MODIFICATION
B -- Ghana - FEASIBILITY STUDY: ENERGY ACCESS FOR AFRAM PLAINS SOUTH "Technical"
- Notice Date
- 9/11/2018
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- NAICS
- 541690
— Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
- Contracting Office
- United States Trade and Development Agency, USTDA, USTDA, U.S. Trade and Development Agency, 1101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1100, PO Box 12268, Arlington, Virginia, 22209-3901, United States
- ZIP Code
- 22209-3901
- Solicitation Number
- 2018-11018A
- Archive Date
- 10/27/2018
- Point of Contact
- Jennifer Vanrenterghem, Phone: 703-875-4357, Anna Amaya, Phone: 703-875-4357
- E-Mail Address
-
RFPQuestions@ustda.gov, RFPQuestions@ustda.gov
(RFPQuestions@ustda.gov, RFPQuestions@ustda.gov)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- Modification #1: Please note the deadline for submission of proposals has been extended to October 12, 2018 and the following questions have been answered by the Grantee: Q: Given that several of the 50 to 67 un-electrified communities are likely to be very similar to each other with respect to size, demand/load profile, demographics etc., could the technical feasibility study (i.e., demand assessment, mini-grid design, etc.) focus on selected fewer communities and extrapolate our findings to the larger group? A: No; it is expected that the offerer will conduct an assessment for each community. The final number of communities, however, is more likely to be close to 50 (or less) than 67. Q. The Terms of Reference (TOR) state: "For existing electricity systems, evaluate the existing electrification operation and assets, and recommend potential solutions to improve service reliability and meet future and existing demand, disaggregated as number of households, public services and commercial (productive use) customers." Please clarify what is meant by "existing electricity systems" in the TOR. A. There are some communities that may have existing EGC infrastructure (that may or may not be operational), and some communities likely have diesel generators and other private energy infrastructure that is used commercially. The Contractor is only expected to assess this "existing infrastructure" to the extent that it impacts the Contractor's recommended energy solutions for each community. Q. In Task 3a, the TOR includes in its list of subject technologies stand-alone/picosolar and superefficient appliances. These are typically installed in offgrid applications. We understand that in Task 1a, we are to evaluate if certain communities would be better served by standalone systems through the "Preliminary Analysis", however, its role in Task 3 is unclear as the other Tasks appear to focus only on mini-grid systems. As such, can USTDA clarify whether the offeror's feasibility studies should include a mix of offgrid and minigrid technology solutions for a given target geography/community, or focus on those un-electrified communities that allow for mini-grid solutions based on the Preliminary Analysis in Task 1a? A. The Contractor's feasibility study should assess each community and make a recommendation regarding the best mix of offgrid technology solutions for each communities' unique characteristics and in order to provide reliable and high-quality energy. It is assumed in the TOR that most communities will require a minigrid to serve the demand of individuals and to provide some energy for productive uses. Task 3a, however, acknowledges that minigrids may not be the only solution, and the Contractor should consider the range of offgrid energy solutions (minigrids, SHS, picosolar etc.) when making a recommendation for each community. Q. Does the offeror have to abide by the staffing categories (and descriptions) presented in Annex 6, or can we offer our own staffing and personnel concepts? A. The offer can propose its own staffing and personnel concepts as long as it meets the requirements of the TOR and is within the stated budget. Q. Will the successful offeror (including local and U.S. subcontractors) be excluded from further participation in the implementation (i.e., construction) of the mini-grids for Afram Plain South District? A. As the Contractor will be developing RFP documents for the implementation of the project, the offerer will be excluded from any RFPs that directly flow from the study. Q. Can the offeror propose a prioritization of mini-grid development in Afram Plains South, with a focus on the most feasible areas, as a starting point? A. Yes. Q. Page 10 of the RFP says that a financial proposal is to be submitted (bolded paragraph at the top). However, Section 3 (Proposal Format Content) says that "A cost proposal is NOT required because the amount for the contract has been established by a USTDA grant of US$852,950, which is a fixed amount." Please clarify? A. The text in Section 3 is incorrect. The statement on Page 10 is correct. While the amount should equal the fixed amount, the Grantee would like to see how the offerer plans to budget for each deliverable, including things such as local content/contractors, its plans for staffing and personnel etc. Q. Should the PDF electronic copy be sent to all 4 email address noted on page 10? A. Yes
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/TDA/TDA1/TDA1/2018-11018A/listing.html)
- Record
- SN05082920-W 20180913/180911230914-942205effbcfc67c733954f51a5a8f42 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |