DWA Unit 4 Industry Day Questions and Answers.pdf

Industry Day Q&A-

Powerhouse Building Extension and Site Development

1) Which aspects of this scope are best suited to design-build, if any? Please explain.

1 – Design Build - best suited.

- Turbine Generator

- Site work and Powerhouse Extension

- Balance of Plant

2nd – Design Bid Build

- Transformer Supply

- Hydraulic Steel Structures

3rd – Integrated Design and Construction (IDAC)

- Turbine Generator

- Site work and Powerhouse Extension

- Balance of Plant

4th – Separate Turbine/Generator as one contract – all other efforts under one contract.

- Not recommended due to interdependencies between the turbine-generator contract and the concrete, scroll case, and penstock foundation work required by the site work and powerhouse extension contract.

5th – Design Build to Budget (DBTB)

- No input from industry on this method

Other – Separate contracts for each scope of work. (least preferred) Interests from subcontractors in a variety of skill set and being a subcontractor to a prime in a DB contract preferable.

2) What elements of this project scope does your organizaƟon find parƟcularly aƩracƟve?

N/A

3) What elements of this project scope would discourage you from bidding?

Identified schedule risks when the solicitation is available will determine.

No qualification factor for evaluation Level of design requirements Steel and other Tariff costs Poor coordination between contracts/contractors of other contract actions related to the DWA unit 4 efforts if contracts are all separated.

Small businesses ability to bond a larger contract would discourage bidding for small businesses.

NAICS code selection would make a difference for some whether or not they are SB, but wouldn’t restrict SB from participating if the requirement is unrestricted.

Multiple/separate contracts produces many crosspoints to mitigate and increases risk for multiple awardees.

4) Based on the aƩached sketches of concept alternaƟves, provide contractor feedback and/or recommendaƟons to improve schedule and/or cost.

Long lead times not captured on certain items in the contract.

Supply chain issues impacts that infringe schedule a recommend a well-developed schedule to time with other areas of the contract milestones.

Turbine Generator dependent on contractor qualifications Separate contracts would need a good schedule, and clear critical points well defined start and stop of each contract.

Overlaps of contracts clearly defined if necessary.

Industry/Government collaboration option prior and during the solicitation phase.

5) Where could stated or perceived site access constraints be relaxed at Government discreƟon to reduce contract cost and/or schedule?

Provide clear details to eliminate confusion for contractor’s access would support reduction in efforts and coordination of contract cost and/or schedule.

Identify an alternative site access option if available is helpful.

Staging/coordination with other contracts if separated would need clearly defined to avoid schedule delays and other cost impacts.

Size of some required items and offer of any access improvements that may mitigate delivery and schedule risks.

Draft solicitation out a few months prior to release and allow industry to provide feedback would support reduced cost and fine tune schedule.

Draft solicitation prior to release would also help industry digest requirements and support a fine-tuned proposal response.

6) Which aspects of this scope increase pricing uncertainty and in what way?

Transportation of delivery items.

Long lead times of larger supply items like transformer.

Tariffs costs regarding steel, concrete, and other supply sourcing. Those costs will be considered in pricing in proposals.

PLA requirements for skilled labor requirements that would impact higher costs for contractor which would be passed on to USACE in the proposal.

7) What factors other than scope would incenƟvize or discourage you from bidding on this work?

Discourage: PLA requirement would discourage most interested contractors.

Discourage: Most or all risk of contract requirements placed on contractor discourages interests.

Incentivize: Cost contract with more risk to the Government less on contractor.

Incentivize: FFP with monetary incentive (bonus) for early completion and value engineering Transformer and Turbine Generator would require EPA to be included in contract requirements.

8) Are there any market condiƟons or industry pracƟces that you feel the Government needs to be aware of?

Long lead items for major components market conditions show 3-5 years for some large delivery items.

Industry interest may be limited for this type of work on a larger scale with all the moving parts and pieces of scope under one contract.

Concern with breaking apart each effort into several contract actions, industry cautions not breaking down each effort and combine scopes in to one contract action if possible. (Ie: PH Expansion and Balance of Plant)

9) If bidding as a prime, what features of work or percentage of the project scope would you self-perform?

Dependent on acquisition (DB, DBB, IDaC, etc…) No percentage provided.

Dependent on partnering with Prime and subcontractors Dependent on contract acquisition – (one big contract or several for each scope of work)

10) Have you had experience dealing with a manufacturer of specialized equipment as a sub-contractor?

Some yes, some no No specific details were provided on this question.

11) Have you had experience in dealing with coordinaƟon of a third-party contractor, e.g. a separate contract was flown for provision of hydraulic steel and installaƟon/oversight of hydraulic steel?

Some responses for Yes, can work with coordination of a third-party contractor, Some responses for No, don’t like working with 3rd party involvement.

b. Schedule and Workforce

1) What is the esƟmated duraƟon for this project scope, inclusive of both design (if design-build) and construcƟon?

Adequate timeline for long lead items after NTP issued.

36-48 months range for design 9-48 months for construction (this range includes ranges for separate smaller contracts and one big contract)

2) Are there recommended scope items that should be phased? If so, please explain.

Large equipment items parallel with powerhouse.

3) What would be the preferred work schedule for an effort like this, considering the scope and the project locaƟon?

Prime contractor drives schedule.

A highly seasoned General (Prime) Contractor if one contract

One work shift requirement Adequate design time allocated in the contract

4) What would be the esƟmated maximum size of work crew on site needed to accomplish the work?

Depends on Prime/subcontractor partnering Depends on effort BOA, Powerhouse Turbine/Generator etc…

Turbine-Generator Questions

1. What elements of this project scope does your organizaƟon find parƟcularly aƩracƟve?

Already know who partners and subcontractors would be for a project of this type even if separated into smaller stand-alone contracts.

Interesting Challenges this project offers.

Fostering a USACE/customer relationship.

Most large general contractor firms indicated they would only be interested in a combined contract for the civil site work and powerhouse extension, turbine-generator, and balance of plant.

The turbine-generator firms indicated that it was less appealing of a contract due to only one being ordered Developing own design Design, supply, Install, and commissioning Engineering and Peer Reviews to include Procurement and Construction requirements

2. What elements of this project scope would discourage you from bidding?

Not qualified for this type of work after solicitation details provided Not having critical work defined in align with schedule.

Lead time risks and impacts to critical work and schedule with supply components.

3. What interest would your company have in operaƟng as a subcontractor to a prime also responsible for site development and construcƟon of the powerhouse building expansion?

Expressed interest in both operating as a subcontractor and operating as prime for site development and construction. These answers were dependent on skills from a collective industry response.

4. Would there be interest if a contract was for the provisions of all hydraulic steel and turbine and generator components, oversight/coordinaƟon of installaƟon of the draŌ tube and scroll case, and installaƟon of the remainder of the turbine/generator?

Yes, there is some interest for this.

5. Can you describe the contract structure allowing you to bid confidently while giving you flexibility to deliver the best performance turbine at the lowest cost?

a. What are the tradeoffs to the ideal scenario above if the turbine procurement must be firm, fixed-price?

IDAC contract, DB with RFP and evaluation factor for qualifications.

6. Would you be interested in a design only contract? Would you be willing to provide and install another party’s design? Some yes and some no to this quesƟon

7. Assuming a separate turbine contract from construcƟon of the powerhouse building expansion, can you describe the best way to integrate installaƟon of major components

(ex. draŌ tube liner install & embedment, scroll case pressure tesƟng) with the contract construcƟng the building around the turbine-generator?

a. Under a standalone turbine contract, how soon aŌer turbine contract award would design parameters for the draŌ tube liner profile and scroll case be available? Fine-tuned coordination and schedule to align, partnering abilities with Prime to Prime if separate contracts. (ie. Powerhouse construction and Concrete Contractors).

Delivery schedule provided for supply items.

Transformers have long lead times 3-5 years range. Needs efficiently timed delivery in one big contract or as a separate supply contract.

b. How would your company prefer to approach conducƟng final concrete installaƟons of the draŌ tube and draŌ tube liner? Dependent on contract type and skilled laborer or subcontractor

8. Given the scope of this effort, how long would it take to finalize a hydraulic design? How long would the installaƟon effort take? Collective range response is 4-12 months for design. Installation range 9-24 months (estimated)

9. Previous feedback indicated that there was no need to split the turbine in order to ship it to site. Did this look at all the routes/transportaƟon? Depends. Some said yes it can be split some said no it cannot, or they would not split. Did it examine the exisƟng powerhouse door limitaƟons (16 Ō)? yes

Balance of Plant Questions

1. What generator voltage raƟng is recommended (e.g., 13.8kV or 25kV) and why? Note that Unit 3 is rated 13.8kV. Either is fine, 13.8kV is the low end/low risk of industry standard.

2. What governor oil system pressure is recommended and why? For the recommended pressure, what is approximate number of accumulators and floor space required. Note that Unit 3 is rated 350 psi. No response from industry on this question.

Quarry quesƟons

1. There is an old quarry nearby would that be feasible to support materials for this project?

Depends on how much material is available, if it is cheaper than trucking in from nearby quarry. Are bore log available and are their certifications for today’s standards to use this quarry. Is it active or when was it last used.

Recent test on rock quality needs provided

Project Labor Agreement (PLA) requirement quesƟons:

1. Do you have knowledge that a PLA has been used in the local area on projects of this kind? If so, please provide supporƟng documentaƟon.

Some response there was knowledge of PLA requirements. The overall response was they could deal with it but prefer not to have as a requirement that give them more control on skilled labor hiring. No documentation was provided in this response.

2. Are you aware of skilled labor shortages in the area for those craŌs that will be needed to complete the referenced project? If so, please elaborate and provide supporƟng documentaƟon where possible.

There is a concern that the location of this project would cause skilled labor shortages for certain crafts. None were specifically identified. No documentation was provided to support any claims of shortages. Market indicates labor shortages in skilled craftsmen trades that would potentially impact this project. Specialty trade labor most likely will be brought into the area for this project due to location and lack of these skilled labors available.

3. Are you aware of Ɵme sensiƟve issues/scheduling requirements that would affect the rate at which the referenced project should be completed? If so, please elaborate and provide supporƟng documentaƟon where possible.

Lack of skilled labor under the PLA labor requirements could cause issue if skilled labor could not be hired and mobilized in Ɵme. A shortage or lack of skilled labor could have impacts to meet an PLA a requirement.

4. IdenƟfy specific reasons why you do not believe a PLA would advance the Federal Government’s interest in achieving economy and efficiency in Federal procurement.

RestricƟve for parƟcipaƟon – General Contractor (prime) may already have qualified staff lined up for specialty posiƟons and that are beƩer suited than a PLA required posiƟon.

PLA requirement would be a deal breaker for some contractors for this requirement either as one contract or several separated standalone contracts for each effort.

5. IdenƟfy specific reasons why you do not believe a PLA would advance the Federal Government’s interest in achieving economy and efficiency in Federal procurement.

Nothing specific was provided for this quesƟon.

6. IdenƟfy any addiƟonal informaƟon you believe the Government should take into consideraƟon regarding the use of a PLA on the referenced project. PLA would not cover all the necessary craŌ trades roughly idenƟfied from this scope of work.

7. Does your company intend to bid/propose on this project if a PLA requirement is included in the solicitaƟon? 60% no 40% yes or doesn’t maƩer Does your company intend to bid/propose on this project if a PLA requirement is not included in the solicitaƟon? Yes and No

8. What are the likely cost impacts, if any, to your bid/proposal price if a PLA requirement is included in the solicitaƟon? Cost for this will be passed on to the proposal/Bid price, some have worked on projects with PLA but those that commented were a subcontractor not a prime in some of those instances. Please provide as much detail as possible regarding any anƟcipated cost impacts (posiƟve or negaƟve) of the inclusion of a PLA requirement, including any informaƟon you can provide about the magnitude of the anƟcipated impact. This level of detail was not provided during this industry day.

ii. The informaƟon gathered in this exercise should include the following informaƟon on projects completed in the last 2-5 years (or other Ɵmeframe, as appropriate):

1. Project Name and LocaƟon No informaƟon was provided

2. Detailed Project DescripƟon No informaƟon was provided

3. IniƟal cost EsƟmate vs. Actual Final Cost No informaƟon was provided

4. Was the project completed on Ɵme? No informaƟon was provided

5. Number of craŌ trades present on the project? Answered above but no documentaƟon was provided regarding the menƟon that PLA would not cover all the necessary craŌ trades roughly idenƟfied from this scope of work.

6. Was a PLA used? Some Yes and some no Were there any challenges experienced during the project? Finding skill craŌ labor for specific or specialized needs of a project.