SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY PURCHASING AND SUPPORT SERVICES PURCHASING DIVISION David M. Louis, C.P.M., CPPO, CPPB Director Jon Drake, C.P.M. Deputy Director April 12, 2011 To: From: RFQ #11-01 Participants Jon Drake, Deputy Director Subject: RFQ #11-01, Addendum #2 RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATING SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION PLEASE NOTE: This Addendum #2 must be signed and returned with your Qualification submission. Failure to do so will cause rejection of your submission. This Addendum No.2 forms part of the Request for Qualification #11-01 and shall supersede the original specifications of the above entitled RFQ wherein it contradicts same. After a review of the questions we have received in conjunction with this RFQ, the County has chosen to clarify various portions of the RFQ documents. PLEASE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING CLARIFICATIONS FOR RFQ #11-01 1. Question: The Ag Center s rate schedule is listed only as NEMEXP, which signifies only the existence of a PV system. Do you know what the rate schedule was prior to Phase I installation? Answer: Phase I was constructed immediately after initial construction of the Ag Center. There is no historical rate data for prior to installation. 2. Question: Are either of the following sites available for consideration in RFQ responses and, if so, can the electrical consumption data be released? a. Stockton East Water District Treatment Plant, 6767 East Main St., Stockton, CA. Answer: No, this is not a County-owned Facility. b. North County Recycling Center & Landfill, 17720 E Harney Lane, Lodi, CA. Answer: Yes, we will be happy to discuss this further with the selected proposer. 3. All landfill surfaces are not available for installation of solar panels or wind turbines. Only areas designated on the plans (Attached) may be available. These issues will be addressed in more detail during the RFP process. 4. Question: How much gas (in scfm) are the existing landfills capable of producing? Answer: This information is provided in the figures attached to this Addendum (flow rate and methane content current at that time). Addendum #2 Page 1 of 5
5. Question: Is a gas / capacity analysis for the landfill gas available? Answer: At the closed landfills, the present systems have excess capacity. At the active landfills, the capacity of the LFG system is sufficient for the next few years. Further information can be provided to the successful proposer. Please see our response to question #6. 6. Question: Is existing landfill gas flared? Answer: All four landfills presently flare the collected LFG. A LFG-to-energy project is presently under way at Foothill landfill, which is anticipated to use piston engines. 7. Question: What is your electrical cost (per kwh)? Answer: We infer this question refers to our landfill locations, and the questioner considers producing electricity at our sites to provide electrical power for the site. Please know that most of the energy used at our sites is petroleum fuel (compactors, loaders, etc.) with relatively little electricity use. 8. Question: Who is currently operating the landfill? Answer: The Foothill landfill is operated by Foothill Landfill Inc., under contract with the County. The other three landfills are operated by the County s Public Works Department (Solid Waste Division). 9. Question: Who has the landfill gas rights? Answer: Foothill Landfill gas rights have been assigned to Ameresco San Joaquin LLC. Gas rights for our North County, Harney Lane, Corral Hollow landfills are unassigned. 10. Additional energy usage information is attached for the Human Services Agency, Agricultural Center, San Joaquin General Hospital, and the Jail. Maps of the County landfill sites are also attached. Information concerning methane gas flows and areas available for energy projects are annotated on these drawings where applicable. 11. Question: What percentage of the Ag Center's annual energy consumption is currently met by solar? What rate is being used for net-metering? What is the overall consumption? Answer: The electric rate is A1 P/NEMEXP. The solar provides 16.8% of the building usage for the last 12 months. The building total usage is 642,144 kwh for the last 12 months. 12. Question: When was the Ag Center s solar installed? Answer: The fall of 2009. Question: Who were the designer and installer? Answer: Premier Power. 13. Question: Does the 50 page limitation include the 4 required attachments and the W-9? Answer: Yes. Addendum #2 Page 2 of 5
14. Question: Can the 50 page submittal be double-sided? Answer: No. 15. Question: In section 6.1 of the RFQ it states The successful respondent will be paid mostly from rebates and incentives and from energy savings. It was made clear at the 3-16 meeting that the county would not be contributing funds to this project so what does the word mostly mean in the above referenced section? Answer: Delete the word mostly. 16. Question: The electric usage history provided for Location 1 (Ag. Center) shows net annual usage of 520,000 kwh but an annual bill of $158. We are assuming this is not the usage for phase II of the solar installation (addressed in this RFQ). Please provide estimated annual electric usage for the offset of phase II solar. Answer: This question is best answered with the attachment and the explanation in question #33. 17. Question: The electric usage history provided for both Location 2 (County Jail) and Location 3 (Gen. Hospital) is very high. Even after assumed reductions in usage due to EE measures these two sites would require solar system sizes well in excess of the 1MW AC net metering cap (CSI/PG&E). Are there other electric meters at these two sites that have lower annual electric usage that would be suitable candidates for solar? Is the County assuming that solar systems will be in excess of the 1MW AC cap? Is the County considering locating the systems offsite and utilizing AB 2466? Answer: At this stage, the County is looking for general information about what may be done at these locations. Partial or complete solar systems may be installed. (Partial means from 10% to 100% of the electric building needs.) 18. Question: When sizing solar for the Canlis building should we assume full occupancy (before EE measures)? i.e., 2.2 million kwh/year? Answer: Yes, however, a partial system may be considered during the RFP process since the surface area is constrained. 19. Question: The electric usage history provided for Location 5 (HSA) is incomplete. For the two GNR1 rate schedules (meters) no kwh usage is provided. Additionally, as with sites 2 & 3, the annual usage on the E19 meter is very high and would require a solar system size well in excess of the 1MW AC net metering cap. How does the County propose this be addressed? Answer: It was clearly identified in the RFQ that solar system will not be considered for the Human Services Building. 20. Question: No electric usage history has been provided for Harney Lane Landfill, North County Landfill, and Foothill Landfill (or other County properties). Can the County please provide this data? Answer: proposer. Similar to #2 above, we will be happy to discuss this further with the selected Addendum #2 Page 3 of 5
21. Question: Is Public Liability insurance, as requested on Attachment A, separate from the commercial General Liability? Answer: No, the terms are interchangeable. 22. Question: The instructions for the Management Summary refer to describing each recommended system which seems beyond the scope of this Statement of Qualifications. Can you please provide additional guidance as to what is expected here? Answer: The County is asking for general description and not specific information. 23. Question: Please confirm that it is permissible to propose solutions for select sites, and that it is not mandatory to provide solutions for all sites. Answer: It is permissible to propose solutions for select sites and it is not mandatory to provide solutions for all sites. 24. Question: Please provide the age and type of all roofs that are potential candidates for solar projects. Answer: This question will be considered during the RFP process. 25. Question: The language in the RFQ, as well as several of the responses in Amendment 1, implies that the County is looking for information that would be more appropriately submitted via an RFP. References to site-specific solutions, (Amendment 1 question 31), PPA pricing (question 10), and the overall tone that site specific technical solutions and pricing may be part of this submittal is unclear. The concern is that there may be inconsistencies in the content that bidders submit, which may make fair evaluation difficult. Please specifically state if you do or do not want any indicative PPA pricing information or site specific solar array size information in this RFQ submittal. Answer: The County is not requiring specific information, only general information. 26. Question: Is the county open to solar lease-to-own options that still provide the county the required savings? Answer: The County is open to this option and other options. Reminder: It is the County s intent to not pay for or finance any of these projects. 27. Question: At which of the sites are there additional electrical meters and how many? (More than just the main electrical meter.) Answer: This information will be provided during the RFP stage. 28. Question: And please, this is most important, what are the electrical rate structure (A-10 or E- 19, etc.) on each of those additional meters? Answer: This information will be provided during the RFP stage. 29. Question: Section 11.0 of RFQ 11-01 alludes to the amounts quoted herein and requires that a Contractor whose statement is accepted must execute a contract presented by the County within five days after presentment. This seems inconsistent with the nature of the RFQ, which does not solicit firm fixed pricing, asks only for a brief summary of the recommended system Addendum #2 Page 4 of 5
(detailed proposals are described as future events in Section 7.5) and anticipates (in Sections 7.3, 7.5 and 7.6) a negotiation process prior to contract execution. May we assume that Section 11.0 can be deleted from our Statement? Answer: The paragraph at the top of 11.0 may be deleted. However, submittal of this signature page is still required to establish proposer s authorized agent. 30. Question: We note that Section 7.9 provides that exceptions to the County s standard contract form must be included in the respondent s submittal. Where, if anywhere, in the scoring criteria will these exceptions to the contract be evaluated? Answer: For this RFQ, proposers need not submit exceptions. 31. Question: In order to size the adequate photovoltaic system required for buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, please provide copy of the total kilowatt hour usage per year. The RFQ states to allow these buildings to generate 100% of its average load via solar generation. Answer: This information has been provided. 32. Question: HSA Building 5, can we use the two adjacent parking structures to mount carport solar systems? Parking structure at Sutter St/S. California St. and Market St/E. Washington St. and parking structure at E. Washington St/E. Market St. and S. Hunter St/S. San Joaquin Street? Answer: The RFQ states that a solar system is not requested for the Human Services Agency Building. 33. Question: Please explain columns Q and R on the Ag Center tab in the Consumption Information spreadsheet. Column R looks like it should have some kind of multiplier. Answer: This data is better explained in this Addendum s attachment. PG&E displays, in the attached data, a small monthly amount for Ag Center charges. The County accrues much more than this in anticipation of the annual true up in August, which is clearly illustrated on this Addendum s attachment. END ADDENDUM #2 Call with questions, 209-468-3250. Please sign this addendum and return it with your submission. Signature Print Company Name: Address: Addendum #2 Page 5 of 5