Develop Prototype Natural-Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnace(s) with Reduced NOx Emissions Capable of Meeting the Future ...
Background <ul><li>Rule 1111 amended November 6, 2009 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NOx limit reduced from 40 to 14 ng/J with phas...
Purpose of this RFP <ul><li>Within two years, develop and test prototype natural gas, fan-type central furnace(s) meeting ...
Statement of Work <ul><li>Task 1 – develop prototype furnace(s) </li></ul><ul><li>Task 2 – Rule 1111 NOx certification tes...
AQMD Concern with Higher Wobbe Index of Future Gas Supplies <ul><li>Normal range of Wobbe Index 1330-1340 </li></ul><ul><l...
Deliverables <ul><li>Monthly Status Reports </li></ul><ul><li>Quarterly Progress reports </li></ul><ul><li>Task Reports </...
Schedule <ul><li>Work must be completed by June 30, 2012 including submittal of the final report. </li></ul>
Expected Bidders <ul><ul><li>Furnace manufacturers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Teams that include furnace manufacturers tog...
Bid Evaluation Process <ul><li>Bids will be evaluated by a panel of experts consisting of AQMD staff and outside expert(s)...
Bid Evaluation Criteria <ul><li>    Points </li></ul><ul><li>Technical </li></ul><ul><li>Qualifications </li></ul><ul><li>...
Technical Points for Efficiency <ul><li>Maximum of 10 additional points based on average AFUE of products to be developed ...
Additional Points for Intellectual Property Sharing <ul><li>Maximum of 10 additional points based on “quality and extent” ...
Possible Types of IP Sharing <ul><li>Make IP available to public </li></ul><ul><li>Patent and make IP available at reasona...
Cost-Effectiveness Points <ul><li>Cost Effectiveness will be based on proposed cost divided by the number of significantly...
What Constitutes “Significantly Different” Products <ul><li>Furnace categories in Rule 1111 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Condensi...
Points for Return of Funds <ul><li>Up to 10 cost points will be based on the percentage of funds to be returned to AQMD ba...
Project Funding <ul><li>Total funds available = $1,000,000. </li></ul><ul><li>Funds are expected to be awarded to the four...
Proposal Organization <ul><li>Cover Letter signed by authorized representative of proposing firm. </li></ul><ul><li>Volume...
Schedule of Events (2010) Deadline for questions March 4 Questions and answers posted  ( http://www.aqmd.gov/rfp/index.htm...
Submitting Your Proposal <ul><li>Must be received by 2:00 p.m. March 23, 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Must be signed by authoriz...
Contact <ul><li>Howard Lange, Air Quality Engineer II </li></ul><ul><li>Science and Technology Advancement </li></ul><ul><...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Develop Prototype Natural-Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnace ...

400 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
400
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Board Members. This item is to …..
  • Back in May of last year the Board authorized a contract with FERCO to conduct a research study and demonstrate control technologies to reduce PM2.5 and ultrafine emissions from natural gas-fired gas turbines at power plants. Subsequently General Electric Energy Service or GE, one of the main subcontractors in FERCO’s team, made a decision to withdraw from the proposal. GE cited scheduling issues that delayed executing the contract and their differing views on AQMD’s measurement protocols for filterable and condensable particulate matter PM2.5/10 and ultrafines. GE felt that moving forward with the proposal would be contradictory to their stance on the measurement protocols. At AQMD’s request, FERCO submitted a revised proposal at the same cost.
  • Back in May of last year the Board authorized a contract with FERCO to conduct a research study and demonstrate control technologies to reduce PM2.5 and ultrafine emissions from natural gas-fired gas turbines at power plants. Subsequently General Electric Energy Service or GE, one of the main subcontractors in FERCO’s team, made a decision to withdraw from the proposal. GE cited scheduling issues that delayed executing the contract and their differing views on AQMD’s measurement protocols for filterable and condensable particulate matter PM2.5/10 and ultrafines. GE felt that moving forward with the proposal would be contradictory to their stance on the measurement protocols. At AQMD’s request, FERCO submitted a revised proposal at the same cost.
  • Back in May of last year the Board authorized a contract with FERCO to conduct a research study and demonstrate control technologies to reduce PM2.5 and ultrafine emissions from natural gas-fired gas turbines at power plants. Subsequently General Electric Energy Service or GE, one of the main subcontractors in FERCO’s team, made a decision to withdraw from the proposal. GE cited scheduling issues that delayed executing the contract and their differing views on AQMD’s measurement protocols for filterable and condensable particulate matter PM2.5/10 and ultrafines. GE felt that moving forward with the proposal would be contradictory to their stance on the measurement protocols. At AQMD’s request, FERCO submitted a revised proposal at the same cost.
  • Back in May of last year the Board authorized a contract with FERCO to conduct a research study and demonstrate control technologies to reduce PM2.5 and ultrafine emissions from natural gas-fired gas turbines at power plants. Subsequently General Electric Energy Service or GE, one of the main subcontractors in FERCO’s team, made a decision to withdraw from the proposal. GE cited scheduling issues that delayed executing the contract and their differing views on AQMD’s measurement protocols for filterable and condensable particulate matter PM2.5/10 and ultrafines. GE felt that moving forward with the proposal would be contradictory to their stance on the measurement protocols. At AQMD’s request, FERCO submitted a revised proposal at the same cost.
  • The same technical panel that reviewed the original proposal evaluated the current revised proposal. The panel consisted of the following individuals….. The panel evaluated the revised proposal to determine if the new team of subcontractors is acceptable and capable to complete the project. The panel also noted that the new team of contractors possessed excellent qualifications with a fundamental understanding of the formation, capture, control and testing of PM2.5 and ultrafine emissions capable of underfilling GE’s prior responsabilites.
  • The same scope of work has been maintained in the revised proposal to accomplish the project as it was originally intended. Here in Task 1 of Phase 1 a research study will be conducted to identify and evaluate new and existing PM2.5/Ultrafine control technologies in addition to literature search, contacting vendors, develop economics and recommend technologies to be demonstrated and tested. Based on finding in the report AQMD will determine whether to proceed and fund demonstration projects. Then brief description of Tasks 2 – 5.
  • Develop Prototype Natural-Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnace ...

    1. 1. Develop Prototype Natural-Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Central Furnace(s) with Reduced NOx Emissions Capable of Meeting the Future Requirements of Rule 1111 Bidders Conference February 26, 2010 RFP #P2010-17
    2. 2. Background <ul><li>Rule 1111 amended November 6, 2009 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NOx limit reduced from 40 to 14 ng/J with phase-in starting 10/1/14 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subject to technology assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Board dedicated $1 million to help manufacturers develop furnaces meeting 14 ng/J </li></ul>
    3. 3. Purpose of this RFP <ul><li>Within two years, develop and test prototype natural gas, fan-type central furnace(s) meeting 14 ng/J based on certification procedure in Rule 1111 and applicable safety standards. </li></ul><ul><li>The RFP encourages development of high-efficiency products and sharing of intellectual property that results from the project. </li></ul>
    4. 4. Statement of Work <ul><li>Task 1 – develop prototype furnace(s) </li></ul><ul><li>Task 2 – Rule 1111 NOx certification tests </li></ul><ul><li>Task 3 – safety tests </li></ul><ul><li>Task 4 – final report </li></ul>
    5. 5. AQMD Concern with Higher Wobbe Index of Future Gas Supplies <ul><li>Normal range of Wobbe Index 1330-1340 </li></ul><ul><li>Future LNG imports may increase WI to as high as 1385 </li></ul><ul><li>For some combustion devices, NOx increases with WI </li></ul><ul><li>Testing of NOx-vs.-WI would be viewed as a plus. </li></ul>
    6. 6. Deliverables <ul><li>Monthly Status Reports </li></ul><ul><li>Quarterly Progress reports </li></ul><ul><li>Task Reports </li></ul><ul><li>Final Report – draft, final </li></ul><ul><li>Two-Page Project Summary </li></ul>
    7. 7. Schedule <ul><li>Work must be completed by June 30, 2012 including submittal of the final report. </li></ul>
    8. 8. Expected Bidders <ul><ul><li>Furnace manufacturers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Teams that include furnace manufacturers together with burner manufacturers or research lab’s, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bidder must be or include a furnace manufacturer . </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Bid Evaluation Process <ul><li>Bids will be evaluated by a panel of experts consisting of AQMD staff and outside expert(s). </li></ul><ul><li>Each panel member will score the proposals based on a point system. </li></ul><ul><li>Proposals will be ranked by average score. </li></ul><ul><li>Other factors may be considered. </li></ul>
    10. 10. Bid Evaluation Criteria <ul><li> Points </li></ul><ul><li>Technical </li></ul><ul><li>Qualifications </li></ul><ul><li> - Equipment Design & Manufacture 20 </li></ul><ul><li>- Testing Capability 10 </li></ul><ul><li>  Technical Approach 20 </li></ul><ul><li>  Efficiency 10 </li></ul><ul><li>  Management Plan 10 </li></ul><ul><li> 70 </li></ul><ul><li>Cost </li></ul><ul><li>Cost-effectiveness 20 </li></ul><ul><li>Return of Funds 10 </li></ul><ul><li> 30 </li></ul><ul><li>Additional Points </li></ul><ul><li>SB, DVBE, Local 15 </li></ul><ul><li>Intellectual Property Sharing 10 </li></ul>
    11. 11. Technical Points for Efficiency <ul><li>Maximum of 10 additional points based on average AFUE of products to be developed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal(s) with highest: 10 points </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal(s) with lowest: 0 points </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other proposals: intermediate number of points based on where AFUE stands among all proposals </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Additional Points for Intellectual Property Sharing <ul><li>Maximum of 10 additional points based on “quality and extent” of IP sharing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal(s) with no IP sharing commitment will receive 0 points. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal(s) with best IP sharing will receive 10 points. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal(s) with more restricted IP sharing will receive an intermediate number of points. </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Possible Types of IP Sharing <ul><li>Make IP available to public </li></ul><ul><li>Patent and make IP available at reasonable license fee </li></ul><ul><li>Patent, make available at reasonable license fee, and share royalties with AQMD </li></ul><ul><li>Other </li></ul><ul><li>Proposal must be specific and detailed. </li></ul>
    14. 14. Cost-Effectiveness Points <ul><li>Cost Effectiveness will be based on proposed cost divided by the number of significantly different products to be developed. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal(s) with best: 10 points </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal(s) with least: 0 points </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other proposals: intermediate number of points based on where cost effectiveness stands among all proposals </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. What Constitutes “Significantly Different” Products <ul><li>Furnace categories in Rule 1111 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Condensing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-condensing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Weatherized </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mobile Home </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Efficiency: Standard or High </li></ul><ul><li>Rated heat input – existing models </li></ul><ul><li>Combination heating/cooling </li></ul>
    16. 16. Points for Return of Funds <ul><li>Up to 10 cost points will be based on the percentage of funds to be returned to AQMD based on a successful project outcome. </li></ul><ul><li>Percentage can exceed 100% and can be based on sales and/or license royalty fees. </li></ul><ul><li>Proposal must be specific and detailed. </li></ul>
    17. 17. Project Funding <ul><li>Total funds available = $1,000,000. </li></ul><ul><li>Funds are expected to be awarded to the four most highly evaluated bidders, or possibly fewer than four. </li></ul>
    18. 18. Proposal Organization <ul><li>Cover Letter signed by authorized representative of proposing firm. </li></ul><ul><li>Volume I – Technical (RFP Section VIII) </li></ul><ul><li>Volume II – Cost (RFP Section VIII) </li></ul><ul><li>Volume III – Certifications and Representations (RFP Attachment A) </li></ul><ul><li>Clearly mark any confidential information. </li></ul>
    19. 19. Schedule of Events (2010) Deadline for questions March 4 Questions and answers posted ( http://www.aqmd.gov/rfp/index.html ) March 5 RFP closes (2:00 p.m. PDT) March 23 Winning bids selected for presentation to Board May 21 Board decision - contract awards June 4 Anticipated contract signing (on or before) July 1
    20. 20. Submitting Your Proposal <ul><li>Must be received by 2:00 p.m. March 23, 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Must be signed by authorized representative </li></ul><ul><li>Eight (8) copies in sealed envelope </li></ul><ul><li>Mark upper left-hand corner with Bidder’s name and address, “RFP #P2010-17” </li></ul><ul><li>Submit to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Procurement Unit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>South Coast AQMD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>21865 Copley Dr. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 </li></ul></ul>
    21. 21. Contact <ul><li>Howard Lange, Air Quality Engineer II </li></ul><ul><li>Science and Technology Advancement </li></ul><ul><li>South Coast AQMD </li></ul><ul><li>21865 Copley Drive </li></ul><ul><li>Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 </li></ul><ul><li>(909) 396-3658, FAX (909) 396-3252 </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>

    ×