Document Sample
CLARIFICATION no Powered By Docstoc
					DATE: October 19, 2011



We have transcribed infra the request for clarification of a probable BIDDER with regard to the Public
Invitation to Bid in reference:

We provided a solution for the monitoring and integration of the SAGE SCADA system. Our question is
whether our equipment may be supplied in the DAP modality, considering that the above equipment is
imported. This item is being dealt with in file SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0300-0B, on pp. 56 to 77.

Only quotes in the DAP format will be accepted, pursuant to item 13.3.3 of the Invitation to Bid:
“13.3.3. The ALIEN BIDDER or the Member of Consortium that is ALIEN may offer the Items 1, 2, 3, 4 and
         5 of Price List No. 1, Item 1 of Price List No. 2 and the Item 5 of Price List 5, of Part II – The BID,
         in DAP mode (Florianopolis), INCOTERMS 2010, including the discharge of the GOODS at the
         final destination. In this case, ELETROSUL will make the homogenization of these items on
         purpose of trial as established in ITB 23.5.1.”.

In regards to question

        11.1.5.      Technical Qualifications    Registration or enrollment of the company(ies) in the Regional Engineering, Architecture and
                     Agronomy Council – CREA.

The company is a foreign company. Is it absolutely necessary to register it before CREA in Brazil?
Would an equivalent registration in Germany be sufficient?

A FOREIGN BIDDER or a Member of a FOREIGN Consortium must comply with the requirements of item of the Public Invitation to Bid: ALIEN BIDDERS shall have to present a certificate, registration or proof of enrollment before any
          appropriate professional inspection entity pursuant to the activity being performed by the Company, or else,
          a representation stating the nonexistence of any mandatory regulations or normative provisions from any
          pertinent inspecting entity/association.

1) Item asks for the Balance Sheet and for the financial statements from foreign companies, and
an observation has been made in the sense that These consolidated statements shall be accepted once
their waiver has been substantiated in the company’s country of origin, said substantiation to be
accomplished by way of a Letter issued by the company’s legal representative, specifically accepting the
responsibility for said statements, and provided said statements highlight and contain the following

According to a literal interpretation, consolidated statements will not be accepted unless their waver has
been substantiated (which? If not consolidated, the other would be?) what is meant by consolidated?
According to Brazilian law, ‘consolidation’ is construed to be something that has been issued by several
companies of a given economic group, meaning that the information from all the companies of the group

has been consolidated. Is this the proper context of the word? If not, what is the meaning of ‘consolidated’
within this context?

This understanding is correct. Consolidated financial statements provide information about the entire
corporate group. The Bidder(s) must present financial statements containing information about the Bidder
only, separately from the statements issued by the Holding company. In the instance of country/-ies that
waive the presentation of financial statements from their controlled companies separately from those from
their Holding company, we will accept the presentation of the consolidated financial statements.

Item 10.3(b) sets forth that the instrument relating to the consortium must show the commitments and
obligations of each of the consortium members as regards their economical/financial participation in the
consortium, although it does not establish the need to define the percentages of participation. I would like
to confirm this understanding, that is, that there is no need to state the percentage of participation in the
private instrument that was used to set up the consortium.

This understanding is correct.

With regard to foreign bidders, Item requires the appointment of a representative in Brazil to
provide technical and business services, as well as to act as the company’s legal representative in case of
mishaps. However, if the foreign bidder came in as a consortium member of a Brazilian company, and, in
this case, as the leader company, the consortium representative would be the Brazilian company itself,
and in this case, the representation above would be necessary. But then, should the leader company
undertake responsibility for the consortium, would said representation still be necessary?

We have already answered this in Clarification no. 04, ANSWERS 8 and 9:
The representation requested in item refers exclusively to the ‘providing of technical and business
services, as well as acting as a legal representative in case of mishaps, including those that occur under
the umbrella of the CONTRACTOR’s technical warranty.’ The document must be presented, regardless of
whether one is dealing with a physical individual or with a legal entity, whether a member of the
consortium or not, who is to provide the services described above.

Item 12.1.1 requires that the accreditation documents be forwarded by way of a specific correspondence,
written on the BIDDER’s letterhead, and signed by the BIDDER’s legal representative...”
In this case, said correspondence written on the company’s letterhead may be signed only by the leader
company or signed only by the representative of the leader company? The business proposal and the
letter-proposal may be signed and initialed by the representative of the leader company of the consortium,
since the remaining members of the consortium have granted the necessary powers to the leader
company to represent them?

Yes. This understanding is correct.

Considering that the invitation to bid is of the ‘lowest price’ type, and considering that the public invitation
to bid did not establish any IEC certification as a requirement for accreditation, we would like to know
whether the IEC certifications must be taken into account in order to accredit the bidders or not?

Item states that the certificates must be presented to ELETROSUL, because they constitute
sine qua non requirements for in-factory approval and release for transportation to the venue of the power
plant. Thus, if one takes this justification into account, and if one considers that the certifications required
are not mandatory, may they be presented during the course of the agreement, since the IP does not state
any classification requirements that may be associated to the certificates?

ANSWERS 7 and 8:
All the certifications that are being required must be presented in the BID.
An exception is made for certificates pertaining to the photovoltaic modules shown in the Instructions for
the Bidders (Section which may be presented while the AGREEMENT is being executed, but
before the modules have been released to be transported to the venue of the power plant.

In the case that the consortium is made up of both Brazilian and foreign companies, would it be necessary
to have the representatives of the foreign companies present during the public session for the opening of
the bids, or would those of the leader company be sufficient, since this latter company will have the power
of attorney to represent the remaining companies before ELETROSUL. Regarding the term of
accreditation of the representatives; may it be undersigned by the legal representative of the leader
company only?

The participation in the public session when bids are to be opened is optional, as much for the domestic
as for the foreign companies. Item 22.2 has regulated the method of accreditation:
“22.2      During this Public Session, each BIDDER may be represented by accredited spokesperson(s) as stated
           in ITB-17 ACCREDITATION.”
As to the term of accreditation, your understanding is correct.

The CONTRACTOR must make the data from its supervision system available, in order to be integrated
into Eletrosul’s Control Center. In our understanding, the EMPLOYER is to send the list/table of data that
is to be supervised, and it shall be up to the EMPLOYER to make said data available by way of an open
protocol, such as the IEC104, and by allowing physical access to the control network, which is the object
of this supply (and which will be made available through the communications switch of the Ethernet
network). The CONTRACTOR shall not be responsible for configuring the supervision system used by the
EMPLOYER. Kindly confirm our understanding.

 The data table (list of points) which is to be supervised may vary according to the solution to be
   adopted. Strictly speaking, the EMPLOYER will wish to supervise all the variables and magnitudes
   needed for the operation, monitoring and maintenance of the photovoltaic plant. Within this context,
   the CONTRACTOR will have to supply a list containing all the variables available for all the digital
   equipment to be used in the proposed solution. Based on this list of available information, the
   EMPLOYER will prepare a list of points according to its standards. Once this has been done, the
   CONTRACTOR will effectively configure all of the equipment within the power plant, which must
   comply with said list of points.
 The EMPLOYER shall be exclusively responsible for the configuration of the External SCADA System
   (SAGE), which comprises the Local Operations Center (LOC) and the EMPLOYER’s Operations
   Center (LDC). The CONTRACTOR, however, shall be obliged to adapt its system to, and to resolve
   any problems of compatibility that may arise between the two systems. The EMPLOYER may make a
   team available as well as test of the infrastructure at its headquarters where the preliminary validation
   tests may be carried out.
 The CONTRACTOR will be responsible for all (and any) physical installations that may be necessary
   to interconnect the two systems, taking the scope of responsibilities as shown by the EMPLOYER’s
   Center of Operations (LDC) serving panel as a limitation of the scope of responsibilities, that is, the
   communication cable(s) must be connected to said panel.
 The protocols allowed in this project have been defined in Part III – Technical Documents, file SLMS-
   L-EPET-GRL-G01-0300-0B, section 8.1, figure 8-1.

Kindly inform whether the power sheds over the building and the protection cubicles in the lower portion of
the parking lots will have remote or supervisory controls, or controls issued by telecommands.

Yes, the supply and installation of a Local SCADA System have been proposed, as described in Part III –
Technical Documents, section 8 of file SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0300-0B.
It should be stressed that this equipment must be fed by the ancillary services system, as described in
Part III – Technical Documents – Section 5.7 of the file SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0300-0B.

Kindly clarify whether the existing air conditioning system used to cool the power shed may be
interconnected or whether it should be considered a new system.

Should the supply of an acclimatization system have been proposed for at CM, CT1, CT2 and CT3 in the
CONTRACTOR’s objectives?

ANSWERS 12 and 13:
If acclimatization for power sheds (CT1, CT2, CT3 and CM) is needed, then a natural ventilation system
should be proposed. In case this is not enough, the CONTRACTOR should adopt a forced ventilation
system. If even then the ideal condition for the operation of the equipment (inverters, transformers, etc)
has not been attained inside the power sheds, then the CONTRACTOR should consider installing a
cooling system. This cooling system must be connected to the electric power system of the Megawatt
Solar Project, and it must be fully independent of the other cooling systems installed today in the building
and on ELETROSUL’s premises.

Kindly provide the internal dimensions of the power sheds that are located on top of the building as well as
the admissible overloads on their covering concrete slabs.

As described in Part III – Technical Documents, section of the SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0300-0B
file, the internal measurements of the elevator power sheds are of 4.85m x 4.90, with a height of 2.5 m.
The recommended admissible weight limit is of 500 kg/m². The CONTRACTOR may propose a different
value, provided it is properly justified by an adequate engineering study. Said proposal to change the
admissible weight limit must go through the EMPLOYER’s approval process.

Kindly clarify whether the window opening project for the power sheds located on the upper portion of the
building, to be used to install large equipment (transformers and inverters), has a maximum dimension
that must be complied with, or whether this shall be left up to the CONTRACTOR.

This has already been answered in ANSWER 25 of Clarification no. 04.

There are electric panels within the power sheds that will be used on the roof. Kindly clarify whether
access to these electric panels will be allowed in the same way, since a place containing power
transformers and inverters should, as a rule, be only accessed by a qualified and certified technical team.

The machinery sheds which are going to be used as power sheds (CT2 and CT3) for the Solar Megawatt
Project are being used today as storage for out of use equipment. However, they will be emptied out and
fully released for the exclusive use of the Solar Megawatt Project.

Kindly inform whether the equipment must precisely comply with the specifications that have been
presented in the Public Invitation to Bid, or whether they are merely being used as a reference to achieve
the guaranteed amount of power, beginning with the depreciation of the generation and ending with the
depreciation of the equipment.

Yes. All the technical specifications contained in the Public Invitation to Bid must be met.

Kindly confirm whether firefighting equipment is to be provided for the power sheds.

Yes. Regarding the power sheds (CT1, CT2, CT3 and C), an adequate firefighting system must be
proposed for them in compliance with any norms in effect and with the requirements set forth by the Fire

It is our understanding that it will be up to the CONTRACTOR to define the connection arrangement
between the photovoltaic panels so as to get the best yield from them. Kindly confirm our understanding,
or tell us whether any standard arrangement has been made for this undertaking.

There is no predefined arrangement. This arrangement must be proposed by the CONTRACTOR, and it
must comply with the minimum requirements that have been made.

CM and CT1 - may they be considered one single building?

Yes, they will be mandatorily considered one single building.

It is our understanding that an electric conduit has been made available to interconnect the Solar
Megawatt Project and CELESC’s network. Is our understanding correct?

Only part of the stretch has had any electric conduits installed. The BIDDER may use drawing SLMS-L-
EPET-GRL-G01-0603-0B as a guideline.

Must the bid be delivered by hand or may it be sent by mail to ELETROSUL?

There is no need for the BID to be delivered by hand. It may be delivered by any posting means, provided
the deadline established in the Public Invitation to Bid is met.

Is the attendance of a representative of the company mandatory when the bids are opened up?

No. The attendance of a representative of the company is optional.

Regarding import fees, service fees and/or any other taxes or fees which may need to be posted by a
European company, could you kindly explain which fees would be levied over which costs? We are
starting out from the premise that all equipment would be sent from Europe to Brazil.

All the BIDS will be made equipollent pursuant to sub-item 23.5 of the Invitation to Bid.

Would it be possible to hand in a bid net of fees and taxes?

The BIDDER must take into account all the fees and taxes that may be part of the supply or the services.
In the case of FOREIGN BIDDERS, or of FOREIGNERS that may be members of a Consortium, the
prices of the GOODS being offered pursuant the DAP (Florianópolis), INCOTERMS 2010 for items 1, 2, 3,
4 and 5, stated on Price List no. 1; Item 1 of Price List no. 2 and Item 5 of Price List no. 5 – Part II – BID,
do not include any import taxes or fees, and they will be made equipollent as determined by sub-item
23.5.1 of the Public Invitation to Bid. By the same token, any SERVICES offered by a FOREIGN BIDDER
or a FOREIGNER that is a Member of a Consortium are net of both fees and taxes and they will be made
equipollent pursuant to sub-item 23.5.2 of the Public Invitation to Bid.

Will the experimental system get connected to ELETROSUL’s lighting network, or will it be connected to
the CTs, to CELESC’s network?

Regarding ELETROSUL’s low voltage network, we ask to be informed about the venue of the point of
connection being shown on the guidance unifilar schematic (“Connected to ELETROSUL’s internal
network”) as well as the voltage that should be used.

ANSWERs 26 and 27:
According to Part III – Technical Documents (Section 2.2 of file SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0100-0B), the
Experimental Project will be connected to the EMPLOYER’s electric network, which will be independent of
the main project. As regards the basic project, kindly consider the QD-E1 Distribution Board (See drawing

Kindly confirm whether there is such a thing as an architectural and structural project for the roof of the

Kindly confirm whether there is an electrical protection project against atmospheric discharges (number of
garnering points may be insufficient for protection purposes).

Kindly confirm whether there is an electric project containing transversal cross sections within the
underground electrical and draining installations for the external areas.

ANSWERs 28, 29 and 30:
Details about the roof coverings may be visualized in documents SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0615-0B,
SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0616-0B, SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0617-0B, SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0618-0B
and SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0619-0B.
The projects for the external electrical installations may be visualized in documents SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-
G01-0629-0B e SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0630-0B.
Moreover, we believe that the documents that have been furnished by the Public Invitation to Bid are
enough to prepare a basic project, from which the amount of the BID is to be defined.
Other documents will be provided in case the CONTRACTOR requests them in order to elaborate the
executive projects.

Document SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0500-0B requires that the inverters comply with the regional and
national regulations pertaining to the electrical system. Our question is: which are the specific norms
regarding photovoltaic inverters?

No specific norms have been established for photovoltaic inverters. However, this equipment is to be
connected to CELESC’s distribution network, and in this case, the parameters for equipments, such as the
Harmonic Distortion Rate (THD) and the power factor (among others) have restrictions and they must
comply with the requirements that have been set forth by the local concessionaire as well as with national

The section titled “Plant Description” in Document SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0500-0B states that all the
requirements shown in the “required” column must be mandatorily accomplished, and the failure to comply
with any of them would mean disqualification. However, are some characteristics more important than
We are talking (for instance) about shadows: The shadow models provided by ELETROSUL (pursuant to
the advance documents that were sent on April 29, 2011 – “Conceptual Design Report”) regarding sub-
system 2 (parking); if, during the simulation carried out by Lahmeyer, losses due to shadows ran close to
6.7%, while in the document LMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0500-0B (“Plant Description”) it was requested that
losses be less than 6% for sub-system 2.
Would it be possible, for instance, to have losses due to shadows somewhat larger than those required by
some subsystems, although reaching a total assured power output for the first year greater than 1063
MWh (requested), and with an installed power output equal to or greater than 1MWp, considering, for
instance, that we could have losses smaller than those defined in some areas and smaller losses as a
result of other concepts?

The advance documents (Conceptual Project) which were sent on April 29, 2011 to be used in the
evaluation of the proposed solution, were solely a query made by the market and NOT PART OF THIS
Some clarifications are due with regard to document SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0300-0B (Item 6, and its
sub-items in Table 3-1):
        - Sub-items 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 represent losses that should be defined by the BIDDERS, and they
        must abide by the maximum values set forth. These parameters will be evaluated during the
        approval phase of the executive project and during the period of guarantee as regards the
        production of electrical power (after the issuance of the CAP and before the issuance of the CAF);
        - Sub-items 6.5 and 6.6 are the premises that have been adopted by ELETROSUL;
        - Sub-items 6.4 and 6.7 are not requirements. They are merely reference values, and it would be
        possible to attain larger values for each covering, but even so, they must comply with the power
        requirements that must be guaranteed for the 1st, and 2nd Year, pursuant to Table 3-1 of
        document SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0300-0B.
        - “Near-shading” models have been made available to help the BIDDER (PVSyst Program) where
        references may be found to obstacles located close to the covering, such as trees and buildings.
        These models will be taken into account during the evaluation of the BID.

As regards shading models, with the aim of attaining a better level of precision, ELETROSUL is making
file available that has been updated with the B1 and B2 parking models as an attachment to this
clarification. (File “13 – v2 MW Solar B1 B2.SHD” replaces the file “13 - MW Solar B1 B2.SHD”).
In addition, it should be stressed that, in order to validate the power output that has been assured in the
proposal, release 5.31 of the PVSyst will be used, together with the Perez-Ineichen model (sophisticated)
radiation transposition model.

Are there any restrictions as to the CM and CT1 building materials? Masonry, pre-molded, container...?

In order to house the commensuration shed (CM) and sub-station 1 (CT1), the building must be made of
masonry blocks, in keeping with the other buildings that have been built on ELETROSUL’s land.

In order to establish the proper dimensions for any possible reinforcements at crossing points, we would
like to know: what is the permitted route for truck traffic?

The drawing below shows the routes that allow maximum loads of up to 8.000 kg (the area colored in light
purple), as well as vehicle circulation areas that allow loads over 8.000 kg (the area colored in green).

After checking the market, we found out that some of the specifications required by ELETROSUL for the 2
kW inverters are not available: the maximum CC voltage (1000V) and thriphasic inverters are too small.
We would like to ask ELETROSUL to confirm these requirements.

Your question has already been answered in ANSWER 10 of Clarification no. 05.

Is it necessary to prepare a descriptive document for the project, or would it be sufficient to fill in an Excel
spreadsheet (corresponding to Module 5 of technical documents)?

The technical documents that have been described in the BID which need to be presented have been
described in Section 13.5 – SECTION D – TECHNICAL BID DOCUMENTS, issued in the Instructions to
the Bidders.
Any other documentation capable of substantiating or complementing the information to be filled in for
Part III – Technical Documents (file SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0500-0B) may be added to the BID if the
BIDDER deems this documentation necessary for a better understanding.

In the same SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0500-0B document, in its “Plant Description” section, when it states
that the Maximum required DC or AC current ration = 1.10, is this mandatory, or could this ration be larger,
provided we attained the yields of the electric power produced, such as the required voltages and

The 1.10 DC to AC electric current ratio is mandatory.

Regarding the document SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0100-0B – Item 3.3 – Staff Qualification:
a) We understand that the dispositions of SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0100-0B – Item 3.3 – Staff
Qualification are certificates that do not need to be presented together with the proposal but only after the
agreement has been signed. We understand, therefore, that the certificates pertaining to said technical
qualifications are only those that have been listed in item (Instructions to Bidders – the Solar
Megawatt Project).
Kindly confirm our understanding.

This understanding is correct.

It is our understanding that the operation and supervision of the Local Operations Center (LOC) may be
performed by any SCADA system and does not necessarily need to be accomplished by the SAGE
system, it being sufficient that the SCADA system from the Local Operations Center (LOC) make the data
available to the SCADA system from the Load Dispatching Center (LDC) which is currently using the
SAGE system. Kindly confirm this.

In Part III – Technical Documents (file SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0300-0B, of section states that:
         “The SCADA of the Local Operation System (LOC) will be of the same type that is being used at
         the EMPLOYER’s Operations Center, that is, it will be made part of the External SCADA System
         (SAGE), and it will have its supervisory system developed by the EMPLOYER.”
So, the Local Operation Center (LOC) must be mandatorily controlled through the SAGE system.

In our understanding, in case the SAGE system is used to operate and to supervise the Local Operations
Center (LOC), this license is to be furnished by the EMPLOYER and the CONTRACTOR in charge of
developing the SCADA SYSTEM, as well as making information available for the existing SAGE system at
the Load Dispatching Center (LDC). Kindly confirm this understanding.

It is our understanding that the software licenses for the LOC station (including those for the SAGE
system) are the responsibility of and shall be paid by ELETROSUL. Is our understanding correct?

ANSWERS 40 and 41:
In Part III – Technical Documents (file SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0300-0B, section the following
consideration has been made about the Local Operations Center:
         “It shall be up to the CONTRACTOR to provide the entire physical installation to be used for this
         purpose, such as the PC and the interconnection media within the External SCADA System
And, in Part III – Technical Documents (file SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0300-0B, section states
        “The EMPLOYER will contribute:
         Installation, configuration and testing of the External SCADA System (SAGE) and its
           connection with the Local SCADA System supplied by CONTRACTOR will be
           executed by EMPLOYER…”

The Local Operations Center, therefore, will make use of the SAGE system, and its configuration as well
as licensing shall be the EMPLOYER’s responsibility, while the CONTRACTOR must make all the
necessary physical structure available.
The licenses pertaining to the Operating System and to any remaining software needed for the perfect
functioning of the LOC Station (excluding the SAGE software) are to be furnished by the CONTRACTOR.

In Item, "The representations pertaining to product warranties and peak power, as requested in
Module 3 of said Technical Documents that make-up this PUBLIC INVITATION TO BID.", we are not quite
sure to what “representations” refer – whether they are the warranties for the products, only the modules,
for example, or whether they refer to the results obtained using the PVSyst (electric current simulations,

The expression refers to the documents warranting the products and to the substantiation of their nominal
currents (especially regarding the photovoltaic modules).

In the document SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-GO1-0300-0B.doc, (p. 11), when it speaks of the evacuation of
electric current starting with the building, it says that “the cabling that comes from CT2 and from CT3 will
be evacuated by way of the substation that is located on the lower portion of the building, and it will be
taken from there to the CM (on the back of the building)”. Still, if we examine the schematic shown under
the heading of “Figure 4.2” – (the .dwg file corresponding to this schematic is the SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-
GO1-0603-0B.dwg file), it seems to us that the cables that leave the substation under the CT3, stretch
directly to the right until they get to the point of connection (where a current gauge used to be). We wish to
clarify if, when they leave the CT3, the cables stretch out to the CM (shown on the left of the drawing),
returning to the connection point straight away, or whether they stretch out directly to the point of
connection. There is a significant difference in the measurements of the cabling, which would imply in a
substantial difference in the price.

The MT cables that leave the photovoltaic systems that have been installed on ELETROSUL’s roof (exits
from CT2 and from CT3) must necessarily go through the CM (commensuration shed), where the total
production of electric power for the plant will be posted. Once this has been accomplished, this electric
power needs to be directed toward the connection with the distribution network.
The manner in which the cables are to be conducted to the roof of the building has been highlighted in
Part III – Technical Documents (file SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0300-0B, section 3.1.6).

With regard to table 6-1 of document SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0300-0B, it is our understanding that the
BIDDERS are to consider the supply of 50 spare items for the crystalline modules (main project). Is our
understanding correct?

This understanding is correct if the photovoltaic system being supplied has 1 MWp installed.
The supply of spare parts for the crystalline modules must abide by the following premises, as stated in
document SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0300-0B (Table 6-1):
    1. [Quantity of spare modules] = [Installed plant capacity] x 2 x 25 years
         For instance, if the supply is 1.1 MWp, 55 spare modules are to be supplied.
    2. Minimum quantity of spare modules: 50 pieces.

We have determined that with respect to the amorphous modules, it would be technically necessary to us
to galvanically insulate their inverters. Since the required yield will be met, we request that ELETROSUL
tell us whether the said inverter characteristic will be accepted.

The need (or lack of it) to use galvanically separated inverters) is determined by the manufacturer of the
module, especially in regards to type a-si (amorphous silica) modules.
Since most of the a-si module makers require galvanically separated inverters, inverters using
transformers will only be accepted for the Experimental Project, with the objective of ensuring the
competitiveness of the BIDS, and to keep the standard of quality of the project.

As regards Table 5-1 (document SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0300-0B – TECHNICAL SPECIFICATONS),
we determined that the maximum annual degradation (item 1.6) is not consistent in regards to the
warranties as to the nominal electric power after the first 10 and 25 years (items 2.1 and 2.2). We thus
understand that ELETROSUL will demand compliance with the items that are associated to the warranty
as to the nominal electric power, and that the annual degradation will not necessarily have a maximum
limit. Is our understanding correct?

This has already been clarified in ANSWER 12 (Clarification no. 05).

With regard to item 13.5.2 of the instructions to the BIDDERS. The inspection of the system and of the
layout will be done using the PVSyst Software, and it will be based on the data obtained from “the project
and from the information on the equipment and components used, and from any other input files that may
have been made available in the attachments to this PUBLIC NOTICE TO BID.”, as mentioned in item
Still, with regard to the technical specifications (document SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0300-0B, in table 3-
2) one may deduce that the maximum area is 34x15 m and the minimum area is 28x12m, the dimensions
having been calculated in relation to the ground. Considering a slope of 10°, this area is a little larger than
the 510 m² obtained directly from the aforementioned dimensions.
Thus, for the purposes of inspecting the layout and the “input files made available in the attachments to
this PUBLIC INVITATION TO BID”, they offer little flexibility (as regards dimensioning), since they take
into account (for instance) an area of only 436 m² for the parking areas, which is obtained directly
from the shading scene (files 09, 10, 11 and 12 of table 3-1, and from the document SLMS-L-EPET-
GRL-G01-0400-0B (complementary Information).
We would like to check with ELETROSUL the possibility (provided it is properly justified based on
Engineering studies) that any changes made to the inspection file by the software, reducing (for instance)
the distance between the sheds (layers) that have been proposed for the respective shading scenes for
each of the subsystems 1, 2 and 3. In sum, will changes be accepted to the files on which the Public
Invitation to Bid has been based, in order to make sure that the Layout gets perfectly adjusted to the
dimensions that have been envisaged by the Software?

In order to be able to simulate shading, the BIDDER must only take into account the objects that are close
(trees, buildings) to the models that have been furnished by the PUBLIC INVITATION TO BID. The

configurations of the photovoltaic systems, such as dimensions, spacing, electrical arrangements, etc.,
must comply with the BIDDER’s project.

As requested in the Instructions for BIDDERS (section 13.5), together with the BID, the BIDDER must
deliver a detailed schematic on the assembly of the photovoltaic modules on the top of the building and on
the coverings of the parking area, thus substantiating compliance with the restrictions regarding visibility
from the roof and from the areas that have been defined for implementation. It is necessary that this
schematic show enough details so that the EMPLOYER will be able to simulate shading in order to
validate the Electric Power guaranteed in the BID.
If the BIDDER would prefer, besides the detailed schematic pertaining to the assembly of the modules, it
may also furnish the shading files for its project, which may only be used as reference. The BID will be
evaluated according to the information that has been requested and which has been simulated to ensure
compliance with technical specifications.

Note: It should be stressed that there are two distinctive parking groups as regards Subsystem 2:

                                     Maximum area projected over the      Minimum area projected over the
                                     ground (m²)                          ground (m²)
C2, C3, C4 and C5                    510                                  336
B1, B2, C6 and C7                    450                                  276

In regards to the shading in Subsystem 2. A large part of it, determined by software simulations (PVSyst)
show the impact of the buildings on the parking lots, especially C3 and C4, which have shown rates of
loss in excess of 9%.
In order to comply with the criteria that have been established in SLMS-L-EPET-GRL-G01-0300-0B
(table 3-1), with regard to the maximum losses permissible for sub-system 2, it would be necessary to
perform a study which would be based on the data furnished by the Public Invitation to Bid (shading
scenes), and which would show that it would be possible to reduce the effect of shading on the modules
by considering that the trees planted in the surroundings of this subsystem may be trimmed. Will this
document be accepted by the PUBLIC INVITATION TO BID? What is ELETROSUL’s stand with regard to
the shading of this subsystem?

As far as this bid is concerned, no reduction of losses will be permitted based on the regular trimming of
the trees existing on the parking areas. The simulations to validate electric power that are to be
guaranteed in the BID will be performed using the same scenarios (shading scenes) that have been
furnished in the PUBLIC INVITATION TO BID.

We request that ELETROSUL make available the calculation worksheets for the maximum acceptable
values to the BIDDERS, regarding the Services LDIs (for Brazilian as well as for FOREIGN BIDDERS),
and the LDI of goods and materials.

The items that make up the LDI have been listed in sub-item 13.4 – SECTION C – PROFITS AND
INDIRECT COSTS – BID LDI, according to which the BIDDERS must abide by the maximum values that
have been established. The LDI that has been presented in SECTION C is the result of a composition of
values which have been obtained from the study made by the Federal Union’s Accounts Court (TCU).

These clarifications, that have been made an integral part of the PUBLIC INVITATION TO BID, must be
considered for the elaboration of the BID and of other documents.

Very Truly,

Israel Quint de Souza
Special Bidding Commission Coordinator


Shared By: