1 Request for Proposals Using Dry Ports to Support Nova Scotia s Tidal Energy RFP Release Date: Monday, January 8, 2018 Proposal Due Date: Friday, January 26, 2018, 4 pm (Atlantic Time) Contract Manager Rodrigo Menafra, Research Manager Offshore Energy Research Association (OERA) 1690 Hollis Street Unit 1001 Halifax, NS B3J 1V7 rmenafra@oera.ca 902.406.7018
2 Context The Nova Scotia Department of Energy (NSDOE) is committed to the sustainable development of Nova Scotia s tidal energy potential to the benefit of all its citizens. Both the provincial and federal governments have in the past, and continue to make research and infrastructure investments to ensure the economic benefits of this emerging industry will be captured by Nova Scotia s technology and service providers. Past studies in the Bay of Fundy have suggested that both small and large scale project developers require a wet port for Operations and Maintenance (O&M). However, fishers, tourist vessel operators, science researchers and gypsum shippers in the Bay of Fundy have learned to operate successfully out of dry ports. It is likely that lessons learned by these vessel and port operators can be applied in the tidal energy sector. Hantsport and Parrsboro, although dry, are both much closer to Minas Passage than the nearest wet ports, and this proximity may provide significant cost savings (and lower risk) to offset operational difficulties and infrastructure shortcomings associated with dry ports. What remains to be investigated is whether tidal energy developers can see the economic advantages of overcoming the technical deficiencies of operating from a dry port in closer proximity to their deployment sites. This study would investigate the feasibility and economic implications of using Hantsport and Parrsboro to service the tidal industry in Nova Scotia, particularly during the O&M phase. Since developers are not used to mobilizing from dry ports, the study would demonstrate the possibilities/opportunities regarding assembly, deployment, O&M, monitoring, and retrieval. This project would: describe the activities that the developers themselves could undertake from nearby dry ports; describe the economic and risk-to-project advantages offered by dry ports; identify any infrastructure upgrades (and order of magnitude costs) that might be needed for future consideration by the province. Objectives The objective of this study is to demonstrate to project developers the economic advantages, if present, of using a nearby dry port for O&M, compared to the potential economic disadvantages (and increased risk) of mobilizing for O&M from wet ports further away. A secondary objective is to identify key conceptual infrastructure investments the province could make in nearby dry ports that would improve their utility to tidal project developers. The study should show developers the functional opportunities and cost savings that may accrue from using a dry port in proximity to FORCE or a future commercial array site. If a dry port is not currently economical, the study should explain why this is so, and describe what can be done to address these economic impediments (e.g. infrastructure improvements, quayside equipment, etc.). Scope of Work As a starting point, Respondents should already be familiar with the marine activities that can be undertaken at Hantsport and Parrsboro, as well as the current infrastructure available there. Two reports
3 describing this infrastructure are available 1. In preparing a response to this RFP, Respondents should also closely review the tidal project infrastructure requirements already provided by project developers in the MRE Infrastructure Assessment Update report (Allswater et al. 2016). With an understanding of the basic infrastructure needs as expressed by project developers, the consultant should begin to consider concepts (i.e., infrastructure upgrades) that would aid project developers attain their operational objectives. This may take form of (for example) upgrades to roads, rail, laydown areas; construction of a sea rail or ramp, drydock or related structure, dredging, etc. Task 1: Supplement Existing Information In Task 1 the consultant will gather supplemental O&M information in preparation for later discussions with tidal developers and local service providers. This supplemental O&M lessons learned information will be obtained from other sites where tidal turbines have been installed. Considerable (preliminary) information regarding O&M requirements should be available at SEENEOH in France, the MayGen tidal project in the Orkney Islands and the EnFAIT project in the Shetlands. This information should include turbine size and space requirements, quayside depth needs, maintenance frequency, etc. Similarly, information can be gathered regarding the characteristics and requirements of O&M and monitoring vessels, transportation routes and costs, quayside lift and bearing capacity, etc. Finally, the consultant should consider if dry ports in the UK or France have been used to support offshore development, and if the offshore wind industry can offer any insights regarding O&M activities that may be applicable to Nova Scotia s dry ports. The output from this task is a summary of the supplemental information collected, presented in table format. Task 2: Outreach The objective of Task 2 is to: investigate the positive economic and functional aspects of operating in proximity to a deployment site; assess the costs and risk of longer O&M routes, compared to short distance dry ports; identify realistic infrastructure upgrades that may be useful at dry ports; and propose/validate this information in discussions with tidal project developers and service providers. The consultant must assess and weigh these considerations in discussions with large scale tidal project developers, as well as others who might have useful knowledge on these subjects such as port managers, service providers and marine engineers. In both the information review and subsequent discussions, the consultant should consider questions such as: What are the limitations or restrictions when operating from Nova Scotia s dry ports? How can you adapt your O&M operations to dry ports? What can you do at a dry port if you had to and what cannot be done at a dry port? Are these activities not suitable for a dry port because you haven't thought about it or for other reasons? 1 Marine Renewable Energy Infrastructure Assessment (CWS et al, 2011) available here and Marine Renewable Energy (MRE) Infrastructure Assessment Update (Allswater et al, 2016) available here.
4 What upgrades or infrastructure would make operations easier, safer and less expensive? (Alternatively, it may be more useful to propose various upgrade concepts for developer response). What are the economic advantages of using a nearby port vs one that is further away? What are the cost saving opportunities at a dry port? The output of Task 2 is a summary of interview responses supported by information regarding the existing ports for use in Task 3. Task 3: Analysis and Reporting Information gathered in Tasks 1 and 2 must be evaluated and described from an operational and infrastructure engineering perspective. The objective of Task 3 is to summarize and analyze the findings to create a case or argument for the use of dry ports (if warranted), supplemented by a description of the incremental infrastructure upgrades (and order of magnitude costs) that are needed to facilitate these operations. To the extent possible, the study s draft conclusions should be validated with developers; the report must address and explain these critical questions from a developer s perspective. Deliverables Kickoff Meeting: The Respondent will attend (in person or via teleconference) a kickoff meeting with Department of Energy, ACOA and OERA staff. The general objective is to introduce staff, describe project administration, and discuss the project plan and expected outcomes, timing and deliverables. The Respondent will prepare an agenda and circulate any post-meeting actions. Interim Meeting: Following completion of Task 2, the Respondent will attend a meeting (in person or via teleconference) with Department of Energy, ACOA and OERA staff to present preliminary conclusions related to the information assessment phases. Prior to the meeting, the Respondent will submit a brief text document or PowerPoint presentation summarizing the key points so the Department and OERA are prepared for the discussion. In addition, the Respondent will prepare an agenda and circulate postmeeting actions. Draft and Final Reports: Upon completion of Task 3, the Respondent will submit a Draft Report for review and comment by the Department and OERA staff. Approximately two weeks following submission of the Draft Report, OERA will convene a meeting with the Department and Respondent to discuss the findings of the Draft Report. OERA will prepare an agenda and circulate post-meeting actions. Following the meeting, OERA will consolidate and present one set of comments to the Respondent for incorporation in the Final Report. The Final Report will be submitted no later than three weeks following receipt of comments from OERA. Project Funding The total available funding for this project is on the order of $35,000, including applicable taxes. The project will be guided by a project management committee (PMC) consisting of representatives from the Department of Energy, ACOA and OERA.
Project Timelines RFP Using Dry Ports to Support NS Tidal 5 The following timelines are provided for guidance and are subject to change. The Respondent must provide an estimated project schedule in the proposal. a) RFP release date: January 8, 2018 b) Proposal due date: January 26, 2018, 4 pm (Atlantic) c) Consultant selection: Week of February 5, 2018 d) Project kickoff Within two weeks of consultant selection e) Project completion June 30, 2018 Proposal Requirements 1. The proposal should be concisely worded with clearly described objectives, methods, timelines and outcomes. 2. The proposal should include a brief description of the Respondent s company and its relevant experience with similar projects. The Respondent must also describe the relevant work experience of the staff assigned to this project. Please refrain from including excessive corporate information. 3. Familiarity with the tidal energy industry at the international level is an asset, along with an understanding of Nova Scotia s tidal energy service sector, port facilities and other local subjects relevant to this RFP. 4. A simple task-cost breakdown and schedule must be included to illustrate the costs assigned to each task of the Respondent s project plan. The Respondent s cost estimate should clearly show the number of hours or days estimated to perform the services as well as the hourly or per diem rate of team members proposed for the project. 5. This funding is open to non-canadian entities as well as project teams consisting of Canadian and non- Canadian partners. Funding cannot be used for travel costs. Application A single electronic document is sufficient. Please include: One (1) Cover Letter This should be signed by an officer or equivalent with signing authority to bind the Respondent to the statements made in the proposal. One (1) Proposal Copy As described in Proposal Requirements section above. The file name should include an abbreviated form of the proponent s name. The electronic copy should be uploaded in WORD and/or PDF format to the OERA-FTP site available at: https://oera.sharefile.com/rrb5346320cba4a81a
6 Questions and Clarifications The OERA will accept questions from interested applicants. A Q&A page will be available on the OERA website: http://www.oera.ca/news/requests-for-proposals-funding/current-opportunities/. The names and organizations of those submitting questions will remain anonymous, whereby only the question and requisite OERA response will be posted. Throughout the Call process, interested parties are encouraged to check the Q&A page for updated information and/or clarifications that may help in completing their proposal. Please submit your questions by email to Rodrigo Menafra, Research Manager at OERA (rmenafra@oera.ca). Questions will only be received until Monday, January 22, 2018 at 4 pm (Atlantic). Evaluation Proposals will be quantitatively evaluated against a set of criteria by a project management committee (PMC). Experience and Knowledge: Factor Qualifications and capabilities of the company and project delivery team; demonstration of local and international knowledge relevant to this study. Weight Max: 30 Project Plan, Approach and Methodology: Proponent demonstrates an understanding of the project service requirements and has outlined a clear and effective workplan. Proposal describes the objectives, methodology, milestones and deliverables that will be used, and a sound approach in undertaking this project. Communication format and frequency between the Respondent and OERA are clearly described. Timeline: Proponent describes an achievable timeline with well-defined milestones and demonstrates the ability to complete the work on or before the desired completion date. Cost: The project will offer very good value for the proposed budget. The budget (task-cost breakdown) is clear, complete and well described. Proposal Presentation Includes all RFP requirements, demonstrates attention to clarity, grammar, presentation, comprehensibility, etc. Max: 40 Max: 10 Max: 15 Max: 5 Total 100