WF.Speed Increaser Replacement-Sources Sought-RFI Questions.R4.pdf

Webbers Falls Speed Increaser Replacement Project Sources Sought – RFI Questions

Category 1: Company Capability & Teaming Arrangements

1. Scope of Interest: Please confirm whether your company is interested in the design, manufacture, supply, and installation of a new speed increaser that aligns with the preliminary specifications. Installation includes all field work for the removal of the existing gearbox, necessary site modifications, and the installation and alignment of the new speed increaser. If you are only interested in a portion of this scope, please specify which phases.

2. Relevant Experience: Provide a list of large gearbox speed increasers your company has designed, manufactured, and/or installed in the last ten (10) years that are similar in scale and application to this 35,000 HP / 25 MW hydropower requirement, as further defined in the Summary Scope of Work. At a minimum, include:

• Project name and location

• Year of completion

• Gearbox specifications (Horsepower, torque, gear ratio, input/output speeds)

• Gearbox Type (Parallel Shaft, Planetary, Etc.)

• Specific application (e.g., hydropower, heavy marine, industrial)

3. Teaming and Partnerships: Describe your anticipated teaming arrangements or joint ventures to accomplish all phases of work (design, manufacturing, and field work).

a. If partnership agreements are not currently in place, what is your estimated timeframe to establish them prior to a solicitation?

b. If you wouldn’t undertake a partnership until after the solicitation is officially published, can you describe what you anticipate the partnership to be and/or with whom?

c. The Government will accept letters of commitment during the solicitation phase;

however, please provide recommendations on how the Government can best accommodate alternative teaming arrangements (e.g., formal Joint Ventures) within the solicitation structure.

Category 2: Technical Approach & Engineering Considerations

4. Gearbox Configuration: What type of gearbox would you recommend for this speed increaser replacement (e.g., Planetary vs. Parallel shaft)? Please provide any technical justification for your recommendation, considering the significant torque and horsepower requirements as defined in the Summary Scope of Work.

Spatial & Weight Constraints: Given that this replaces an existing Falk speed increaser, footprint and weight are critical. What spatial, foundation, or weight challenges do you anticipate when retrofitting a modern gearbox into the existing powerhouse envelope?

Gearbox Shipping: The government’s preference is for a contractor to design, manufacture, and factory test a new replacement gearbox and ship to site without needing to disassemble for shipping. What is the feasibility of supplying a replacement speed increaser gearbox designed to the requirements of the Summary Scope of Work, and ship to site and install without disassembly?

Webbers Falls Speed Increaser Replacement Project Sources Sought – RFI Questions

5. Shaft Rotation: The Government currently will not accept alternative designs that would reverse the direction of the generator rotation.

a. What risks do you associate with retaining the current turbine and generator shaft rotations in a modern gearbox design, if any?

b. What specific design considerations would you incorporate to achieve this, if any?

c. How much additional cost would you anticipate modifications increasing the final price, if any?

6. Thrust Bearing Integration: The Government’s preference is to re-use the existing thrust bearing in its current position.

a. How would this requirement be incorporated into your new speed increaser design?

b. What technical or operational risks do you foresee with re-using the existing thrust bearing?

c. Would you recommend incorporating a new thrust bearing into the new gearbox assembly instead? If so, what preliminary details or existing unit data would you require to design a new thrust bearing?

7. Alternative Technical Approaches: Are there any alternative technical or engineering approaches to this project that the Government has not considered in the Sources Sought description? If so, please identify and elaborate.

Category 3: Acquisition Strategy, Schedule, & Pricing

8. Phased Definitization: What concerns or risks do you foresee with a requirement to definitize the different phases of this project (e.g., design, manufacturing, and site work/construction) sequentially prior to proceeding with a contract execution? How might the Government mitigate those risks?

9. Solicitation Duration: Is a 60-day solicitation period sufficient time to assemble a comprehensive and highly accurate bid package for this project? If not, what duration would you recommend to minimize post-solicitation amendments and extensions?

10. Solicitation Strategy: What alternative solicitation strategies would you recommend to streamline the award process and ensure best value? (For example, would you recommend a Two-Phase Design-Build selection procedure where 3-5 pre-qualified companies are selected to develop a 30% design prior to final bidding?)

11. Supply Chain Risks: Given current global supply chain constraints on large steel forgings and heavy machining, what is your anticipated critical path, and what are the major schedule risks for manufacturing a 35,000 HP gearbox?

12. ROM Estimate & Timeline: If possible, please provide a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) budgetary estimate to perform the full scope of work. Additionally, provide an estimated timeline (in months) to supply and install one (1) gearbox with an optional second gearbox to replace the existing Falk speed increaser gearbox. Please include additional time and cost to deliver the second, optional gearbox spare.