University of Alabama in Huntsville Sealed Solicitation
Title: P00232 Parking Lot Lighting Retrofit and Energy Reduction Project
Deadline: 4/23/2021 2:00 PM (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada)
Status: Awarded
Solicitation Number: P00232
Description:
March
25, 2021
TO:
RE: Request for Proposals – 2021 Parking Lot Lighting Retrofit and Energy Reduction Project
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Proposal Number P00232
The
University of Alabama in Huntsville is requesting proposals for 2021 Parking Lot Lighting Retrofit and Energy Reduction
Project. To register on
UAH Vendor Registry go to WEBSITE: http://www.uah.edu/business-services/vendors/bid-opportunities and click on Vendor
Registration. To obtain a copy of this proposal, scroll down and click on
the proposal number.
All
Requests for Proposals must be submitted thru Vendor Registry by 2:00 P.M. on Friday, April 23, 2021. In the event it becomes necessary to
revise any part of this Request for Proposal prior to the assigned return date,
revisions will be posted in writing by Procurement Services on our UAH Vendor
Registry website. http://www.uah.edu/business-services/vendors/bid-opportunities.
The University will be the sole determinant of whether any revisions/addenda
should be issued as a result of any questions or other matters, and will extend
the proposal deadline if such information significantly amends this
solicitation or makes compliance with the original proposal due date
impractical.
In
order to be considered for selection, vendors must submit a complete response
to this request for proposal. The vendors shall make no other distribution of
the proposals.
The proposal may be amended or withdrawn after the scheduled closing time of
receipt for a period of sixty (60) days. The University reserves the right to
waive any informality and to reject any and all proposals.
All
questions pertaining to this Request for Proposal should be addressed to Kelly
Haas via UAH Vendor Registry: subject 2021 Parking Lot Lighting Retrofit and Energy Reduction Project (P00232). The deadline for questions is April 16th at 2:00 pm.
Sincerely,
Kelly D. Haas
Kelly
Haas
Procurement
Officer II
Procurement
Services
Pre-Bid Meeting Date: 4/9/2021 12:00 PM
Pre-Bid Meeting Details: Please sign up if you plan to attend the pre-bid meeting. The meeting will be held in the Facilities Buildings Conference Room.
Documents:
| Documents as of 3/25/2021 |
|---|
| 2021 Parking Lot Lighting Retrofit and Energy Reduction Project (P00232)_FINAL.doc |
| 2021 Parking Lot Lighting Retrofit RFP (P00232)_Lighting Count Attachment_Draft_2.xlsx |
Addition 1
Posted: 5/25/2021
Type of Addition: In Review
Addition 2
Posted: 6/10/2021
Type of Addition: Award Information
Documents:
Addition 3
Posted: 6/10/2021
Type of Addition: Award Information
Overview: Awarded to Inergy Solutions see attached award letter and tabulation.
Documents:
Question 1
Posted: 4/12/2021
Question: Driving around campus I have noticed that the majority of the lighting is 5000k, in reference to proposal #P00322 the spec sheet for the lighting states 4,000k, if you would please confirm the kelvin.
Response: All should be 4000k as stated in the RFP.
Question 2
Posted: 4/13/2021
Question: Can you provide AutoCAD of the site or the location of the lights so we can perform photometric calculations?
Response: Do not have any AutoCAD drawings of the lots.
Question 3
Posted: 4/14/2021
Question: Would you release the sign-in sheet from the pre-bid?
Response: Inergy Solutions, GreenTech Energy Services, Wesco Energy Sales, Accudo Lighting Stones River Electric
Question 4
Posted: 4/14/2021
Question: Would you release the sign-in sheet from the pre-bid?
Response: Inergy Solutions, GreenTech Energy Services, Wesco Energy Sales, Accudo Lighting Stones River Electric
Question 5
Posted: 4/15/2021
Question: After surveying the campus I found that the actual lights located at the various parking lots do not absolutely match the lights listed on the lighting equipment spreadsheet that was included in the RFQ. Quantities and lighting equipment types do not match. There is a significant difference in the actual lighting equipment and the equipment listed on the spreadsheet. Please clarify as soon as possible. Thank you.
Response: Since most of existing fixtures are 360 degree light distribution the “# of fixtures column” on spreadsheet is for the proposed count using double heads on poles where noted “2 heads per pole” in the RFP.
Question 6
Posted: 4/15/2021
Question: Two part question: First, should we assume that all new LED replacement luminaires need to match the existing pole color/finish, i.e. bronze, black, and light grey? Second, should we assume that all the lower height pedestrian scale poles (12'-16') that currently have a single tenon mount post top style HID luminaire i.e. LOT G6, that they be replaced with a similar style tenon mount LED version, or would an arm mounted version be acceptable?
Response: Color to be Bronze. Arm mounted would be acceptable.
Question 7
Posted: 4/15/2021
Question: During the site visit last week, there appeared to be a small quantity of LED luminaires already existing in some lots, i.e. Lot W26. Were these early mock-ups and or test locations that will also be replaced with the new LED retrofit standard that is to be awarded?
Response: exclude
Question 8
Posted: 4/15/2021
Question: Ref; Parking Lot W26 (OPB) On our site survey, we noticed that W26 already has LED heads on the poles. Should this area be included in bid?
Response: exclude
Question 9
Posted: 4/16/2021
Question: What blended kWh rate are we to use?
Response: Can use $0.093 / kWh as blended rate
Question 10
Posted: 4/16/2021
Question: What should we use for Hours of Operations? 12 Hours / day?
Response: 12 hours / day
Question 11
Posted: 4/16/2021
Question: Should ROI calculations include just energy savings or a combination of energy savings and maintenance savings?
Response: just energy savings
Question 12
Posted: 4/16/2021
Question: Should we exclude existing LED fixtures or include for uniformity?
Response: exclude
Question 13
Posted: 4/16/2021
Question: If we find discrepancies between the RFP and the actual audit, are we okay to use data based off the audit or does it need to be strictly off the RFP?
Response: Go by what is stated in RFP
Posted: 5/25/2021
Type of Addition: In Review
Posted: 6/10/2021
Type of Addition: Award Information
Documents:
Posted: 6/10/2021
Type of Addition: Award Information
Overview: Awarded to Inergy Solutions see attached award letter and tabulation.
Documents:
Posted: 4/12/2021
Question: Driving around campus I have noticed that the majority of the lighting is 5000k, in reference to proposal #P00322 the spec sheet for the lighting states 4,000k, if you would please confirm the kelvin.
Response: All should be 4000k as stated in the RFP.
Posted: 4/13/2021
Question: Can you provide AutoCAD of the site or the location of the lights so we can perform photometric calculations?
Response: Do not have any AutoCAD drawings of the lots.
Posted: 4/14/2021
Question: Would you release the sign-in sheet from the pre-bid?
Response: Inergy Solutions, GreenTech Energy Services, Wesco Energy Sales, Accudo Lighting Stones River Electric
Posted: 4/14/2021
Question: Would you release the sign-in sheet from the pre-bid?
Response: Inergy Solutions, GreenTech Energy Services, Wesco Energy Sales, Accudo Lighting Stones River Electric
Posted: 4/15/2021
Question: After surveying the campus I found that the actual lights located at the various parking lots do not absolutely match the lights listed on the lighting equipment spreadsheet that was included in the RFQ. Quantities and lighting equipment types do not match. There is a significant difference in the actual lighting equipment and the equipment listed on the spreadsheet. Please clarify as soon as possible. Thank you.
Response: Since most of existing fixtures are 360 degree light distribution the “# of fixtures column” on spreadsheet is for the proposed count using double heads on poles where noted “2 heads per pole” in the RFP.
Posted: 4/15/2021
Question: Two part question: First, should we assume that all new LED replacement luminaires need to match the existing pole color/finish, i.e. bronze, black, and light grey? Second, should we assume that all the lower height pedestrian scale poles (12'-16') that currently have a single tenon mount post top style HID luminaire i.e. LOT G6, that they be replaced with a similar style tenon mount LED version, or would an arm mounted version be acceptable?
Response: Color to be Bronze. Arm mounted would be acceptable.
Posted: 4/15/2021
Question: During the site visit last week, there appeared to be a small quantity of LED luminaires already existing in some lots, i.e. Lot W26. Were these early mock-ups and or test locations that will also be replaced with the new LED retrofit standard that is to be awarded?
Response: exclude
Posted: 4/15/2021
Question: Ref; Parking Lot W26 (OPB) On our site survey, we noticed that W26 already has LED heads on the poles. Should this area be included in bid?
Response: exclude
Posted: 4/16/2021
Question: What blended kWh rate are we to use?
Response: Can use $0.093 / kWh as blended rate
Posted: 4/16/2021
Question: What should we use for Hours of Operations? 12 Hours / day?
Response: 12 hours / day
Posted: 4/16/2021
Question: Should ROI calculations include just energy savings or a combination of energy savings and maintenance savings?
Response: just energy savings
Posted: 4/16/2021
Question: Should we exclude existing LED fixtures or include for uniformity?
Response: exclude
Posted: 4/16/2021
Question: If we find discrepancies between the RFP and the actual audit, are we okay to use data based off the audit or does it need to be strictly off the RFP?
Response: Go by what is stated in RFP