Per Amendment 0001, The Government does not contemplate minimum production quantities for steam. Steam shall be compensation IAW with Table 0003 - CLIN 0002, Steam Pricing and Production.

15. Section L.7.1.3.1.2 (c) states, “If not previously submitted, after NOITA selection, the Contractor shall submit their application to the NRC within 45 days that complies with this solicitation.”

Section M.2.2 (b) 1 states, “Within 45 days of NOITA issuance, submission of the Contractor’s application to the NRC.”

Activities necessary to support an application compliant with the proposal involve site characterization (i.e., geology, hydrology meteorology) and environmental studies, followed by a determination of site suitability through engineering analyses, application development, and submittal. A recent submittal of a construction permit application by an advanced reactor vendor, referencing a well-characterized site, required 12 months from initiation to submittal. This is recognized as unparalleled timeliness in the industry. The 45-day requirement noted above is unachievable, and we request the Government remove this 45-day requirement.

a. All exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation shall be submitted to the Government per Section L.4.2.1.0.

16. Is DLA's expectation that these requirements will be simultaneously met by a single reactor?

a. The Government is contemplating a single generating facility.

17. Please clarify which is priority, electricity or steam?

a. Electricity. However, reference Section L Instruction to Offerors. Offerors must offer on both CLINs 0001 and 0002 in order to be eligible for award.

18. Is steam production optional?

a. Reference Section L Instruction to Offerors. Offerors must offer on both CLINs 0001 and 0002 in order to be eligible for award.

19. Does the minimum requirement for electricity, but not steam, mean that steam production is optional?

a. Reference Section L Instruction to Offerors. Offerors must offer on both CLINs 0001 and 0002 in order to be eligible for award.

20. If steam production is optional, to reiterate a prior question, are other forms of low-grade heat acceptable or of interest, such as CHPP feedwater preheating?

a. Reference Section L Instruction to Offerors. Offerors must offer on both CLINs 0001 and 0002 in order to be eligible for award.

21. Current wording of the past performance clause requires all team members to cite projects 5MW or greater, limiting the competition of some small businesses and team partners that do not have projects of 5MW or greater. Please revise the following to allow past performance projects be tied to the size and scope assigned to each team member: "This information shall be documented on the Past Performance Information Questionnaire. Project(s) cited, and references should be recent (i.e., within 15 years of the date of the proposal), and be similar in terms of scope, size, and complexity to the portion of the PWS that each entity is proposed to perform. One team partner shall demonstrate provide projects of 5MW or greater. The references should..."

22. Please consider modifying the relevancy assessment to read: "The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided or services provided by the team collectively relate to the assigned scope and complexity of the team member in performing the scope for this contract. A relevant example is one that illustrates experience in financing, developing, designing, constructing, implementing, or operating a system similar to that requested via this solicitation. An offeror..."

23. Raw Availability is not defined within IEEE 493-2007. It appears from the example provided in section L.7.1.3.3. (h) - paragraph titled Further Guidance and Examples on p. 91, that it is very similar to the definition of inherent availability defined in C.18.5.2. Please provide the definition and formula for Raw Availability.

a. Availability refers to the availability of required energy at a stated instant of time or over a stated period of time for a specific purpose.

24. Section C.18.5 states that "Inherent Availability must meet a capacity factor of 80% or greater.

Operational Availability should meet an annual capacity factor of 90% or greater, with nominal (30 days or less) refueling/maintenance outages scheduled no less than every 18 months during minimal demand periods." Capacity Factor is not the same as availability and is normally a measure of the amount of energy produced over time being a function of both availability and load factor on the available capacity. However, the tables in section L.7.1.3.3. (h) (paragraphs on pgs. 90 and 91) are for Availability data. Therefore, please provide clarification if the request is for Capacity Factor or Operational Availability.

a. Request in section L.7.1.3.3 refers to availability. Reference availability requirements of 10 U.S. Code § 2920 and affirm that all planning requirements of 10 U.S. Code § 2920 are taken into account. In addition, availability metrics are to be reported monthly as stated in Section C.18.5. Section L is annual report of availability metric.

25. Section L.7.1.3.3. (h) indicates that Inherent Availability is a part of determination of Operational Availability. Operational Availability includes all downtime including downtime categorized as Inherent Availability. Therefore, Operational Availability cannot be higher than Inherent Availability. 80% Inherent Availability seems low, and a site with 80% Inherent Availability is most likely not capable of meeting 90% Operational Capacity Factor. Therefore, these numbers appear to be reversed. Please clarify these terms and intended numerical targets.

a. Per Amendment 0004, Section C.18.5 and L.7.1.3(3)(h) has been revised.

26. Please provide a definition of "Islanded availability" and a sample of how it should be assessed. The term is not defined in any of the referenced standards. How does this deviate from normal availability? Is the expectation that the proposed generation unit is synchronized permanently and annual availability in Table 1 represents availability of the proposed solution with the network, while 7-day islanded availability refers to availability of the proposed solution on its own? If this is so, what availability of the network should be assumed?

a. Per Amendment 0004, Section C.18.7 and Section L Table 1 has been revised.

27. Section H.4.2. states, "...uninterrupted period of ninety (90) days from its inception(with respect to excusable delay occuring prior to COD) or three hundred and sixty-five (365) from its inception (with respect to excusable delay occurring after COD), the Government may, at any time following the end of such period, terminate the contract for default."

28. In accordance with C.37.1, the availability, location, and size of existing potable and/or raw water outlets or connection points is requested. We request connection point identification in area on the West side of building labeled “Iceman Outfitters” and on North side of building labeled “Vehicle Maintenance Shop."

Reference page 38:

C.37.1. Availability of Government Provided Utilities. The Contractor shall arrange for all utilities needed at its own expense. Where installation utilities are available, reasonable amounts of water, electricity, and natural gas at existing outlets may be provided, at the Government’s discretion, by the Government and at Contractor’s expense. The Contractor, at its expense and in a workmanlike manner satisfactory to the COR, shall install and maintain all necessary temporary connections and distribution lines for each Government-provided utility. The Contractor shall pay the Government for utility use in accordance with applicable Government regulations. Information concerning location of existing outlets may be obtained from the COR.

a. Availability and associated costs of utilities may be determined through siting and lease negotiations.

29. There are still clarifications needed regarding steam requirements that affect the design as well as site selection/preparation and interconnection details and soil information. In order to adequately address the requirements in the proposal we respectfully request a 60-day extension.

a. Per Amendment 0001, proposals are due 31 January 2023.

30. The RFP requests a 30% design be submitted, as well as details that would only be defined at 90% design. To submit all the operational details on a reactor that is only 30% designed and yet to be implemented is unrealistic. There is also information required to generate a viable design that the Government is not making available until after NOITA as noted in Response 3. As such, please consider deleting the following requirements: operational details such as meter readings, billing responsibilities, equipment maintenance considerations, the timing of major repairs, replacements and planned outages, operations and maintenance approach, efficiency and performance monitoring systems and programs from L.7.1.3.1.1 Implementation Plan and eliminate the requirement for L.7.1.3.2.1 (a) Service Interruption/Restoration Plan and (b) Force Majeure Event Plan. These should all be milestones in the schedule to be developed when the design is matured.

31. While industry certainly appreciates DLA's responses to questions related to the RFP documents, we suggest DLA ensure that all changes/edits resulting from answers to questions that contractually affect the current RFP language be incorporated by an amendment to the RFP. It appears that not all RFP changes and direction cited by DLA in response to Offerors’ questions have been incorporated into the latest amended RFP and there is conflicting information between the latest RFP and answers to Questions. For industry to appropriately respond to the solicitation, all RFP changes arising from answers to Offerors' questions are typically incorporated by an RFP Amendment to establish solicitation alignment and accuracy with the DLA’s responses to Offerors' questions.

Will an RFP Amendment (or Amendments) be issued to specifically incorporate changes and updates to the initial RFP in response to Offerors' questions?

a. Any changes made to the RFP have been materialized via amendment. The Government is continuing to receive and field questions until 14 calendar days prior to solicitation closing, reference section L.1 Inquires to Offerors.

32. As part of our process in evaluating risk for projects, we create a detailed risk register that evaluates risks and provides mitigations. This information is critical to understanding the assumptions that underpin our proposed schedule. We request that this risk register be excluded from the Technical Volume’s 50-page limit.

a. The proposed will not be excluded from the Maximum Page Limit.