Concerning the Technical Proposal, section 7.2, about the limit of 20 pages, is it intended only for the real technical part, excluding cover page, index, references and other additional but necessary pages, or is it intended globally? If, for example, figures or tables are collected in an annex, should these annexes be computed out of the 20 pages?  

Thank you for your clarification. 

Dear tenderer,

Section 7.2 Technical Proposal explains the content that the tender shall include as a minimum. In summary:

i.                     A technical proposal, with:

a.       A technical offer describing the technical solution proposed by the tenderer for the Business Case , which shall not exceed 20 pages. Annexes are accepted and will not be computed to the maximum length.

b.      Task Offer Form for the allocation of resources. The tenderer shall fill in the Task Offer Form with the human resources required for the implementation of the Business Case . The template provided in Annex 14 shall be used.

ii.                   Preliminary Project and Quality Management Plan at Framework Contract Level and a Management plan related to the Business case (no maximum length)

iii.                  Statement of compliance. Such a statement shall be signed and dated by the Tenderer and no template is provided by F4E.

Dear all,

Thank you very much for your answer to question 5115. It is understood that a subcontractors whose technical and professional capacity is necessary for the tenderer to fulfil the selection criteria has to provide a declaration on honour even if the share of the contract value is below 20%.

Does the subcontractor is this case has to fill the complete declaration on honour  (exclusion and selection criteria)?

As the subcontractor will provide services on a restricted topic of the contract not all technical and professional requirements mentioned in the invitation to tender will have to be fulfilled. The resources to be provided by the subcontractor will be specified in Annex 9(Third party undertaking form).  We kindly ask you to confirm that the confirmation of the subcontractor under VII (5)c) refer to the applicable technical and professional criteria necessary to provide the services mentioned in Annex 9 and does not refer to complete selection criteria mentioned in the invitation.

Thank you very much in advance

Best regards

Annette 

Dear tenderer,

In a subcontractor´s case, the section VIII 5 c) refers to its relevant technical and professional criteria. A subcontractor with a share of the contract value below 20% will not be assessed against exclusion criteria, and the declaration on honour will need to be submitted for the relevant selection criterion applicable on individual entity level.

Please also head to the table in Section 12.6.2, which summarizes how the rules and criteria are applied depending on an economic operator’s role.   

Dear all,

according to the invitation to tender page 11 and page 37 only subcontractors whose share is above 20 % of the contract value will have to provide a declaration on honour.

The passage on page 12 can be understood that any subcontractor whose technical and professional capacity is necessary for the tenderer to fulfil the selection criteria will have to provide a declaration on honour - regardless of the share of the contract value.

To avoid misunderstandings we kindly ask you to confirm that for subcontractors whose share of the contract value is below 20% will not have to provide a declaration on honour even if the tenderer relies on their technical and professional capacity.

Thank you very much in advance.

Best regards

Annette

Dear tenderer,

Please note that the Declaration on honour is related to the Exclusion and the Selection Criteria.

In accordance to Section 4, a Subcontractor  whose share of the contract is above 20%, shall provide a declaration on honour (Annex 04), duly signed and dated by an authorised representative, stating that it is not in one of the exclusion situations.

In accordance to Section 5, a for selection criteria applicable on individual entity level, a tenderer, a Subcontractor (whose capacity is necessary to fulfil the selection criterion) , shall individually provide a declaration on honour (Annex 04), stating that it fulfils the relevant selection criterion.

Therefore, a subcontractor whose share of the contract is below 20% will provide a declaration on honour stating it fulfils the relevant selection criterion if the tenderer relies on its technical and professional capacity.

Dear tenderer,

please refer to Section 13. Annexes of the Invitation to Tender:

Annex 06 Legal Entity Form is to be retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/budget/contracts_grants/info_contracts/legal_entities/legal_entities_en.cfm

Annex 07 Financial Identification Form is to be retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/budget/contracts_grants/info_contracts/financial_id/financial_id_en.cfm

Dear Sirs, 

If the subcontractor is a freelance, is it needed to provide the Annex 11 Financial Assessment form?

Thank you.

Dear tenderer,

Please refer to answer given to Question QUES_05112: “ in the case the tenderer relies on the capacity of a subcontractor, an Annex 11 (with supporting documentation) shall also be submitted for the subcontractor”

 Dear all,

Invitation to tender document section 12.6 states:

 "12.6 Other Entities and Subcontractors (roles linked to the selection criteria)

An economic operator may, where appropriate, rely on the capacity of a third party, regardless of the legal nature of the links between them. In such case, this third party shall be considered an Other Entity (if providing economic and financial capacity) or a Subcontractor (if providing technical and professional capacity). "

 Nevertheles, in the table included in section 7.1, for a single tenderer, it is indicated that the subcontractors shall submit Annex 11 Financial Capacity assessment form.

 Is it necessary that subcontractors included in a single tenderer proposal to submit Annex 11?

Thank you 

Dear tenderer,

Only one tender per tenderer is to be submitted.

The table 7.1 is related to the documentation the tenderer (single, group member, subcontractor, other entity) need to submit within the Administrative documents. Answering to your question related to the lot 2, in the case the tenderer relies on the capacity of a subcontractor, an Annex 11 (with supporting documentation) shall also be submitted for the subcontractor.

This question is related with the Business Case of Lot 2.

In paragraph 2.1.2.1 b) of document F4E_D_2F2TPS it is required to “prepare the classification of the pre-selected components listed in Table 3 according to PED and ESPN regulations”.

In accordance to ESPN regulation, the ESPN classification of pressure vessels shall be determined by a formula involving the Tritium, Carbon 14, Nitrogen 16, Nitrogen 17 and corrosion products radioactivity concentration.

Usually, in other ITER systems, these radioactivity concentrations are given in reference documents (like “Fluid Radioactivity Concentration for the ITER Tokamak Cooling Water System”_26GLXV, or “Nuclear Analysis of N-16 and N-17 radiation fields from TCWS activated water”_QZ7BEK).

Are these documents available for the HCPB-TBS ancillary systems?     

Dear tenderer,

in the development of the Business Case of the Lot #2 no radioactive products other than tritium have to be considered. According to what stated in the Business Case Technical Specification (“This loop is not a sub-system of the HCPB TBS”), we confirm that there isn’t any conceptual connection to HCPB-TBS.

I think we did not receive the electronic version of the MELCOR model (Lot 3). Could you please provide us the model?

Please note that F4E has provided all documentation in the zip file received after the signature of the NDA.

With regards to the existing models provided by F4E for the Business Case of Lot 3, please refer to answer given to Question 5104 in the Industry Portal.

In Annex F4E-OFC-0950_Annex_13_Business_Case_Lot_3_2E49NF_v1_1 of Lot 3 of F4E-OFC-0950 it is asked for “various cases to be considered in the sensitivity analysis”, “The simulation cases identified for the sensitivity analysis shall be run with the modified MELCOR model” and “A minimum of 2 cases shall be simulated for the sensitivity analysis referred to in section 3.2”.

In IAEA SSG-2 sensitivity analysis is defined as “5.25. A sensitivity analysis includes systematic variation of the individual code input variables and of the individual parameters that are used in models, to determine their influence on the results of the calculations.”

It is not clear what is the meaning of “case” in Annex 13:

Questions:

-         Is one “case” the variation of one individual “code input variable” or one “parameter used in the models”? So, one “case” consists of several “runs” of the code with only one parameter varied?

-         Or is a “case” one simulation run used to determine the sensitivity of the results with respect to one parameter?

-         Or is a “case” a scenario e.g. defined by the availability of certain system functions and the sensitivity analysis consists in different simulations runs varying different model parameters for that scenario? So, two cases would mean two different scenarios?

In the nuclear industry different methods are used to determine the sensitivity of code results to input parameters (both code input variables and model parameters). There are e.g. statistical methods (aka Wilks) available, where several parameters are modified at once in one simulation run and the sensitivity is determined by the application of statistical methods on the results of a set of runs (see e. g. OECD/CSNI Workshop on Best Estimate Methods and Uncertainty Evaluations, https://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/docs/2013/csni-r2013-8-part2.pdf).

Question:

-         Would it be acceptable for fulfilling the business case to apply the Wilks method consisting in modifying two or more parameters simultaneously in a set of simulation runs and determine the sensitivity of the MELCOR model to each of the parameters?

Dear tenderer,

The correct scenario is the number 1 you described: one “case” consists of several “runs” of the code with only one parameter varied. To illustrate the fact that what is expected in the Business case is the variation of one parameter used in the model, one can refer to chapter 7.3 of the Annex B reference document 13.

Dear all,

in the table on Page 37 in the line "Declaration on Honour”· there is in part Joint Submissions in the column "Subcontractor" a link to footnote No. 6. This footnote refers to "hydraulic analyses by simulation using RELAP5” on page 18. I consider this link as a bit confusing. Does it mean, that in case of a joint tender only subcontractors whose area of expertise concerns "hydraulic analyses by simulation using RELAP5" have to provide a Declaration on Honour or may the link to footnote 6 in this place considered as typo?

I would be grateful for clarification

Best regards

Dear Tenderer,

Thank you for spotting this. Indeed this is a typo and the footnote should be 11, same as its equivalent on the table for the Subcontractor in case of a single tender.

Dear Fusion team, many thanks for your very clear answers to our previous queries.

We would be grateful if you could help us understand Clause II.20.4, which sets out the consequences of termination for convenience by Fusion. Pursuant to II20.4, Fusion undertakes to reimburse “costs” (not capitalized – not the defined term Costs?) incurred “as a direct result of termination”. Further down, II.20.6 provides that the percentage of work already completed by Contractor & accepted by Fusion has an impact on the amount of such reimbursement.  Do these reimbursable costs include the internal cost of labour of the Contractor, incurred up to the point of termination? (i.e. can we essentially claim the price minus profit)? Or only those costs which may be characterized as “damages” arising from termination? (e.g. cost of reorganizing our staff to switch them to new projects). Or both? Many thanks in advance.

The rationale of Art. II.20.4 is that of reimbursing only the direct damages, i.e., costs directly suffered by the contractor, which are direct and immediate consequence of the termination. The section of Art. II.20.6 you mentioned simply points out that the amount of work made before termination affects the calculation of the direct damages: for instance a contract very close to its expiration shall have a very low cancellation fee (as 3% is multiplied for the remaining price to be paid) and, presumably, the direct damages that can be claimed would be lower.

In lot 3 two profiles with five years of RELAP experience and five years of MELCOR experience are requested. Also, in subgroup 1 of the Areas of Expertise an “Advanced computer simulation for accident analyses with MELCOR and RELAP” reference is requested as a project and experience for, at least, one of the CV that should be presented.

RELAP is a code primarily used to analyze transient TH scenarios that can occur during operation, while MELCOR is used for severe accident analysis.

Can you please clarify whether indeed your requirement is to present skills and experience where two codes with completely different purposes are used in one single project?

F4E has developed a methodology of Test Blanket Systems accidental analysis fully based on a comparison with RELAP5 and MELCOR performances, knowing and considering the limitation of each code. As transient thermo hydraulic scenario using RELAP5 may be still analysed in certain cases during the implementation of the resulting FWC, the requirement of the two codes for the profiles and the areas of expertise is confirmed.

F4E-OFC-0950_Annex_13_Business_Case_Lot_3_2E49NF_v1_1.pdf Section 2.1. said “The MELCOR model to be developed for simulating the in-TBM box LOCA shall be a simplification of the existing model used in [RD-01]“.

Question:

-          Do you mean [RD-1] “D6.3 - Analysis of a Loss of Flow Accident with Aggravating Failure (Helium Ingress into the Breeder Box – in Box Loss of Coolant Accident) for the Helium Cooled Pebble Bed Test Blanket System” in this document or [RD-01] in Annex B Lot #3?

The latter one has nothing to do with the model and it was signed as [RD-2] in Annex_13.

The existing model in D6.3 (with a summarized description for model modification in D6.1 & D6.2 Section 3.1.3) was already simplified from the original one in D4.2.

Questions:

-          Do we understand correctly, that this model should be simplified further?

-          Is a document available, which describes in detail the the model modification from D4.2 to D6.3?

-          We would like to know which existing model will be provided by F4E and on which we can base a model in the Business Case?

Question 1

F4E-OFC-0950_Annex_13_Business_Case_Lot_3_2E49NF_v1_1.pdf Section 2.1. said “The MELCOR model to be developed for simulating the in-TBM box LOCA shall be a simplification of the existing model used in [RD-01]“.

Question:

-          Do you mean [RD-1] “D6.3 - Analysis of a Loss of Flow Accident with Aggravating Failure (Helium Ingress into the Breeder Box – in Box Loss of Coolant Accident) for the Helium Cooled Pebble Bed Test Blanket System” in this document or [RD-01] in Annex B Lot #3?

The latter one has nothing to do with the model and it was signed as [RD-2] in Annex_13.

Answer 1

Yes, the reference documents for the Business case are the ones which are referenced in the business case Annex_13. In that case, the scenario to be studied in the business case should be based on [RD-1] “D6.3 - Analysis of a Loss of Flow Accident with Aggravating Failure (Helium Ingress into the Breeder Box – in Box Loss of Coolant Accident) for the Helium Cooled Pebble Bed Test Blanket System”

Question 2 

The existing model in D6.3 (with a summarized description for model modification in D6.1 & D6.2 Section 3.1.3) was already simplified from the original one in D4.2.

Questions:

-          Do we understand correctly, that this model should be simplified further?

-          Is a document available, which describes in detail the the model modification from D4.2 to D6.3?

-          We would like to know which existing model will be provided by F4E and on which we can base a model in the Business Case?

Answer 2

-          As stated in the business case it is requested within the BC exercise to consider only an in TBM box LOCA meaning that the accidental scenario is simplified not considering the Loss of Flow Accident and the 32 hours Loss of offsite power as per D6.3. This is the meaning of the simplification  

-          All technical documents delivered in the previous phase of the HCPB TBS accidental analysis have been provided in the package. 

-          It is recalled that the Tenderer is not requested, for this business case, to execute the work described but to develop the Business Case Technical Offer, Task Offer Form and Management Plan. These documents shall be part of the Tenderer’s Technical Proposal. It is therefore recommended to develop the technical offer on the basis of the reference documents given in the package especially considering that in each technical report there is(are) annex(es) dedicated to the MELCOR model description

Question 1 – Companies established in the EU: We confirm that the participation in F4E procurement procedures (access to the market) are open to companies that are nationals of or are legally established in the territory of a F4E Member (i.e. Member States of the EU and Switzerland). The rules of access to the market do not apply to subcontractors.

Question 2 – MELCOR and RELAP licenses (related to lot 3): please note that in accordance to the Invitation to Tender (v1.2 updated on 12/02/2019) the tenderer shall have at least 1 valid license of MELCOR (fusion adapted version) or equivalent at the time of the submission of the tender. RELAP5 shall be obtained upon request of Fusion for Energy, anytime during the execution of the Framework Contract, including immediately after its signature. For more details please refer to Art. I.20 of the Framework Contract.

Dear Sir or Madam,

in the Invitation to Tender (F4E_D_2F2L6Q) for F4E-OFC-0950 the scope of the project is defined in section 2.1: “The subject of the contract is the provision of services as set out in the Technical Specification and in conformity with the terms provided in the Procurement Documents.”

In F4E-QA-115 (F4E_D_22F8BJ v5.5) there is a distinction between “product” and “service”.

In Annex A of the Tender for Lot 3 (F4E_D_2BPPAR v1.3), several of the referenced requirements, e. g. F4E-QA-115-QD-PR-001 to F4E-QA-115-QD-DV-001, F4E-QA-115-QD-DV-007 to F4E-QA-115-QD-RV-003, seem to be applicable to hardware or software products, but it is not clear how they are applicable to a service.

Questions:

• Should there be “products” produced by the supplier as result of the “services” performed in F4E-OFC-0950 Lot 3?
• What would be considered a “product”? Reports? Input data sets for simulations? Result files of simulations?
• Or are these requirements mentioned above applicable, if the service consists in recommendations for somebody else, who will produce “products” (e. g. the designers of the test blanket system)? 

As per ISO9001:

-          Service is an output (3.7.5) of an organization (3.2.1) with at least one activity necessarily performed between the organization and the customer (3.2.4). A service is generally experienced by the customer.

-          Product is output (3.7.5) of an organization (3.2.1) that can be produced without any transaction taking place between the organization and the customer (3.2.4)

Although the dominant factors are that services are intangible and product are tangible, SW/Analyses are also considered intangible products.

The services mentioned in the LOT3 Technical Specification are activities foreseen to be performed by the Tenderer. Each activity will be linked to specific deliverable(s) which is an intangible products.

The Tenderer is suggested to take into consideration the fact that the activities/deliverables (e.g. recommendations for a design modification of a system part ) will be applicable to tangible product(s) and, therefore, to all the mentioned requirements associated with the products.

Dear procurement Team, we would be grateful for your answers to the following questions on the Framework Contract:

1)     The last sentence in Clause I.14.2 provides: “From the Day the maximum amount of payable liquidated damages is reached, Fusion for Energy shall be entitled to compensation for any loss or damage resulting from any additional delay attributable to the Contractor, under the conditions set out by Article I.12 (Liability.” whereas just before, the Clause provides that liquidated damages “constitute the sole remedy.”

It is not clear to us how this works. Is there an effective limit of liability for delay after the liquidated damages cap, or not? The two consecutive sentences seem contradictory.

2)     With respect to Clause I.12.1 (§1):  to the extent the concepts below are applicable to F4E, can we understand the provision on Contractor’s liability “for any loss or damage arising directly as a result of the performance or breach…” to mean exclusion of such indirect losses as “loss of opportunity,” “loss of use” and “loss of production”? What about F4E losses of revenue (if this is applicable to the F4E entity) ?

3)     There does not seem to be a mechanism for extending the time schedule, e.g. in case of force majeure (II.16). Will schedule extensions be effectively dealt with in specific contracts? Is Clause II.24 applicable?

4)     In the procedure for acceptance (II.2.1), it is not clear whether minor and inconsequential defects (such as typos in reports) would be considered as nonconformities with the contractual conditions. Could you clarify how we should interpret this provision?

5)     Are the words in I.10.3 [The Project Manager and the key persons listed above shall be dedicated full time to the execution of the Contract] part of the contract? Why is this provision in square brackets?

1.       Compensation for delays is provided in 2 ways: (A) up to the maximum amount of 10% of the Specific Contract Price, the only compensation to F4E is given by the “pre-defined” application of liquidated damages as per Art. I.14.1; (B) once and if the ceiling mentioned under point A is reached, F4E reserves the right to claim damages for any additional delay, within the maximum liability (cap) mentioned in Art. I.12 (Liability). For this additional delay, however, there will be no automatic application of LDs; F4E shall have to prove the damage (and not just the delay) to obtain compensation.

2.       As reported by you the provision refers to “any loss or damage arising directly as a result of …”; it does not expressly exclude any specific loss. Should an issue arise in that respect, the clause shall be interpreted in accordance with applicable law.

3.       Art. II.24 is used for amending any part of the FWC, its specific contracts and their annexes. Therefore, amendment to schedules contractually agreed shall be made in accordance with Art. II.24 (Amendments) and EU procurement rules. If the schedule is attached to the Framework Contract, the amendment shall relate such contract; if instead the schedule is defined in the specific contracts, changes to it will be implemented through amendment to the specific contract.

4.       The clause provides the clear statement that Acceptance is given only if “deliverables are in compliance with the contractual requirements”. What ‘compliance’ depends on analysis made on a case-by case basis, and on the interpretation given to “minor defects”. In any case, should a report presents some typos or other minor defects, F4E is obliged to explain why the deliverable is not compliant, and the contractor can adjust the report accordingly.

5.      Annex I is just a template of Framework Contract, with sections in grey and/or within brackets which shall be filled in or deleted before signature, depending on the specificities defined in the technical specifications. For this Framework Contract 0950, the clause at issue shall be deleted.

Dear procurement Team, we would be grateful for your answers to the following questions on the Framework Contract:

1)     The Framework Contract refers to “Warranty Period” with a definition of this term. We have been unable to find the definition of this term, or the procedure for dealing with defects. Could you please clarify or direct us to the provisions contained elsewhere?

2)     In case of termination by Contractor, it is not clear to us what the contractual consequences would be. Does Clause II.19.3 apply, even though the title of the section II.19 refers to “Termination by Fusion for Energy”? Or would the substantive contractual law of Spain apply?

1.       ‘Warranty Period’ may apply to a very limited number of service contracts and to performance guarantees. As in this Framework Contract performance guarantees are not applicable and no goods are delivered in the context of the services, no warranty period applies. Please consider references to the mentioned definition as not applicable or read the definition as “Warranty Period, if any”.

2.       As you correctly say, art. II.19 expressly refers to  termination for cause by F4E, and therefore it only regulates termination for cause by F4E. Termination by the Contractor shall follow the ordinary rules provided by applicable law, as per Art. I.18 (Applicable law).

We would like to ask a follow-on question in connection with the answer provided in response to question QES_05064 (provided below for reference).

We do understand that the Specific Contracts will be the implementation of the provisions of the FWC. However, for each quotation, the Contractor will make a specific proposal which, even though it will be built on the basis of the FWC rates, the details (scope, schedule, price etc) will be subject to discussion between the Parties.  It may happen that, for various reasons (i.e. disagreement on the deliverables or allocated efforts etc), F4E and the Contractor do not reach an agreement on one of the Specific Contracts.  In such a case, would F4E consider that the FWC is not implemented, and therefore consider a termination for cause, even though the Contractor will have fulfilled its obligations of submitting an offer on the basis of the FWC conditions.

Question ID: QUES_05064
Question:

Article I.4 of the model indicates that should a situation arise where F4E and the Contractor fail to agree a Specific Contract then F4E have the right to terminate in accordance with Article II.19 (Termination by Fusion for Energy for Cause).

Is it the intention of Fusion for Energy that the contract includes such provision?  This would not seem a reasonable position for a framework where the detailed scope and price for Specific Contracts is not known at the date of Contract signature. We note that under previous arrangements, the remedy available to Fusion for Energy would be to engage the next supplier in cascade.

F4E answer:

Dear tenderer,

Please note that as per Section I of the Invitation to Tender, the procedure will end with the signature of Single Framework Contracts, meaning that the Framework Contract (FWC) will be concluded with a single economic operator per lot (the call does not foreseen multiple framework contracts in cascade in any of the lots). Hence, as there is no ‘cascade’ mechanism for this FWC, there cannot be remedies related to the cascade. The Task Orders implementing the FWC will detail the specific services needed, the prices (in accordance with the unit prices already stated in the FWC), total amounts, etc., all in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Framework Contract. In short, specific contracts are the implementation of the provisions of the FWC. As such, in case specific contracts are not discussed and signed in a timely manner the FWC would not be implemented. This is why the contracting authority reserves the right to terminate the contract.

Please refer to our previous reply to QUES_5064. The structure of the Framework Contract and subsequent Specific Contracts entails some kind of (limited) discussion between the parties. Nevertheless, the agreement on the specific contract must be based on the criteria expressed in the FWC and, in particular, the rates included therein. Any gaps should be cover by the common practice in the relevant industry/for the kind of services.  As mentioned, F4E will justify the reasons for rejection of Task Offer in writing.

Termination would be the last-resort measure by F4E in case the contractor does not apply the FWC criteria and rates and/or makes an offer which is not at arms’ length

Dear Sir or Madam,

We would appreciate some elaboration on the wording of Clause II.13.4, specifically:

·         The “amounts paid to Subcontractors”, which F4E might require the Contractor to communicate to F4E (and which F4E may then freely disseminate and publish, pursuant to Clauses 8.1 and 8.2 of Appendix C [IP provisions]) – does that mean only gross amounts paid to subcontractors, or any further details (e.g. the subcontractor’s hourly rates, profit margin)?

·         The “forms evidencing payment of salaries and social security contributions” – is it imperative to disclose the actual amounts of salaries (apart from mere evidence of effectuating payments), and is this information susceptible of publication by virtue of F4E’s [Appendix C] disclosure rights?

Many thanks.

 Dear tenderer,

1.       Please note that certain data, such as details on prices, are not freely disseminated or published.  The clause you refer to (art. II.13.4) refers to information that F4E might request, in certain specific cases. In general, if a request is made, it should concern the overall amounts. More details might be asked in connection with reporting obligation of F4E or audits.

2.       F4E is not interested in knowing the actual salaries of each employee. The rationale behind this obligation mainly lies in labour-law provisions, common to many European countries, which provide possible liability of the owner (F4E) in case the subcontractor does not pay salaries or social security contributions to its employees.

Dear tenderer,

according to the information included in the Annex B – Technical Specification for the Lot #2, the hydraulic related analyses to be carried out are thermal-hydraulic analyses. The text shall then read thermal-hydraulic analyses.

Dear tenderer,

your literal interpretation of the sentence is the correct one. At least 2 CVs shall have (each) a minimum of 5 years of experience in (both) MELCOR and RELAP (or equivalent).

Lot 2 Business Case section 2.1.2.1 point e, states:

 e. carry out the preliminary design of the cooler (water – argon heat exchanger / HX-2000) taking into account the operative conditions of the loop specified in section 3. The heat exchanger (cooler) shall reduce the temperature of the Ar flow down to 35°C. The CAD model of the cooler shall be produced and shall be integrated in the provided CAD model. A 2D drawing oft he designed heat exchanger at product (equipment) level shall be also provided as outcome of the design; 

On the other hand, in the section 1. Introduction it is indicated:

For Lot #2 the Tenderer is requested to execute only the work described in section 2.1.2.1 paragraph b while, as indicated in [RD5], for the other items in section 2.1.2.1 only the methodological approach as well as general and specific considerations shall be included in the Business Case Technical Offer. 

 What is the level of detail expected for the point e to be included in the business case?.Is it necessary to develop a CAD model for the heat exchanger and to implement it in the 3d model provided?. In so, what level of detail would be required?

Thank you. 

Dear tenderer,

Please check the answer provided for  QUES_05054 :

"As stated in the “Business Case Task Description” for the Lot #2, the tenderer is not requested to execute all the work described inside the task description. However, F4E requests to the tenderer only the execution of the work described in section 2.1.2.1 paragraph b (PED & ESPN classification). Consequently, for the resolution of the business case, the tenderer is asked to provide to F4E the:

-        Business Case Technical Offer, describing the technical solution proposed by the tenderer for the Business Case, including the executed work on PED & ESPN classification;

-          Task Offer Form;

-          Management Plan

Please note that tenderer is also requested to submit the preliminary Project and Quality Management Plan at Framework Contract Level as part of the content of its technical proposal. For the full content of the Technical Proposal please also refer to Section 7.2 of Invitation to Tender."

Dear tenderer,

Yes, it is possible that one tenderer submits more than one tender for the same lot provided that this does not prejudice the commercial interests of other tenderers or does not distort competition.

In the case an economic operator wishes to participate as a single tenderer and also as a group member in a joint submission, the single tender of the economic operator must contain a declaration signed by all group members taking part to the joint submission, declaring that they have knowledge of the intentions of participation of the said economic operator as a single tenderer and that to their knowledge such action does not represent prejudice to fair competition, and therefore they have no objection in that respect.

F4E reserves the rights to implement other measures, or request clarifications, during the procurement procedure if necessary.

Dear All,

In the invitation to Tender the supplier shall give a technical proposal with “A technical offer describing the technical solution proposed by the tenderer for the Business Case (Annex 13).”

In QuestionQUES_05086(07-02-2019) and the corresponding Answer 5089(08-02-2019) it is mentioned that

“Only one (1) Annex 12 is to be provided by the tenderer as a whole. Please do not submit more than one Annex 12.”

This two information indicate that the supplier shall provide one technical offer inclusive all subcontractor activities, if any, and also one common MCP.

In Annex A – Lot 3 lets say only the supplier (leader) should provide a compliance matrix:

“The Supplier shall provide a compliance matrix between its PQMP and F4E-QA-115 applicable requirements including, at least the following, as per AD 01:”

In the F4E-QA-115 - Supplier Project Management and Quality Requirements in section 5.1.4 - Submission of contractual documents (DS) it is mentioned that

“The Tenderer shall submit at tender phase the following documents for Quality Assurance evaluation.” This list requires et al a Control Plan (MCP) and a Compliance Matrix also from the subcontractors.

Questions:

Thanks for your anwers.

Question 1

Is it correct, that a supplier shall provide only one technical offer as a common offer inclusive its subcontractors work per lot?

Answer 1

Yes, one Technical Proposal is to be submitted.

Question 2

Then how is it to be understood that according to the F4E-QA-115 also the subcontractors should deliver a Control Plan (MCP)? Does it really mean that the Tenderer and all Subcontractors have to submit their own MCP? Or would not a common MCP make sense?

Answer 2

It is up to the Tenderer to assess if the activities performed by the subcontractor deserve a specific MCP (e.g. number/type of activities, complexity, qualification status of processes).

As reminder, the MCP, as per definition in F4E-QA-115 v.5.5, “is the list of main management/technical activities. It applies to all type of contracts and covers all the phases including Design and Analysis. Examples of inputs for the MCP: the delivery of documentation related to design, procurement, design reviews, qualification status, key milestone deliverables, end of contract deliverables, shipping, etc.”

Question 3

Is it correct that according to the F4E-QA-115 the Tenderer and all Subcontractors have to submit their own compliance matrix, or is it logically possible to submit one compliance matrix for the whole supplier (Tenderer + Subcontractors) with justification which partner fulfills how the compliance of each requirement?

Answer 3

For the question related to the Compliance Matrix, please see the answer provided for QUES_05022.

The tender documentation for Lot 3 contains multiple P&IDs for the HCPB TBS Tritium Extraction System (TES):

We note the P&ID with the highest version number does not have the most recent date, and neither version appears to have an ID that matches that referenced in the system description document.

Question 1: Please could F4E confirm which is the TES correct P&ID on which to base the business case methodology?

Question 2: Please could F4E confirm if the P&ID identified in Question 1 is expected to be consistent with the CAD file named “HCPB TES Model.stp” that is provided?

The zip file “PFD_v4.1_2ES44N_v1_0.zip” is not a reference document for the Lot #3 (it is for Lot #2). As indicated in the Lot #3 Business Case, the reference documents for the Lot #3 Business Case are the ones of the Lot #3 Annex B – Technical Specification. According to the Reference Documents list of the Lot #3 Annex B – Technical Specification, the P&ID related to the HCPB-TES for the Business Case is “RD-36 / F4E_D_29CFAL v2.3 / D2.B: P&ID of the seven ancillary systems v2.3”. Inside that folder, the file named “EKJT_56A2TE_PID_002.pdf”.

When it comes to question 2, considering that within the actual scope of the work requested to be described in the technical offer submitted by the tenderer for the business case one may encounter inconsistencies between different documentation types, it would be within the scope to identify such inconsistencies and select a reference.

According to the table on page 37 of the Invitation to Tender (F4E_D_2F2L6Q), all, the Tenderer and the Subcontractor(s) must submit an individual Technical capacity Assessment Form (Annex 12).

We would like to ask:

-          Should the “Technical capacity Assessment Form” submitted by the Tenderer include the projects performed by the Subcontractor(s) in the past for “Selection criterion 1: Provision of services of similar nature” (section 5.1.3.1 for Lot 3) and “Selection criteria 5: Nuclear Safety Criteria” (section 5.1.3.5 for Lot 3) if the tenderer wants to rely on the technical capacity of its Subcontractor(s)?

-          Should the “Technical capacity Assessment Form” submitted by the Subcontractor(s) only contain the projects, they performed in the past and can these projects be others/additional ones than the ones given by the Tenderer?

-          For the “Minimum level of capacity” in section 5.1.3.1 five completed projects shall be submitted. Does “minimum” mean here, that more than five projects can be references?

-          Should the “Technical capacity Assessment Form” submitted by the Tenderer include the personal provided by the Subcontractor(s) for “Selection criterion 2: Tenderer’s technical proficiency and knowledge” (section 5.1.3.2 for Lot 3) and “Selection criteria 5: Nuclear Safety Criteria” (section 5.1.3.5 for Lot 3) if the tenderer wants to rely on the professional capacity of its Subcontractor(s)?

-          Should the “Technical capacity Assessment Form” submitted by a Subcontractor only contain the personal, it will provide?

-          For the different profiles specified in “Technical capacity Assessment Form” (i. e. “Profile 1: Project Manager”, “Profile 2: Quality Assurance Officer”, “Profile 3: Engineers”, “Profile 1: Engineer with experience in nuclear projects”, “Profile 2: Nuclear Safety Expert/Engineer” for Lot 3) in the case of relying on Subcontractor(s): Which of the profiles need to be provided by the Tenderer and the Subcontractor(s) individually? E. g. do the Subcontractor(s) need to provide their own Project Manager and Quality Assurance Officer? Can the Subcontractor(s) leave open the profile positions which are provided by the Tenderer or other Subcontractor(s)?

Thank you for your help

Dear tenderer, please see the answer in red color to your questions:

 According to the table on page 37 of the Invitation to Tender (F4E_D_2F2L6Q), all, the Tenderer and the Subcontractor(s) must submit an individual Technical capacity Assessment Form (Annex 12).  

Only one (1) Annex 12 is to be provided by the tenderer as a whole. Please do not submit more than one Annex 12.

We would like to ask:

-          Should the “Technical capacity Assessment Form” submitted by the Tenderer include the projects performed by the Subcontractor(s) in the past for “Selection criterion 1: Provision of services of similar nature” (section 5.1.3.1 for Lot 3) and “Selection criteria 5: Nuclear Safety Criteria” (section 5.1.3.5 for Lot 3) if the tenderer wants to rely on the technical capacity of its Subcontractor(s)? Technical Capacity Assessment Form should include all information regarding the tenderer as a whole. If any of the Technical Selection Criteria is to be provided by any other group member or subcontractor, please include all the information in the same Annex 12, identifying clearly the economic operator providing such capacity.

-          Should the “Technical capacity Assessment Form” submitted by the Subcontractor(s) only contain the projects, they performed in the past and can these projects be others/additional ones than the ones given by the Tenderer? Please include all the information in one (1) Annex 12 per tender with the information of the tenderer as a whole.

-          For the “Minimum level of capacity” in section 5.1.3.1 five completed projects shall be submitted. Does “minimum” mean here, that more than five projects can be references? Five projects must be selected in order to fulfill the minimum technical capacity. It is up to the tenderer to submit more projects, but only five projects are to be taken into account to pass the selection criteria 5.1.3.1.

-          Should the “Technical capacity Assessment Form” submitted by the Tenderer include the personal provided by the Subcontractor(s) for “Selection criterion 2: Tenderer’s technical proficiency and knowledge” (section 5.1.3.2 for Lot 3) and “Selection criteria 5: Nuclear Safety Criteria” (section 5.1.3.5 for Lot 3) if the tenderer wants to rely on the professional capacity of its Subcontractor(s)? One Technical Capacity Assessment Form must be submitted by the tenderer as a whole, with the complete information regarding the Technical Selection Criteria coming from the tenderer,  group members and/or subcontractors.

-          Should the “Technical capacity Assessment Form” submitted by a Subcontractor only contain the personal, it will provide? One Technical Capacity Assessment Form must be submitted by the tenderer as a whole, with the complete information regarding the Technical Selection Criteria coming from the tenderer,  group members and/or subcontractors.

-          For the different profiles specified in “Technical capacity Assessment Form” (i. e. “Profile 1: Project Manager”, “Profile 2: Quality Assurance Officer”, “Profile 3: Engineers”, “Profile 1: Engineer with experience in nuclear projects”, “Profile 2: Nuclear Safety Expert/Engineer” for Lot 3) in the case of relying on Subcontractor(s): Which of the profiles need to be provided by the Tenderer and the Subcontractor(s) individually? E. g. do the Subcontractor(s) need to provide their own Project Manager and Quality Assurance Officer? Can the Subcontractor(s) leave open the profile positions which are provided by the Tenderer or other Subcontractor(s)? The tenderer shall present all the required profiles in only oneTechnical Capacity Assessment Form (Annex 12).

On page p27 of the ITT it states that Tenderer must have at least 2 Engineers meeting the 'Engineer with experience in nuclear projects' requirements and at least 2 Nuclear Safety Experts/Engineers. However on p28 it says the tenderer shall submit 3 CVs.

Can you advise how many CVs are required to cover this criterion 

Dear tenderer,

Thank you for bringing it to our attention. We confirm that there is a typo on Pg 28 and it shall read as “tenderer shall submit 4 CVs”.

A new version of the Invitation to Tender will be shortly updated in the F4E Industry portal and the typo will be corrected.

We are not completely sure about the requirements forf the Management Plan to be included in the Business Case response. The requirements of the Project Quality and Management Plan (PQMP) are well established in section 5 of Annex A "Management Specification" and relate mostly to the F4E-QA-115 document. However, for us, it is not clear if the "Management Plan" of the Business Case is an implementation version of the PQMP. That is, is the Management Plan the equivalent to that previously called Implementation Plan? If this is the case, which are the requirements this document must fulfil? Should they be the same as specified by F4E in previous Tender Processes?

Thanks a lot, and kind regards.

No, the Management Plan shall be understood as Management Control plan (MCP as per definition section) and, as reference, it can be considered the equivalent of the Top Level Control Plan as per F4E-QA-115 v. 4.4. (v.4.4 is an obsolete version, therefore not applicable).

The requirements for the MCP are listed in Section 6.2 of the F4E-QA-115 v. 5.5; requirements applicability is defined in the relevant Management Specification for each Lot.

In Annex B of Lot 3 (F4E_D_2DGBBV v.2.1) section 2.1.4 “Software” a "CAD software able to open and work with step files, for acquisition of geometrical data of the TBS" is required. 

In Annex A of Lot 3 (F4E_D_2BPPAR v1.1) section 7. “F4E-QA-115 applicable requirements”, requirements applicable to the F4E-OMF-0950 LOT3 are given, especially F4E-QA-115 v. 5.5 Section 6.4.4 F4E-QA-115-QD-CA-001 to F4E-QA-115-QD-CA-012. According to these requirements from F4E-QA-115, among other things, a CAD data control system and a specific version of CATIA are necessary.

Question: Are F4E-QA-115-QD-CA-001 to F4E-QA-115-QD-CA-012 really applicable requirements for Lot 3? Or is a software, which just fulfills the requirements given in Annex B (open and work with step files) enough?

Dear tenderer,

The requirement that prevails is the one specified in the Annex B paragraph 2.1.4 Software stating “CAD software able to open and work with step files, for acquisition of geometrical data of the TBS”

A new version of the Annex A will be shortly updated in the F4E Industry portal and the reported inconsistency will be corrected.

Dear Madam, dear Sir,

We have a question about the „Invitation to tender”, i. e. “6.2 Technical Score” and “7.2 Technical proposal (for each lot)”.

We assume the spreadsheets for Lot 2 and Lot 3  in “6.2 Technical Score” to Criterion 2) Technical Merit …  are interchanged. Please see:

In “7.2 Technical proposal” Lot 1 and Lot 3 are keeping the points 2.1 to 2.5, Lot 2 only up to point 2.4.

But in chapter “6.2 Technical Score” the spreadsheets to Criterion 2) Technical Merit… for Lot 3 only list up to point 2.4 and for Lot 2 list up to point 2.5. Also the explanations in the spreadsheets for Lot 2 and Lot 3 belonging to points 2.4/2.5 are vice versa compared to the explanations in the first two bullets of “7.2 Technical proposal” (depending on “allocation” and “applicable regulations”.)

Is our assumption correct?

Best regards,

Dear tenderer,

Thank you for bringing it to our attention. We confirm that this is a typo: Section 6.2 for all lots is correct, and by mistake in Section 7.2 lots 2 and 3 have been interchanged.

A new version of the Invitation to Tender will be shortly updated and the typo will be corrected.

Dear Madam or Sir,

In the Doc “F4E-OFC-0950_Annex_13_Business_Case_Lot_3_v1_0” on page 9/11, specifically in the section 3.1. Description of the accidental scenario to be considered, the second paragraph reads: “In the analysis, it is requested to focus on”

Since this is not a full sentence, could you please clarify if there is something missing?

Dear tenderer,

thank you for reporting the typo. Please see the answer to question QUES_05012 and updated v.1.1 of Annex 13 Lot_3 Business Case. 

Dear Madam or Sir,

Concerning OFC 950 Lot 3, in our opinion there is a discrepancy between the requirement for the nuclear safety project in the Invitation to tender doc (F4E-OFC-0950 Invitation_to_Tender_-_Open_procedure), page 27 of 49 which reads: “a) Tenderer shall submit at least 2 projects completed within the last six (6) years, covering the area of expertise: Accidental analyses and/or safety studies linked to the nuclear safety demonstration of a nuclear facility or facility with nuclear safety regulations.”

And in Annex 12 (F4E-OFC-0950_Annex_12_-_Technical_Capacity_Assesment_Form_Lot3) on page 8/11 the requirement for the nuclear safety project is “Design of components/systems to be installed in a nuclear facility or a facility under nuclear safety regulations”, which is, in our opinion, completely different.

Could you please clarify?

Dear tenderer,

thank you for spotting the inconsistency. Please see answer to QUES_05018 and updated documentation. 

To whom it may concern:

In document F4E-OFC-0950 Invitation_to_Tender_-_Open_procedure_.pdf page 27 of 49, one can read:

“5.1.3.5 Selection criteria 5: Nuclear Safety Criteria

...

a) Tenderer shall submit at least 2 projects completed within the last six (6) years, covering the area of expertise: Accidental analyses and/or safety studies linked to the nuclear safety demonstration of a nuclear facility or facility with nuclear safety regulations.”

In document F4E-OFC-0950_Annex_12_-_Technical_Capacity_Assesment_Form_Lot3.docx, page 8/11on can read:

“5.1.3.5 CRITERION 5 NUCLEAR SAFETY CRITERIA

...

Design of components/systems to be installed in a nuclear facility or a facility under nuclear safety regulations”

These criteria seem to be inconsistent: Design of components/system does not necessarily require accidental analyses and/or safety studies and vice versa. Could you please clarify criterion 5 (“Nuclear Safety Criteria”)

Dear tenderer,

Thank you for spotting the inconsistency. We confirm that the Invitation to Tender prevails over the Annex 12. Annex 12 Lot_3_Technical Capacity Assessment Form version 1.2 has been uploaded and the inconsistency has been fixed.

To whom it may concern:

In document F4E-OFC-0950_Annex_13_Business_Case_Lot_3_v1_0.pdf, page 9/11, one can read:

“... As a consequence, this will lead to the pressurisation of the purge

gas regions of the TBM and then of the Tritium Extraction System (TES), which in turn may lead to

the opening of the TES pressure relief devices and discharge of helium and tritium into the glove

box located in the Tritium Building and into the helium relief tank in Port Cell 16 (PC#16).

In the analysis, it is requested to focus on”

Is the last sentence incomplete by purpose of is something missing in the document?

Dear tenderer,

Thank you for reporting the typo. The full sentence should read: “In the analysis it is requested to focus on the response (pressure and temperature) of the TES connection pipes connecting the two locations where the TES components are located (AEU and Process room) and of the TES pipes located in the pipe forest (see Figure 1)”.

Annex 13 Lot_3 Business Case version 1.1 has been uploaded with the corrected sentence.

It is stated:

 Minimum level of capacity: Tenderer shall have staff (or access to staff) with sufficient education, experience and knowledge in providing the services to be performed in Lot 2 for the following profiles that will be used for delivery of the services within the Framework Contract. 

Is it possible to include the profile of a regular external collaborator?

Dear Tenderer,

If an economic operator relies on the capacity of a third party to meet the technical and professional capacity required in the Invitation to Tender, this third party shall be considered a Subcontractor (Section 12.6 of Invitation to Tender).  

In addition to the evidences to be submitted with regards to Section 5.1.2.2 Criterion 2 (CVs and Annex 12), please note that certain Administrative Documentation shall be provided (summarized in the table under Section 7.1 of Invitation to Tender), including (but not limited to) a duly filled and signed Technical Third Party Undertaking Form (Annex 9) and a Declaration on Honour (Annex 4).

The table under Section 12.6.2 of Invitation to Tender summarizes how the rules and criteria are applied depending on an economic operator´s role. For a Subcontractor, the following criteria will be assessed:

-          Exclusion Criteria: for Subcontractors whose share of the contract is above 20%, in accordance to Section 4 of Invitation to Tender

-          Technical Selection Criteria

-          Financial Capacity Criteria: for Lot 2, specifically, financial viability standards on individual entity level, as per Section 5.2.2 of Invitation to Tender 

The Contractor will remain direct liable vis-à-vis F4E for any action or omission of any subcontractors (externals) in the context of contract performance.   

 Area of expertise h states:

 h) Hydraulic analyses by simulation using RELAP5 or an equivalent software 

Would MAAP be accepted as equivalent to RELAP5? 

Dear Tenderer,

as specified in the Invitation to Tender, the requested software is RELAP5 or an equivalent software provided that level of qualification and documentation is at least equivalent to RELAP5. The tenderer is the responsible of verifying and demonstrating that the level of qualification and documentation of the proposed equivalent software is at least equivalent to RELAP5.

Dear Madam, dear Sir,

is it possible to have a provisional planning regarding the contract operational implementation, including a ramp-up period if applicable? Realisatic asumptions regarding a mobilization scenario would have an impact on our proposal.

Thank you

Regards, 

The RELAP5-3D code produced by Idaho National Laboratory was used to build the existing HCPB TBS RELAP5 models for F4E. Licences for this code costs at least $13,000 per year outside the United States (see https://relap53d.inl.gov/). The ‘RELAP5/mod3’ code version supplied by the U.S. NRC under the CAMP agreement provides similar capability but may require some changes to the F4E HCPB TBS model, along with requalification of the model. Furthermore, subscription costs for the U.S. NRC CAMP agreement are significant, at approximately $32,000 for 3 years under the arrangements in force at our location.

Due to the long validity period of this bid, the substantial costs of holding RELAP5-3D or US NRC RELAP5/mod3 code licences ahead of contract award, and the potential that RELAP5 will not be needed much for the contract, will F4E consider that a commitment to obtaining a suitable RELAP5 licence if needed along with evidence that a tenderer is eligible (e.g. a demonstration that the tenderer has previously successfully licenced the software and is experienced in its use) would be sufficient for 5.1.33 (p25/49 of ITT)?

Dear tenderer,

please note that the Invitation to Tender (v1.2 updated on 12/02/2019) Section 5.1.3.3. Selection Criteria: Licenses has been modified. The requirement for the License of RELAP5 has been eliminated from Section 5.1.3.3.

Article II.5 foresees the requirement for a Performance guarantee, as no form of guarantee has been provided we would request that F4E to please kindly confirm that the aforementioned section is not applicable in this instance and that the associated articles shall be marked as “not used”.

Dear tenderer,

Performance guarantees are not foreseen for any of the Framework Contracts under this call.

F4E model contracts are divided in three parts: Special Conditions (which are variable in each contract), General Conditions and Annexes. Article II.5 you mentioned is part of the General Conditions. General Conditions  are standard to all F4E contracts and should not be changed, therefore the articles will not be marked as “not used”. Rather, as indicated in Art. II.5 “If so required by Fusion for Energy, the Contractor shall provide a guarantee (…) for the amount and exact format stipulated in the Contract”

No performance guarantee is required in the special conditions (Art. I.8 exclusively mentions possible pre-financing guarantee) and therefore Art. II.5 is not applicable with reference to performance guarantees. Still, it remains applicable as to pre-financing guarantees, in case they are issued.

Prices

Article I.5.1 refers to a maximum total amount to be paid by F4E whereas article I.5.7 refers to fixed and firm prices. A clarification is required to understand the nature of the prices (e.g fixed, reimbursable, target/maximum).

Is it F4E’s intention that all prices for Specific Contracts are fixed or will reimbursable prices against an estimate be accepted where risks cannot be fully mitigated.

Dear tenderer,

As stated in Art. I.5.7 “All prices shall be fixed and firm, not subject to revision during the lifetime of this Contract, regardless of any variations in the price of materials, equipment, or labour, except as otherwise stipulated in the Contract”. It is confirmed that  all prices shall include all costs and expenses related to the performance of the contract and they will be fixed and firm, exception made for reimbursement of expenses, which can take place as per Art. I.5.5. Lot 2 represents an exception to Art.I.5.7, as for such contract prices are subject to price indexation clause, based on Art. I.6.

Art. I.5.1 refers to the maximum total amount which can be paid by F4E under the contract over its total duration (including renewals). This is an overall ceiling of the Framework Contract which may or may not be reached.

Article I.4 of the model indicates that should a situation arise where F4E and the Contractor fail to agree a Specific Contract then F4E have the right to terminate in accordance with Article II.19 (Termination by Fusion for Energy for Cause).

Is it the intention of Fusion for Energy that the contract includes such provision?  This would not seem a reasonable position for a framework where the detailed scope and price for Specific Contracts is not known at the date of Contract signature. We note that under previous arrangements, the remedy available to Fusion for Energy would be to engage the next supplier in cascade.

Dear tenderer,

Please note that as per Section I of the Invitation to Tender, the procedure will end with the signature of Single Framework Contracts, meaning that the Framework Contract (FWC) will be concluded with a single economic operator per lot (the call does not foreseen multiple framework contracts in cascade in any of the lots). Hence, as there is no ‘cascade’ mechanism for this FWC, there cannot be remedies related to the cascade. The Task Orders implementing the FWC will detail the specific services needed, the prices (in accordance with the unit prices already stated in the FWC), total amounts, etc., all in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Framework Contract. In short, specific contracts are the implementation of the provisions of the FWC. As such, in case specific contracts are not discussed and signed in a timely manner the FWC would not be implemented. This is why the contracting authority reserves the right to terminate the contract.

Dear tenderer,

The supporting documentation to be provided in order to demonstrate an adequate economic and financial capacity to implement the contract  is described in Section 5.2  of the Invitation to Tender. The supporting documentation may include, depending on the Lot, a financial capacity assessment form (Annex 11), balance sheets and profit and loss accounts for the last 2 financial years. This documentation shall be provided by the Tenderer, each Group Member in case of joint submissions and each Other Entity .

Please also note that, as stated in that Section 5 “if, for some exceptional reason which F4E considers justified, an economic operator is unable to provide the references requested above, its economic and financial capacity may be proved by any other means which F4E considers appropriate”. ”  This might be the case, for example, of public institutions, universities or other organizations which according to the law of the country in which they are established are not required to publish balance sheets and profit and loss accounts. In this case, the Entity may submit a simplified Financial Capacity Form (Annex 11) with the information concerned and F4E may accept, for example, as documentary evidence, financial statements, extracts from the last two years budgets or any other means which F4E considers appropriate (which will depend on each case).

It is indicated that the "tenderer shall submit 3 projects completed within the last 6 years...". Is it possible to submit ongoing projects?.

 Thank you. 

 Dear tenderer,

please refer to Answer 5001 (10-01-2019). 

Dear all,

We have questions belonging to the use of the MCP_MIP

In Annex_A_Management_Specifications_Lot_3 in section 6, the Management Control Plan and Manufacturing Inspection Control Plan, i.e. MCP/MIP are defined as

“MCP: is the list of main management/technical activities. It applies to all type of contracts and covers all the phases including Design and Analysis

 MIP: is the list of activities directly related to the follow-up and verification of the quality and/or safety of the final product(s) and/or service(s) in the frame of prototyping, qualification and manufacturing activities“

As further explained in section 6 the Control Plans, called MCP_MIP, should

-          “… enable adequate planning, monitoring and verification of key activities (MCP)”

 “…  prevent the inadvertent bypassing of critical test and inspection points (MIP)”

 From above explanations we understand the given template MCP_MIP_22ZMRS_V1_8 as a check list, where e.g. authorized signatures will confirm contractual work/activities/milestones/deliverables a.s.o. For this a kind of “description of work/action” has to be behind the MCP_MIP.

As explained in “…Invitation to Tender/ 6.2.3 Technical score for Lot 3/spreadsheet Criterion 1) Project and Quality Management Plan”, the Management Plan is related to the Business case and is used as a basis for Award Criteria 1.1 and 1.2.

According to our understanding the template MCP__MIP_22ZMRS_V1_8 is not sufficient to provide all the information that is required for the Management Plan for the Business case, in particular with respect to “level of detail, completeness and fitness for purpose”.

Our questions (related to the use of the template MCP_MIP):

Dear tenderer,

Please find answers to your questions below.

Question 1)

As explained in “…Invitation to Tender/ 6.2.3 Technical score for Lot 3/spreadsheet Criterion 1) Project and Quality Management Plan”, the Management Plan is related to the Business case and is used as a basis for Award Criteria 1.1 and 1.2.

Answer 1)

Please note that in accordance to Section 6.2.3:

Criterion 1.1  - Level of detail, completeness and fitness for purpose of the Project and Quality Management Plan at Framework Contract Level

Criterion 1.2 -  Level of detail, completeness and fitness for purpose of the Management plan related to the Business case Annex 13 Lot 3

Please refer to Section 7.2 for the whole content of the Technical Proposal.

Question 2)

According to our understanding the template MCP__MIP_22ZMRS_V1_8 is not sufficient to provide all the information that is required for the Management Plan for the Business case, in particular with respect to “level of detail, completeness and fitness for purpose”.

Answer 2)

Yes, your understanding is correct. The template MCP__MIP_22ZMRS_V1_8 is part of the Annex A Applicable Reference Documents (Supplier Pack) and the tenderer should not only rely on this template to provide a complete answer.

Question 3)

Our questions (related to the use of the template MCP_MIP):

Is our assumption correct that the template MCP_MIP itself does not describe the tasks but the related “description of work/action” does, given by the Business case Annex 13 (here Lot 3), i. e. the technical offer with around 20 pages?

Answer 3)

The template MCP__MIP_22ZMRS_V1_8 does not describe the tasks which have to be further elaborated in the Technical Offer. The template lists the activities described in the Technical Offer.

Question 4)

Is it allowed that the “Management Plan for the Business case” does not only consist of the template MCP__MIP_22ZMRS_V1_8, but that also additional information (e.g. organization chart, time plan, …) can be provided in appropriate document format?

Answer 4)

Yes, your understanding is correct. In fact the tenderer should address as a minimum the documentation in the Section 7.2.ii. of the Invitation to Tender.

Question 5)

Is our interpretation correct that the blue printed comment “(delete unnecessary)” allows to adapt the template MCP_MIP to our Needs?

Answer 5)

“Delete unnecessary” in this template is meant to select the choice of the option of Option 1) Management Control Plan or Option 2) Manufacturing and Inspection Control Plan. The templates structure provided in the Annex A Applicable Reference Documents (Supplier Pack) shall not be changed.

Dear all,

We still have a question to clarify the depth of the PQMP.

As answered to Quest ID QUES_05022:

“The PQMP will be assessed against its level of detail, completeness and fitness for purpose (Section 6 of Invitation to Tender). Therefore the tenderer is  encouraged to be as specific as possible with the content of its tender”,

In Annex-A_Management_Specifications the description is:

-          “In case of subcontractors a dedicated PQMP shall be also developed by all members of the supply chain (exceptions … F4E-QA-115 …sections 6.5)”,

Our question:

Dear tenderer,

The subcontractor(s)' PQMP shall cover the activities in which the subcontractor(s) will be involved. The subcontractor(s)' PQMP shall comply with the requirements in Annex A.

Dear Sir, dear Madam,

 We have a confusion about the woprding in the abstract of the business case task description:

in the document, it is mentioned that "Tenderer is requested, for this business case, to develop the Business Case Technical Offer, Task Offer Form and Management Plan, but not to execute all the work described therein ". in the next sentence, it is also mentioned that "For Lot #2 the Tenderer is requested to execute only the work described in section 2.1.2.1 paragraph b.” This last sentence is a bit confusing for us: Can you confirm that the business case only consists in the provision of a detailed task offer, and not to produce the study?

Regards

As stated in the “Business Case Task Description” for the Lot #2, the tenderer is not requested to execute all the work described inside the task description. However, F4E requests to the tenderer only the execution of the work described in section 2.1.2.1 paragraph b (PED & ESPN classification). Consequently, for the resolution of the business case, the tenderer is asked to provide to F4E the:

-        Business Case Technical Offer, describing the technical solution proposed by the tenderer for the Business Case, including the executed work on PED & ESPN classification;

-          Task Offer Form;

-          Management Plan

Please note that tenderer is also requested to submit the preliminary Project and Quality Management Plan at Framework Contract Level as part of the content of its technical proposal. For the full content of the Technical Proposal please also refer to Section 7.2 of Invitation to Tender.

Dear tenderer,

As per Section 3.1 of Annex B Technical Specifications of Lot 2, RCC-MRx specific training certificate will be requested before starting the first specific contract; therefore specificities on training requirements on RCC-MRx will be communicated to the winning tenderer. However, as a general guideline, tenderers are advised to have as many profiles as possible trained in RCC-MRx, and are strongly recommended to have, at least, the following profiles trained:

-          Project Manager (Section 5.1.2.2, Profile 1)

-          Systems Engineer (Section 5.1.2.2, Profile 3)

-          1 Senior Engineer (Section 5.1.2.2, Profile 4)

-          2 Junior Engineers  (Section 5.1.2.2, Profile 5)

-          1 Engineer with experience in nuclear projects (Section 5.1.2.4, Profile 1)

Could we be given access to 'a CATIA model (step file version) of the TES and connection pipes and the latest version of the PFD and P&ID of the TES as mentioned in Annex 13?

“The existing model shall be updated considering the latest design features of the systems described in the current CATIA models. To evaluate the extent of the design changes, the CAD models can be provided in a step file version upon request of the tenderer. The latest version of the PFDs and P&IDs may be another way to identify the design changes to be implemented in the new MELCOR model. PFDs and P&IDs will be provided upon tenderer’s request.”

For this Business Case, the tenderer shall consider that F4E will provide the following items: ? 

- The Reference document [RD-01], as well as other Reference Documents listed in Annex B Lot #3 of the Tender F4E-OFC-0950;

-An electronic version of the MELCOR model developed in [RD-01];

-Upon request of the tenderer: a CATIA model (step file version) of the TES and connection pipes;

- Upon request of the tenderer: the latest version of the PFD and P&ID of the TES.

Dear tenderers,

the requested documentation is to be provided after the signature of the Non Disclosure Agreement for the Lot 3. 

For those tenderers who have already  submitted a signed NDA for lot 3, a new link will be sent with the set of documentation which will include the 2 missing files mentioned in your question. 

Dear tenderer,

Please note that Indexation to Unit Prices is only applicable to Lot 2 of this call. Lot 1 and Lot 3 are not subject to price indexation. The indexation formula and coefficient applicable to Lot 2 is described in Section I.6. of the Draft Framework Contract for Lot 2 (Annex 1).

The tenderer should not indicate any other rates than the ones provided in Annex 02 Financial Proposal Form.

Dear tenderer,

As per section 7 of Invitation to Tender, the tenderer is requested to submit the Project and Quality Management Plan (PQMP) “describing in detail the tenderer´s quality management system and how the implementation of the work is foreseen. The preliminary quality plan shall comply with the requirements (including structure) as set out in the Supplier Quality Requirements (F4E-QA-115) and in the Management Specifications (…)”.

Section 5 of Annex A Management Specifications, Project and Quality Management Plan (PQMP), defines the methodology to comply with applicable requirements of the document “F4E Supplier Project Management and Quality Requirements” (F4E-QA-115 - AD 01).

The PQMP will be assessed against its level of detail, completeness and fitness for purpose (Section 6 of Invitation to Tender). Therefore the tenderer is  encouraged to be as specific as possible with the content of its tender.

Can you confirm that ‘Management Plan’ referred to in Criterion 1.2 and on page 39 is the Management Control Plan referred to in QA115 and in the Management Specification?

Dear Tenderer,

Yes, they are the same.

For each of the three Lots a preliminary Project and Quality Management Plan is required (p39 of ITT) and evaluation (criterion 1.1) is based on the level of detail, completeness and fitness for purpose.

•             Project and Quality Management Plan

•             Management Control Plan

•             Supply Chain Acceptance Register

•             Dual-use List

•             Configuration Management Plan

•             Design and Development Plan

•             Product Tree

Can you confirm that only the Project and Quality Management Plan and Management Control Plan (see separate question) are required for this tender procedure?

Dear tenderer,

Please note that the content of the tender is described in Section 7 of the Invitation to Tender. Section 7.2 of the same document details the content of the Technical Proposal with regards to the (i) technical offer and task offer form; (ii) preliminary Project and Quality Management Plan at Framework Contract level and Management plan related to the Business case and; (iii) Statement of Compliance.

The document F4E-QA-115 is an applicable document to this call and it will be an applicable document to the resulting Framework Contracts. It contains the general Project Management and Quality Requirements applicable to Fusion For Energy suppliers.

At the tender stage only those documents specified in Section 7 of the Invitation to Tender are required.

It is first recalled, as stated in Section 1.1 of the Business Case Task Description document, that “the Tenderer is not requested, for this business case, to execute the work described therein, but to develop the Business Case Technical Offer, Task Offer Form and Management Plan. These documents shall be part of the Tenderer’s Technical Proposal”. And also in Section 7.2 of the Invitation to Tender, that “The Technical Offer shall describe the technical approach of the implementation of the simulated task…” Therefore it has to be clear to the tenderer that running numerical simulations or developing CAD model are neither requested nor needed in order to answer to the Call for Tender.

For answering to the Business Case(s), Fusion for Energy considers that the level of detail available in the applicable and reference documents to the Business Case(s) should be enough to prepare the business case technical offer, task offer form and management plan in the time scale given. It is recommended that the tenderer analyses carefully this documentation.

The CAD and/or FE models are to be provided to the tenderer through the NDA process (see updated version v1.2 of Annex 15 Non Disclosure Agreement Template updated 14/01/2019). Signed NDAs shall be sent by email to eva.garcia@f4e.europa.eu.

Dear  tenderer,

thank you for reporting this error. Corrected File "Annex 02 Lot_3_Financial Proposal Form version 1.2" has been uploaded today 14/01/2019.

Dear Sir,

Regarding LOT 1, in section 5.1.1.2 of "Invitation to Tender", for Profile 3: Engineer(2) - Analyst Profile, it is required:

 It says "both CVs shall cover area (d)": Area (d) is related to thermo-mechanical and Structural simulations. 

It also says "ANSYS with module CFD or ABAQUS Multiphysics": This means it shall cover area (c), becasue of CFD.

In our experience, areas (c) and (d) are very different and each area requires specific people. The same person doesn't cover both (c) + (d), given that CFD is a very specialised area not related to thermo-mechanical or structural analyses.

In our opinion there is an incompatibility in this requirement. One profile could cover area (c) and another one (d), but the same profile covering (c) + (d) seems strange.

Thanks for your help and kind regards,

As stated in section 5.1.1.2, Profile 3 (Analyst Profile): “both CVs shall cover area (d), demonstrating experience in Finite Element analysis with software ANSYS Multiphysics Solutions and module CFD, or ABAQUS Multiphysics, or other equivalent”.

Could you please re-issue the above zip file please? It has become corrupted with the incorrect file ending 7z so we are currently unable to access the material.

Thank you.

Dear Sir,

In section 5.1.1.2 of "Invitation to Tender", concerning Profile 4: Engineer(s) - Senior Design Profile, it is required the following:

 Our concern is that:

• area (d) is related to Profile 3 "Analyst profile" (i.e. FE models, simulations).
• area (e) is related to Profile 5 "CAD officer" (i.e. CATIA models).

A clarification on this issue will be of great help for the selection of CVs.

Thanks indeed!

For section 5.1.1.2, Profile 4 (Senior Design Profile), it is confirmed that both areas d) and e) shall be demonstrated in the CVs. Regarding area e) “3D models and 2D drawings produced with CATIA V5”, the demonstration shall not necessarily rely on an experience acquired as CAD officer (i.e. experience in producing CATIA models and drawings), but it may rely (also) on experience acquired through a wider set of activities in that area, for instance (not exhaustive):

·         Management of design activities with collaborative interaction with CAD officer/team;

·         and/or coordination of design tasks involving CAD model implementation as a subtask;

·         and/or verification/review of CAD models;

·         and/or extraction of data from CAD models. 

Dear Sir,

in section 5.1.1.1 of "Invitation to Tender", it says:

"Minimum level of capacity: Tenderer shall submit projects (minimum 1) completed within the last six (6) years, ..."

The question is: if the project is still on-going (and not completed yet), is it still a valid reference?

Thanks!

As stated in the Invitation to Tender, tenderers are requested to submit projects completed at the time of the deadline of the submission of the tender. Tenderers shall demonstrate the technical completion of the projects submitted. If the tenderer submits a project within an ongoing multi-annual contract, it is confirmed that the project submitted must be completed at the time of the deadline of the submission of the tender.