SOLICITATION NOTICE
B -- Optimization and control to improve dynamics of coal plant cycling
- Notice Date
- 8/26/2020 11:28:24 AM
- Notice Type
- Solicitation
- NAICS
- 541715
— Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)
- Contracting Office
- NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY MORGANTOWN WV 26507 USA
- ZIP Code
- 26507
- Solicitation Number
- 89243320QFE000203
- Response Due
- 9/9/2020 10:00:00 AM
- Archive Date
- 09/24/2020
- Point of Contact
- George LeMasters, Phone: 3042855271
- E-Mail Address
-
george.lemasters@netl.doe.gov
(george.lemasters@netl.doe.gov)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- SBA Total Small Business Set-Aside (FAR 19.5)
- Description
- The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) is issuing the following Request for Quote (RFQ) seeking: The steam attemperator systems in coal fired power plants for the superheat and reheat sections are to be studied. Improved fault detection and optimization control schemes will be proposed, developed, and tested both computationally and experimentally per the requirements in the attached Performance Work Statement (PWS). This requirement is a total small business set-aside.� Only quotes submitted by small business concerns will be accepted by the Government.� Any quote that is submitted by a contractor that is not a small business concern will not be considered for award. �Interested small business vendors are strongly encouraged to submit their quotation on the attached RFQ Standard Form (SF) 18, and provide all supporting documents, as necessary, via the FedConnect portal at www.fedconnect.net, by the due date and time indicated in Block 10 of the RFQ SF-18. � SELECTION: Selection of the best value to the Government will be achieved through a process of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each Offeror�s proposal in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria.� Selection of the best value to the Government will be achieved through a process of evaluating the strengths and/or weaknesses of each offeror's proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors.� �The Government anticipates issuing a single award from this RFQ.� Technical acceptability will be based on a review of the (1) technical approach, and (2) experience provided in response to the request for quotation (RFQ) to meet the requirements of this PWS. In determining the best value to the Government, the Technical Evaluation Criteria are more important than the Proposed Price. The Government is more concerned with obtaining a superior Technical proposal than making an award at the lowest price. However, the Government will not make an award at a price premium it considers disproportionate to the benefits associated with the evaluated superiority of one Technical proposal over another. Thus, to the extent that offerors' Technical proposals are evaluated as close or similar in merit, the price is more likely to be the determining factor. Technical Proposal will be adjectively rated. The relative importance of the Technical Proposal Criteria is as follows: Criterion 2 is the most important criterion with Criterion 1 being the next most important. Criterion 2 is of equal importance to the combined Criterion 1 and Criterion 3. The individual elements that comprise Criteria 1, 2, and 3 are not listed in order of importance and will not be individually weighted, but rather will be considered as a whole in developing an overall rating for each criterion. The following tables will be used in the evaluation of the Technical proposal. Strength/Weakness/Deficiency Definitions Significant Strength An attribute that appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.� A number of strengths within a criterion, when considered together based on the nature of the strengths, may constitute a significant strength. Strength An attribute in the proposal that increases the probability of successful contract performance. Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (FAR 15.001). Significant Weakness A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (FAR 15.001). A number of weaknesses within a criterion, when considered together based on the nature of the weaknesses, may constitute a significant weakness. Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that significantly increases the risks of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level (FAR 15.001). Clarification Questions� Clarification questions relate to aspects of a proposal, which if the proposal had made clearer, would enhance the Government�s understanding of the proposal; allow a reasonable interpretation of the proposal; and facilitate the Government�s evaluation.� Such clarification questions may relate to (1) minor or clerical errors; or (2) ambiguities that reflect omissions, mistakes, or insufficient information in the proposal which are not addressed by the advisor under the category of a weakness, significant weakness, or a deficiency. Ratings - Technical Evaluation Criteria Rating Definitions and Proposal Characteristics The proposal characteristics contain words that describe, to a certain extent, a quantitative aspect related to the number of strengths and weaknesses.� However, the number of strengths and weaknesses are not in themselves necessarily indicative of the overall strength or weakness of the proposal for a particular criterion.� Rather, the significance of a particular strength(s) or weakness(s) is addressed in the description of strength(s) or weakness(s).� The elements of the proposal characteristics specified below are intended to be considered collectively in arriving at the appropriate rating. Outstanding The proposal demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the contract requirements and a highly effective approach to perform the work that results in a very high probability of successful contract performance with a likelihood that performance expectations will be significantly exceeded.� Such a proposal would normally exhibit very limited risk, significant strengths and/or strengths, and no significant weaknesses and/or few if any weaknesses. Good The proposal demonstrates a good understanding of the contract requirements, and an effective approach to perform the work that results in high probability of successful contract performance with a likelihood that performance expectations will be exceeded.� Such a proposal would normally exhibit limited risk, significant strengths and/or strengths, and few, if any significant weaknesses and/or weaknesses. Satisfactory The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory understanding of the contract requirements, and an acceptable approach to perform the work that results in a likely probability of successful contract performance which will also meet performance expectations. Such a proposal would normally exhibit some risk, significant strengths and/or strengths, and offsetting significant weaknesses and/or weaknesses or by few, if any strengths or weaknesses. Marginal The proposal demonstrates a limited understanding of the contract requirements, and a minimal approach to perform the work that results in an unlikely probability of achieving successful contract performance and meeting performance expectations.� Such a proposal would normally exhibit significant risk, significant weaknesses and/or weaknesses, and few, if any significant strengths and/or strengths.� A deficiency or deficiencies may exist Unsatisfactory The proposal demonstrates an inadequate understanding of the contract requirements, and an inadequate approach to perform the work that results in a highly unlikely probability of achieving successful contract performance and meeting performance expectations. Such a proposal would normally exhibit an unacceptable level of risk, no significant strengths and/or strengths, numerous significant weaknesses and/or weaknesses, and at least one deficiency. EVALUATION: The following information is necessary to enable proper evaluation of your quote in response to this RFQ. For evaluation purposes, the response shall consist of three separate documents. One document shall be in response to the Technical Approach indicated below, second document shall be Organization and Technical Resources, and the third document shall be the Resumes. ��Questions related to this RFQ shall be submitted to George.lemasters@netl.doe.gov no later than September, 02, 2020 by 1:00 PM ET. File 1 Technical Approach �(a) PROPOSED APPROACH TO ANALYZE RELEVANT PLANT DATA TO VALIDATE MODEL (Criterion 1) The Offeror shall express demonstrated knowledge of coal fired plant operations, model development for process dynamics with conventional process controllers, and data processing methods needed to deconvolute multiple dynamic processes. The Offeror shall express demonstrated knowledge of modeling a coal fired power plant dynamics.�� The Offeror shall consider the tradeoffs between accuracy and computational intensity when defining the strategy taken to model the dynamics for different components.�� The modeling approach will be evaluated based upon its suitability to be used as a tool to develop and test on-line system identification algorithms, and its compatibility to be adapted for use in a cyber-physical boiler. The Offeror shall describe the required convergence times for dynamic process models to respond to power equipment when coupled with steam turbine hardware in a cyber physical system.� (b) PROPOSED APPROACH TO DEVELOP TOOLS FOR FAULT DETECTION AND AUTOMATION (Criterion 2) The Offeror shall express demonstrated knowledge of conventional coal plant control strategies, as well as SOA system identification techniques for both automation and fault detection.� The Offeror shall describe their proposed selection of system identification techniques to develop fault detection algorithms such as a leak in either the boiler feedwater or superheated steam from the boiler.� The Offeror shall describe their proposed selection of system identification techniques to develop control algorithms on coal fired power plants to stabilize processes (such as steam superheat, reheat, and coal pulverizer temperature controllers) within a coal fired power plant operating at off design conditions (as low as 10% of full load). The evaluation shall consider the viability of system identification techniques to characterize the dynamic processes and develop dynamic control algorithms to be practically implemented and optimized on power plants. In addition, the Offeror shall provide a rationale supporting their determination that non-linear optimization methods can be employed to develop stable dynamic control schemes at these conditions. The Offeror shall describe a comprehensive approach to optimize any alternatives dynamic process controllers. The Offeror shall describe how the performance of alternative control schemes at off design conditions are to be benchmarked against existing conventional dynamic systems.� (c) PROPOSED ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL RESOURCES DISCUSSION (Criterion 3) Criterion 3, Organization and Technical Resources (File 2) and Resumes (File 3). In this section, the Offeror shall provide a description of its capabilities and experience.� The Offeror shall describe its management, organization, and technical resources including planned staff to be used on this effort emphasizing their ability to successfully provide state-of-the-art solutions and products in response to a national lab work statement.� The Offeror�s shall describe their resources to be used in this effort to conduct this technical research.� The Offeror shall also describe their staff�s qualifications related to analyzing and deconvoluting complex operational data into component contributions, extracting process dynamics from operational data, designing dynamic tests, and developing system identification and optimization tools to characterize process dynamics and detect faults in cyber physical and/or coal fired power equipment. In this section, the Offeror shall also identify their key personnel and essential personnel (technical) that are considered necessary to performance on this contract.� The Offeror shall discuss the qualifications and experience of key and essential personnel to accomplish the Performance Work Statement (PWS); this shall include the personnel�s relevant education, experience, and professional development that encompass pertinent skills, years of experience and training.� The Offeror shall provide documented background of work experience in deconvolution of complex process dynamics, cyber physical systems, developing system identification tools and non-linear optimization and adaptive controllers with specific emphasis on recent and on-going and how this experience will be used to support NETL. Resumes of the key and essential personnel shall be included and shall also include letters of commitment for all subcontracted individuals proposed.� Resumes shall clearly demonstrate the qualifications relative to the proposed job function and not simply list prior work positions and locations of the individual.� Key and essential personnel should demonstrate a clear commitment to the contract. Key Personnel:� The Offeror shall provide detailed information on the proposed key personnel, including organizational job titles.� Examples of key personnel would be Principle Investigator, Colleagues with relevant experience available for consultation by all members of the team, researchers on on-going projects with complementary skills. Essential Personnel:� Essential personnel are those individuals that have specialized skills, knowledge and experience that are required to execute specific work functions and are considered to add significant value to the success of the contract.� 2.) Price A separate price quote shall be included with the response. This RFQ provides for a firm-fixed price for all requirements within the PWS. Base award includes Task 1, 2, and 3. Option 1 includes additional work in Tasks 3, and Task 4. Option 2 includes Tasks 5, and 6. RFQ ATTACHMENTS: Performance Work Statement
- Web Link
-
SAM.gov Permalink
(https://beta.sam.gov/opp/4fa2f92983a84165a6d31c0c06b531a8/view)
- Place of Performance
- Address: Morgantown, WV, USA
- Country: USA
- Country: USA
- Record
- SN05774010-F 20200828/200826230154 (samdaily.us)
- Source
-
SAM.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's SAM Daily Index Page |