City and County of San Francisco Request for Proposals for...

City and County of San Francisco Request for Proposals for San Francisco International Airport On-Site Distributed Energy Resource Feasibility Study Contract No. 50151

Date issued: FEBRUARY 26, 2019 Pre-Proposal conference: 10:00 a.m., Friday March 8, 2019 Proposal due: 3:00 p.m., Tuesday March 26, 2019

AIR-590 (1-15) i February 26, 2019

RFP No. 50151 for On-Site Distributed Energy Resource Feasibility Study

Table of Contents

Page I. Introduction and Schedule .................................................................................... 1 II. Scope of Work ...................................................................................................... 6 III. Submission Requirements ..................................................................................... 15 IV. Evaluation and Selection Criteria ......................................................................... 20 V. Pre-Proposal Conference and Contract Award ..................................................... 24 VI. Terms and Conditions for Receipt of Proposals ................................................... 25 VII. City and Airport Contract Requirements .............................................................. 31 VIII. Protest Procedures ................................................................................................. 34 Appendices: A. Contract Monitoring Division (CMD) Attachment 2: Requirements for Architecture, Engineering

and Professional Services Contracts B. First Source Hiring Agreement C. Administrative Code Chapter 12X: Contractors in Certain States D. Standard Forms E. Agreement for Professional Services (form AIR-600) – separate document F. Scope of Work for Phase 1 Project and Draft Scope of Work for Phase 3 Project G. List of SFO Facility Roof and Parking Areas H. Map of Rooftop Areas at SFO I. Map of Surface Parking Lots at SFO J. Excerpt of SFO Solar Glint and Glare Hazard Analysis Report Exhibit: A. Minimum Qualification Verification


AIR-590 (1-15) 1 of 34 February 26, 2019

I. Introduction and Schedule

A. Introduction The San Francisco International Airport (“the Airport” or “SFO”) is operated by the San Francisco Airport Commission (“Commission”) as a separate enterprise department of the City and County of San Francisco (“the City”). SFO is the principal commercial service airport for the San Francisco Bay Area and is defined by the Federal Aviation Administration as a large hub airport which served 58 million passengers in 2018. The Airport is conducting a Distributed Energy Resource Program, broken out in three (3) Phases: 1. Ocular Glint and Glare Hazard Analysis for Candidate Photovoltaic Panel Sites 2. (Current phase) On-Site Distributed Energy Resource Feasibility Study 3. Design, construct, and commission DER systems1

The Airport is issuing this Request for Proposals (“RFP”) to solicit a qualified Consultant for Phase 2, to conduct a comprehensive feasibility analysis of On-Site Distributed Energy Resources (“DERs”)2 at SFO. The analysis will focus on renewable electricity generation and storage potential throughout the campus, and emphasize solar generation at the sites identified in Phase 1 of this program as compliant with the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA”) Glint and Glare Hazard Regulations. The analysis will assess the scope of required facilities, including infrastructure modifications, provide technical and financial analyses for each site, and recommend and prioritize renewable energy and storage project sites. The analysis will evaluate and recommend ownership, operations, and maintenance approaches. The successful Consultant will be required to secure a Supplier Number from the City of San Francisco and meet the requirements for performing work under contract with the City and County of San Francisco. Prospective suppliers should begin the process immediately to obtain a Supplier Number in order to be eligible for selection. This is the link to start the process: https://sfcitypartner.sfgov.org/ The successful proposer for this RFP for Phase 2 may be disqualified from designing, constructing, and commissioning the DER systems in Phase 3, and should instead be prepared to consult for the Airport through the completion of Phase 3 of the project. B. Contract Term The Contract term shall have a term of two (2) years with a one (1) year option to extend, from the effective date of the Contract. The required tasks are expected to be completed within nine (9) months from Notice to Proceed following Contract Award. Optional tasks in the Scope of Work (e.g. as-needed support) may be proposed for a duration longer than 9 months but no longer than two (2) years, unless the Airport grants a one-year option to extend.

1 For more information about Phases 1 and 3 of the program, please refer to Appendix F and Appendix J. 2 The State of California defines DERs as distribution-connected distributed generation resources, energy efficiency, energy storage, electric vehicles, and demand response technologies. For purposes of this RFP, the definition of DERs is narrowed to include distribution-connected distributed generation resources utilizing renewable fuels and energy storage. Fossil-based fuel sources will not be considered. “On-site” means that energy resources must be located within the Airport’s campus boundary.

https://sfcitypartner.sfgov.org/


AIR-590 (1-15) 2 of 34 February 26, 2019

C. Background Information San Francisco International Airport is Northern California’s premiere airport serving hundreds of destinations throughout the United States and abroad. SFO is consistently rated as one of the top airports in the world for the efficiency and quality of service rendered to travelers. Located on the shore of San Francisco Bay, SFO covers approximately 5,200 acres with 2,700 acres developed for Airport use and approximately 2,500 acres remaining as natural tidelands and wetlands. In 2018, SFO served 57.8 million passengers with 217,116 revenue landings on 50 airlines.

The Airport has established a Zero Net Energy goal in its 2017-2021 Strategic Plan. Current Airport facilities consume approximately 440 gigawatt-hours (“GWh”) of combined electric (330 GWh) and natural gas (110 GWh equivalent) energy per year to meet the energy demands of facilities and operations under the control of both the Airport Commission and tenants. On-site renewable energy generation could constitute a significant source of carbon-free electric energy for the campus. To date, over 1.2 megawatts of solar photovoltaics (“PV”) have been installed at the Airport with over a megawatt of additional solar PV generation in development. The installation of additional solar PV arrays (or, in some cases, electrical access to be made “PV-ready”) will be incorporated in all future construction projects. The objective of this Contract is to evaluate the potential for renewable electric power generation using solar PV arrays on all suitable rooftops, parking structures and parking lots at the Airport, and other potentially suitable DER technologies including but not limited to onsite building-scale wind, building-integrated PV (“BIPV”), and battery energy storage systems. This Contract will evaluate the pertinent regulatory, technical, and financial requirements at the Airport. The Airport is developing a Zero Emission Vehicles (“ZEV”) readiness plan that will serve as a roadmap for increasing electric vehicle infrastructure throughout the campus. There will likely be opportunities to integrate ZEVs with other DER technologies to optimize electric power generation, demand profiles, and resiliency. This Contract should inform the ZEV plan, but is not intended to separately study or plan for ZEV charging infrastructure. SFO aims to become the world’s first Zero Net Energy (“ZNE”) airport campus as guided through its five-year Strategic Plan. The ZNE planning effort is currently underway via an Energy Benchmarking Support Services Contract that will recommend strategies for benchmarking buildings, examine Energy Use Intensity requirements, make policy recommendations, evaluate lease agreements, and consider DER integration.3 Contract No. 50151 under this RFP will lead DER analysis and recommendations that will inform the ZNE planning process. Land use at the Airport is broadly characterized as either “Airside” or “Landside” based on the existing security access boundaries. Airside facilities consist of approximately 1,700 acres of runways, taxiways, and ramp systems. Landside facilities are distributed across 1,000 acres of land and are divided into the following functional classes: terminal complex; airport administration; offices and facilities complex; non-terminal airline support; airline support; airline maintenance; general aviation; air freight; airport transport; commercial; transportation; miscellaneous facilities; parking facilities; and roads. The core Landside facilities are listed below:

3 City of San Francisco, Office of Contracts Administration RFP no. 11163.41


AIR-590 (1-15) 3 of 34 February 26, 2019

Landside Land Uses

• Passenger Terminals • AirTrain • BART Station • Consolidated Rental Car Facility • Parking Garages • Air Cargo Facilities • Jet Fuel Tank storage • CNG Fueling Stations • Aircraft Hangars • United Maintenance Operations Center

• U.S. Post Office • Airport support and administration facilities

(e.g., Engineering building, Business Center, Maintenance Facilities, Emergency Response Facilities, Airport Police Bureau, Fire Department, GTU)

• Industrial and Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Plant

• Connections to mainline Transportation Roadways and systems

Notes: An aerial map of SFO is shown in Figure 1. Airport’s automated people-mover system is called “AirTrain”

Figure 1. Aerial Map of SFO


AIR-590 (1-15) 4 of 34 February 26, 2019

D. Existing Potential Sites at SFO for Installation of Distributed Energy Resources

Rooftop Resource Access Sites – Currently, there are 101 buildings at SFO with a lateral roof area of greater than 5,000 square feet, which cumulatively account for 148 acres of total rooftop area (not total usable space) that may potentially provide space for the installation of solar PV arrays and other renewable energy technologies. Subject to environmental review, financing, permitting, and subsequent approvals, projects proposed in the Airport Development Plan (“ADP”) would eliminate certain existing facilities and develop new facilities, which should be considered in this feasibility study. Plans should therefore include capacity for opportunistic expansion and contraction of planned DER development. In addition, some of the existing rooftops, parking areas, and building interiors may not be available for installation due to leasing arrangements with tenants. Solar PV modules are or will be installed on Terminal 3, the West Field Cargo building, the Ground Transportation Unit, the former Architectural and Engineering building, the City vehicle garage adjacent to the SFO Airfield Operations Facility, and Firehouse 3, totaling approximately 1,200 kilowatts. A 905 kilowatt system is being installed on the new long-term parking garage, and both the Terminal 1 redevelopment project and the hotel under construction will have PV arrays.

Parking Sites – There are currently 69 parking lots and garages at SFO with a combined area of 137 acres. The ADP identifies potential new parking areas, which should be evaluated as part of the total surface area for parking lot DER development, understanding that the full development of the ADP projects is subject to environmental review, financing, permitting, and subsequent approvals by the Airport Commission and San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Refer to Refer to:

• Appendix G – List of SFO Facility Roof and Parking Areas • Appendix H – Map of Rooftop Areas at SFO • Appendix I – Map of Surface Parking Lots at SFO.

Note some surface parking areas have been reconfigured due to construction staging. The information in these appendices is subject to change between issuance of this RFP and the Notice to Proceed. Also note that very limited open space exists at the Airport for siting stand-alone ground-mounted PV arrays.

E. Applicable FAA Regulations and Requirements All solar PV and potential wind energy projects proposed on airport property must meet FAA airspace safety criteria, pass the FAA’s fair market value test, and conform to current and proposed airport planning efforts. With respect to airspace safety, the “Technical Guidance for Selected Solar Technologies at Airports” (or FAA Solar Guide; published by the FAA, November 2010) describes potential airspace issues that must be addressed for solar power systems. These factors include physical obstruction, reflectivity, and communication systems interference. The FAA Solar Guide includes a chapter on siting constraints for solar projects, and details the applicability of the FAA’s Airport Design Standards. The FAA has also published the “Interim Policy on FAA Review of Solar Energy Projects” in the Federal Register, 78 FR 63276-01 (October 2013), which provides additional guidance for assessing potential impacts of glare from solar projects at airports. These guidelines address the ocular glare and glint issues associated with solar panels in more detail. The Airport recently completed an evaluation of the Glint and Glare Hazards for candidate solar PV array sites in Phase 1 of this program to understand all on-Airport locations where photovoltaics may be safely installed (see Appendix J – Excerpts of SFO Solar Glint and Flare Hazard Analysis Report). The identification of issues associated with solar PV reflectivity and communications interference are paramount issues to be addressed during the evaluation and determination of suitable sites for solar PV.


AIR-590 (1-15) 5 of 34 February 26, 2019

FAA has established airspace safety requirements applicable to wind energy projects in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 77, “Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace.” Small-scale wind projects must adhere to the requirements of Part 77, protect the integrity of building structures, and mitigate radar interference. F. Schedule The anticipated schedule for developing a short list of consultants is: Proposal Phase Date RFP is issued by the City February 26, 2019 Pre-Proposal conference March 8, 2019 Deadline for submission of written questions or requests for clarification March 13, 2019 Proposals due March 26, 2019 Notification of short list selection (estimated) May 10, 2019 Interviews (anticipated) May 17, 2019


AIR-590 (1-15) 6 of 34 February 26, 2019

II. Scope of Work The following Scope of Work identifies the key tasks to assess and develop a DER Plan for the SFO campus. The Phase 2 work is being activated to evaluate the potential of campus-wide renewable energy and battery storage. Proposing teams may submit proposed modifications to this Scope of Work as written questions or requests for clarification pursuant to Sections I.F and VI.B of this RFP. The Airport reserves the right in its sole discretion to reject any proposed modifications to the Scope of Work. This scope is not intended to be a complete list of all sub-tasks necessary to complete the project. Proposers are expected to draw upon their expertise with similar projects to more fully define the required level of effort and reflect this in accurate estimations and task descriptions in their proposals. The Scope of Work for the DER plan consists of:

• 10 Required Tasks 1. Conduct Structural and Infrastructure Assessment of Candidate Sites 2. Assess the Annual Potential Electricity Generation Rates for Each Potential DER Candidate Site 3. Develop a Cost-Benefit Analysis and Project Cost Benchmarks for Potential DER Installations 4. Assess the Potential for Claiming Carbon Offsets and/or Renewable Energy Credits for

Construction and Operation of Potential DERs 5. Rank-ordering Recommendations of Potential DER projects 6. Asset Management and Operations and Management (“O&M”) Strategy 7. Integration of DER Strategy with SFO’s Energy Benchmarking Support Services Study 8. Integration of DER Systems Using a Common Building Energy Management Platform 9. Develop Technical Project Implementation Details 10. Prepare Final Report and Presentation

• Optional Tasks – exercised at the Airport’s discretion 11. Microgrid “Readiness” Strategy 12. As-needed Services

The intent of these tasks is to identify and prioritize DER candidate sites through detailed energy, cost, structural, and site analyses. The Consultant shall consider all applicable federal, state, local and Airport-specific regulations, including FAA, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Mateo County, and Airport requirements, to ensure siting and scale of DERs prioritized on site meet all agency obligations. The Consultant must utilize the results of the Phase 1 Solar Glint and Glare Hazard Analysis (Appendix J) and apply them correctly for site selection and recommendation(s). In selecting potential DER sites, the Consultant shall consider a candidate facility’s age and future status relative to proposed construction, demolition, and building reconfiguration plans included in the Airport’s approved 5- and 10-year Capital Improvement Plan and the Recommended ADP. The selected firm is expected to deliver a study that will assist Airport staff in prioritizing, selecting, and programming future DER systems. The report will:

• Evaluate existing building rooftops, parking garages, and ground-level parking areas and related infrastructure for their potential to accommodate DER technologies;

• Prioritize candidate projects; • Present reasonable economic cases for the selected systems; • Advise on financing structures and asset management approaches; • Recommend a strategy for system monitoring and integration with the Airport’s data collection and

control schemes.


AIR-590 (1-15) 7 of 34 February 26, 2019

The Airport will utilize the study results to make decisions and plan for future installation of some or all of the recommended DER systems, subject to any required environmental review, project approvals, financing, and permitting. Throughout the development and delivery of the study, the selected Consultant is expected to conduct stakeholder engagement meetings involving key Airport personnel to ensure that the final report completely reflects the requirements of Airport implementers and decision-makers. While the Airport may consider a range of DER technologies in pursuit of the Zero Net Energy goal, rooftop and carport-mounted solar PV arrays paired with energy storage systems may provide the greatest near-term benefit and ease of deployment. However, technologies that directly offset central plant energy use, such as small-scale cogeneration or solar thermal, and that would integrate with central plant systems are outside the scope of this program. While the scope of this project does not include engineering design of specific systems, the report must provide sufficient data to inform the basis of design for future DER projects, and consider Airport Engineering standards and processes in defining those data needs. For each analysis, assessment, or task performed in this Scope of Work, the Consultant shall document all assumptions and inputs used and detail the methodology used to derive the assessment results. The detail should be sufficient for Airport staff to validate the Consultant’s work and utilize the methodology using modified assumptions or inputs. Task 1 – Conduct a Structural and Infrastructure Assessment of Candidate Sites

Consultant shall: 1.1 Review record documents and drawings to provide a structural and infrastructure assessment of potential

DER sites, including all applicable buildings, parking lots, and garages, and propose modifications needed to support proposed DERs, including solar PV and associated infrastructure, and other viable renewable energy generation and storage technologies. Analysis of the DER project sites should include: • Siting • Access • Building roof age (i.e. remaining life) and condition • Electrical capacity and needed upgrades, including distribution, switchgear, and other power facilities

required for interconnection • Communications infrastructure for system monitoring and control • Security and maintenance requirements.

1.2 Assess the design criteria for the appropriate wind exposure that complies with the relevant building codes.

1.3 Evaluate other infrastructure modifications necessary to accommodate the net energy provided by DERs on

both a site-by-site and aggregated basis, including: • Preliminary cost estimates for the required infrastructure modifications; • Cost estimates for mitigation or prevention of wildlife hazards created by construction of renewable

DER systems. Assumptions and inputs to these estimates shall be documented.

1.4 Identify potential sites for cost-effective and reasonably located energy storage systems to optimize the

output of the generated renewable electricity.


AIR-590 (1-15) 8 of 34 February 26, 2019

Task 2 - Assess the Annual Potential Electricity Generation Rates for Each Potential DER Candidate Site

Consultant shall: 2.1 Perform an assessment of the distributed renewable energy (including solar and wind) generation rates for

individual candidate sites using industry standard models developed by the U.S. Department of Energy, California Energy Commission, or other verified sources.

The assessment should present the approach to DER modeling, noting the software and any other tools to be used.

2.2 Simulate electricity generation for a 365-day period with summary data of each site’s hourly and monthly

generation rates, including annual average, minimum, and maximum output in kilowatt-hours. The analysis should take into account: • Airport’s specific rate schedule • Summarize the results both for each candidate site and in total across the Airport campus • Energy generated over the 365-day period • Net economic value inclusive of both energy (kWh) and demand (kW).

2.3 Assess the viability of energy storage at the candidate sites, and provide a rationale for recommended

locations (e.g. deferred electrical upgrades, voltage or power factor support, ZEV charging integration, available siting space, capability of islanding distribution segments).

Assessment shall include: • Anticipated and optimal storage charging and discharging, based on the Consultant’s analysis of the

Airport’s peak demand and load profiles • Opportunities for load shifting • Opportunities for energy storage activities such as energy arbitrage or energy market participation, as

contemplated in Task 3. Task 3 – Develop a Cost-Benefit Analysis and Project Cost Benchmarks for Potential DER Installations Consultant shall: 3.1 Develop an assessment of both capital and O&M costs for individual DER sites.

The assessment shall use the potential energy generation rates developed in Task 2 and estimate costs for the structural and infrastructure factors assessed in Task 1.

This assessment shall include: • Costs of labor • Required structural, electrical, communications, and other infrastructure modifications.

3.2 Consider these items in the development of the assessment:

3.2.1 Cost analysis presented should describe project finance structures applicable to the Airport as a tax-

exempt municipal agency, including recommendations for ownership structure(s) that take into consideration the Airport’s power supply arrangements and City department relationships.


AIR-590 (1-15) 9 of 34 February 26, 2019

3.2.2 Detailed analysis for obtaining financing, incentives, and subsidies for DER projects, including application timelines, incentive tiers, or other time-based considerations. The Airport has conducted an initial analysis of energy storage options, including consideration of available incentives, which should be considered in delivery of this task.

3.2.3 Estimates of total costs for each site shall be presented at both real and present values, in dollars

and dollars per kWh as relevant, over the useful life of the evaluated facilities for each candidate site and include: • Major equipment first costs including flood resistance for ground mounted equipment • Lifecycle O&M costs • Major system replacements • Installed capital costs and present worth cost data in dollars per kWh over the useful life • Payback scenarios with a cost recovery model • Rate impacts of relevant net metering tariffs and any changes to applicable demand charges • Relevant value of DER locational benefits • Facility upgrades and/or modifications to accommodate the DER systems.4

3.2.4 Where suitable opportunities exist to deploy energy storage for optimizing DER production and

facility energy consumption, the cost analysis should consider:

• Capital cost of the storage facilities • Costs to integrate facilities into the system (e.g. additional inverters, control systems) • Anticipated operating and maintenance costs • Value to the Airport, if any, of energy arbitrage or energy market participation.

Reasonable assumptions about charge and discharge patterns should be explained and factored into any models for energy production estimates.

3.2.5 Advise how the results of the cost analysis could be used to establish cost benchmarks for future DER projects with configurations similar to those recommended in this study, and recommend a method to apply those benchmarks to future projects.

3.2.6 Compare the present value of total airport-wide renewable DER costs, the present value of comparable renewable energy contracts using current market data, and the present value of electric power cost from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) over the same period, using an appropriate discount factor and reasonable assumptions for energy rate escalations.

Proposers shall indicate modeling approaches and tools that will be used to complete this task. Task 4 - Assess the Potential for Claiming Carbon Offsets and/or Renewable Energy Credits for Construction and Operation of Potential DERs

Consultant shall assess the potential for claiming renewable energy credits and verified carbon offsets for the expected annual power generation from potential renewable DER generation systems. Due to the current zero carbon footprint nature of SFPUC power supply, this issue should be explored from the perspective of the 4 Electrical upgrades should be presented with a rough-order (i.e. not a detailed engineering level) cost estimate. Roof upgrades or replacements should be identified with a more qualitative “go/no go” approach and do not require detailed cost estimates, although general rough-order estimates are preferred where minor structural modifications may make a site viable.


AIR-590 (1-15) 10 of 34 February 26, 2019

commercial credit potential of the generated renewable energy and/or from offsetting fuels in electrified end-uses, such as buses, fleet vehicles, and AirTrain system, and recommend credits the Airport should retire in order to make on-site claims for net-zero energy buildings or campus-wide certification. Task 5 – Rank-Ordering Recommendations of Potential DER Projects Based on the findings from Tasks 1 through 4, Consultant shall: • Develop scoring or ranking criteria for evaluating candidate sites across the Airport campus and produce a

matrix for presenting the results of each specific site as evaluated by those criteria. • Rank sites in a priority order according to the established criteria to assist the Airport in planning and

programming DER projects. • Indicate where projects are more efficiently deployed in groups, such as solar paired with storage or DERs

sited at/near significant electric vehicle charging infrastructure • Present data to include rough-order magnitude (“ROM”) estimates of DER system sizes (physical area

required) and installed capacities (in relevant energy units) at each site based on available area using reasonable assumptions for setbacks, existing or planned equipment, skylights, and roof access points based on information gathered by Consultant during site visit(s).

Task 6 – Asset Management and O&M Strategy Consultant shall develop an asset management strategy including available O&M approaches for the recommended DER systems over the system’s lifetime. The assessment should evaluate and estimate the financial implications of these O&M approaches, including but not limited to: • On-site maintenance and diagnosis by third parties • Current and needed capacity of Airport staff • Current skills and training to develop new DER maintenance skills • Inverter and module replacement cycles • Battery inspections and maintenance • Annual maintenance and other O&M requirements. Task 7 – Integration of DER Strategy with SFO’s Energy Benchmarking Support Services Study The Airport’s Energy Benchmarking Support Services Study, currently underway through a separate project, will recommend building energy benchmarks and strategies to achieve Zero Net Energy in Airport buildings. Consultant shall advise how the DER study results may be used by the Energy Benchmarking Study to inform and define DER options and strategies in zero net energy planning. Recommendations should describe how the candidate DER systems will achieve the Airport’s ZNE targets for the facilities evaluated and/or campus-wide. This task includes stakeholder coordination only, and not preparation of any deliverables for the Energy Benchmarking study. Task 8 – Integration of DER Systems Using a Common Building Energy Management Platform Consultant shall develop an approach to and detail a protocol for integrating DER systems with existing and planned Airport Energy Management Control System (“EMCS”), including recommendations for data acquisition systems.


AIR-590 (1-15) 11 of 34 February 26, 2019

The Consultant shall evaluate existing energy management and DER platforms used by the Airport and recommend a uniform approach that allows for ease of management, maintenance, programming, and control. The preference is to utilize existing systems, where possible, and leverage open source purpose-built software where new functionality is needed.5 Open source platforms are encouraged for consideration of both functional capability to support operational financial and functional goals, and information technology management cost implications such as licensing. Proprietary systems will not be considered or accepted. The plan shall include staff training, and longevity and access to data, such as Airport control of data versus third-party storage and maintenance. Any recommended software and/or hardware solution(s) must take into account the Airport’s information technology security requirements to be identified during stakeholder engagement meetings. Contractor shall disclose any business relationship with any specific recommended product vendors during the course of the contract. Task 9 – Develop Technical Project Implementation Details The Consultant shall: 9.1 Prepare Project Scoping Definitions (“PSDs”) for top-ranked DER projects and provide project

requirements in sufficient detail to support capital planning and procurement of proposed projects. PSDs are technical specifications that serve several functions for Airport projects:

• refine the scope of a DER project • define expected equipment capacities and sizes • identify locations for equipment • clarify immediate needs with respect to condition and/or capacity • associate the need with a Capital Improvement Plan or Airport Development Plan project • break the work into phases and prepare ROM cost estimates by phase. Holistic synergies between projects will also be included such as common corridors, shared electrical upgrades, site locations, and space needs. PSDs will be submitted to SFO for consideration and potential inclusion into the SFO Capital Improvement Plan program.

9.2 Coordinate documents with stakeholders to develop proper bridging documents and define the scope of top-

ranked projects that could be moved into Phase 3 of the project for design and construction. 9.3 Review the Airport’s existing standard for photovoltaic systems, and update that standard to align with

current industry standards that will apply to the proposed DER projects and provide a guide for new and renovated buildings to accommodate and utilize DERs (e.g. establish conduit, building space, and roof area requirements and set-asides for DER readiness).

5 For example, U.S. Department of Energy’s VOLTTRON is an open source platform for transactive DER controls. https://bgintegration.pnnl.gov/volttron.asp

https://bgintegration.pnnl.gov/volttron.asp


AIR-590 (1-15) 12 of 34 February 26, 2019

9.4 Develop a template for DER projects to be used in Phase 3 for developing Owner’s Project Requirements.6 Task 10 – Prepare Final Report and Presentation

Consultant shall prepare a comprehensive report detailing the results of Tasks 1 through 9 and Optional Tasks, if applicable. The report shall contain: 10.1 Results of Task 1 – 9 10.2 Results of Task 11 (optional tasks) The Final Report shall be delivered in an electronic PDF format to the Airport Contract Manager. Additionally, contractor shall make available the option to provide supporting data and analysis developed in the course of this project developing the following deliverables to the Airport Contract Manager in native electronic format(s) such as spreadsheet or GIS files. Consultant shall prepare one (1) visual presentation (e.g. using Prezi, Microsoft PowerPoint, or similar) of the report’s key findings and recommendations and deliver the presentation to Airport senior management following acceptance of the final report by the Airport Contract Manager. OPTIONAL TASKS The Airport has several tasks which are optional for this project and will be determined by the results of the DER report and the needs of the Airport as determined by the Airport Contract Manager. The Airport would like to see the Consultant’s approach and costs for the Tasks below: Task 11 – Microgrid “Readiness” Strategy Task 12 – As-Needed Services Firms that do not possess the experience necessary to perform the Optional Tasks identified in this Section II – Scope of Work are not excluded from proposing or being selected, as the Optional Tasks are unique and specific requests for support that are not essential to the Required Tasks. Proposers will be evaluated based on the criteria outlined in Section IV – Evaluation and Selection Criteria. Optional Task 11 - Microgrid “Readiness” Strategy Prepare a guidance document to configure Airport electrical and DER systems to operate as a microgrid.7 The guidance document shall:

11.1 Identify the control systems and software necessary to implement a microgrid on Airport property capable

of managing and optimizing DER in both grid-connected and grid-isolated configurations

6 Owner's Project Requirements are a collection of ideas, concepts, and criteria in a written document that details: 1) the functional requirements of a project, 2) the owner’s expectations of how it will be used and operated, and 3) the basis of the criteria used during construction to verify actual performance. 7 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory defines a microgrid as “a localized grouping of electricity sources and loads that operate connected to and synchronous with the traditional centralized grid (macrogrid), but can disconnect and function autonomously as physical and/or economic conditions dictate.” https://eta.lbl.gov/research-development/area/microgrids

https://eta.lbl.gov/research-development/area/microgrids


AIR-590 (1-15) 13 of 34 February 26, 2019

11.2 Describe policies at the Airport, City, and State level that govern the Airport’s ability to operate a microgrid in an islanded manner, and any utility considerations that enable or prohibit microgrid operation

11.3 Recommend how DERs can be leveraged and should be operated in a microgrid, including dispatch

strategy, economic considerations (e.g. time-of-use rates), ability of DERs to supply full or partial load in both grid-connected and grid-isolated modes, load curtailment strategy, operational considerations to safely and reliably isolate the electrical system (e.g. to serve critical loads), etc.

11.4 Provide technical details of how a microgrid controller will interface with the Airport’s Energy

Management Control System (“EMCS”) and the connected electrical systems, including DERs, for reliable and resilient operation that maximizes the value of the interconnected DERs.

The Airport is implementing an EMCS through a separate project currently underway.8 Required Task 8 of this Scope of Work contemplates interaction with the EMCS project and recommendation on how to integrate DERs with the implemented system(s). The Consultant shall expand on Task 8 in this Optional Task to consider how the EMCS and recommended DERs can be leveraged in a microgrid operation.

11.5 Evaluate subsidy, grant, and incentive opportunities to potentially fund additional microgrid development.

Because the Airport is served by a municipally owned utility, it has not traditionally been eligible for State pilot and research programs for microgrids and DERs. However, other State and Federal technical support or funding may be available.

Optional Task 11 will involve stakeholder input from Airport staff and City departments including the Public Utilities Commission and Department of Environment. The deliverable shall be a report that presents recommendations for microgrid control, design, incentives, EMCS interfacing, other considerations the Airport needs for future microgrid planning, and clearly recommend next steps. The microgrid report shall be included in the Task 10 Final Report, or at the discretion of the Airport Contract Manager, it may be delivered as a stand-alone report. Optional Task 11 will only proceed if requested by the Airport Contract Manager. Optional Task 12 – As-Needed Services This Optional Task encompasses any additional tasks identified during the duration of the contract. The scope of such tasks are expected to align with the scope of work as anticipated in this section, and rely on the skills and experiences identified in Section III. Examples could include:

• Building on the high-level scoping definitions in Task 9 and develop technical requirements for recommended DER projects, including but not limited to:

o electrical protection requirements o design criteria for meeting utility interconnection standards o planning-level cost model or benchmarks o commissioning processes and technical specifications for DER systems (either modifications to

existing commissioning documents or assist with development of new documents, e.g. for energy storage or multiple-technology DER platforms)

8 City of San Francisco, Office of Contracts Administration RFP no. 11068


AIR-590 (1-15) 14 of 34 February 26, 2019

o prioritization of on-campus consumption of on-campus renewable generation for operational resilience and utility infrastructure cost minimization

• Supporting staff in preparing capital planning documents for DER projects based on the outcomes of Task 9;

• Supporting or developing DER project requirements for the Airport’s ZERO (Zero Energy and Resilient Outcomes) Committee;

• Providing additional support for the microgrid deliverables listed in Optional Task 11; • Further analysis of DER sites in a manner not contemplated in the Required Tasks above.

Sub-tasks within Optional Task 12 will only proceed upon written mutual agreement by the Airport Contract Manager and Consultant with task scope and deliverable(s) clearly identified. Fees for each sub-task should be based on Contractor’s proposed hourly rates on a time and materials basis. Timeline to Completion Required Tasks 1 through 10 are expected to be completed within nine (9) months from Notice to Proceed following contract award. Optional Tasks 11 and 12 may be proposed for a duration longer than 9 months but no longer than 2 years, unless the Airport grants a one-year option to extend. Information and Resources to be provided by the Airport to Consultant • An Airport Contract Manager will be identified and serve as the primary point of contact to Consultant; • Data on the size, age, and configuration of buildings, parking garages, and other structures within the scope of

this study; • Data on electrical infrastructure, including but not limited to: proximities to evaluated DER sites of electrical

access points, available breakers, and distribution panels, and ratings of those facilities, as deemed necessary by the Airport to perform the scope of work;

• Historic campus-wide utility data; • Geographic Information System assets relevant to perform the Scope of Work; • Relevant Airport reports, such as Airport Development Plan, Capital Improvement Plan, Zero-Emission

Vehicles Readiness study, Energy Benchmarking study work products, Phase 1 Glint and Glare Hazard Analysis report;

• Badged access to secured and restricted areas (individuals from the selected firm must be able to successfully complete background security clearances), as deemed necessary by the Airport to perform the scope of work;

• Rules and guidelines related to Airport site access and safety, and training where required, for accessing rooftop and other areas where safety procedures apply (e.g. fall protection, use of personal protective equipment);

• Coordination of meetings with Airport stakeholders as necessary for Contractor to gather data, understand Airport processes, and clarify study findings.


AIR-590 (1-15) 15 of 34 February 26, 2019

III. Submission of Proposals The responses to the RFP should contain adequate information to enable the review panel to rank the submitting firms as candidates for assessing technical and financial requirements for implementing Airport-wide DER systems. Proposers may submit individually or as a Joint Venture (“JV”). A. Time and Place for Submission of Proposals Proposals must be received by 3:00pm on March 26, 2019. Postmarks will not be considered in judging the timeliness of submissions. Proposals submitted by fax or email will not be accepted. Late submissions will not be considered, including those received late due to postal or delivery service failure.

In Person to: John Galloway Carbon Neutral Program Manager San Francisco International Airport Airport Commission Administrative Offices International Terminal Building, G Concourse, 5th floor

Mailed to: John Galloway Carbon Neutral Program Manager San Francisco International Airport P.O. Box 8097 San Francisco, CA 94128-3114

B. Format for Submission of Proposals

Proposers shall submit the proposal and additional documents (as listed below) in the following format: One (1) USB flash drive device containing Adobe PDF format version of proposal and additional documents,

except those identified below as being delivered in sealed envelopes Five (5) copies of the proposal in binders clearly labeled, “RFP 50151 – On-Site Distributed Energy Resource

Feasibility Study” One (1) copy, separately bound of required Appendix A - CMD Forms in a sealed envelope clearly labeled,

“RFP 50151 – CMD Forms.” The required CMD forms are listed in Section VI, Paragraph N.3. One (1) copy of the fee proposal in a sealed envelope One (1) signed copy, separately bound of:

o Appendix B – First Source Hiring Agreement o Exhibit A – Minimum Qualification Verification

The proposals shall be submitted in this format: Three-hole recycled paper Letter sized (8.5 x 11 inch); tabloid sized (11x17 inch) pages will be counted as 2 pages Print double-sided to the maximum extent practical Unjustified text is preferred with margins of at least 1” on all sides (excluding headers and footers) Three-ring binders to submit the proposal; do not bind the proposal with spiral binding or glued binding Include a Table of Contents if the response is lengthy Tab or other separators within the document are allowed C. Content


AIR-590 (1-15) 16 of 34 February 26, 2019

Firms interested in responding to this RFP must submit the following information, in the order specified below. Proposals shall not exceed 32 pages, not including attachments/exhibits as required by the RFP response (i.e. Appendices A through D and Exhibit A; additional attachments are not allowed and will not be evaluated). 1. Introduction and Executive Summary (up to 1 page)

Submit a letter of introduction. The letter must be signed by a person authorized by your firm to obligate your firm to perform the commitments contained in the proposal. Submission of the letter will constitute a representation by your firm that your firm is willing and able to perform the commitments contained in the proposal. 2. Statement of Minimum Qualifications (up to 2 pages + Exhibit A)

2.1 Completion of Exhibit A – Minimum Qualifications Verification 2.2 Describe how the firm meets the minimum qualifications as set forth in Evaluation and Selection

Criteria - Minimum Qualifications of this RFP

3. Firm Qualifications and Experience (up to 6 pages)

3.1 Organization Structure Provide:

3.1.1 Concise description of your firm, as well as how any JV or association would be structured 3.1.2 Detailed information on the qualifications of the firm or JV to perform comprehensive

technical feasibility analysis and to advise on implementation strategy for Distributed Energy Resources at a scale comparable to the anticipated SFO project.

3.2 Firm Qualifications

Provide three (3) example projects completed by the Firm since January 1, 2012, that are relevant to the RFP Scope of Work and address the items listed below. Project experience at an airport is desirable but not mandatory for the proposers. Examples could include university, medical, and corporate campuses, and military installations and other large campuses. Project descriptions shall be limited to one (1) page for each project and include: • Project name • Project scope summary • Firm’s role and responsibilities in the project • Client name, reference, and telephone numbers • Project start and completion date • Project costs (firm fee and project construction cost, if applicable) • Proposer’s performance on delivering the project on schedule and on budget

Experience of interest to the Airport:

3.2.1 Large-scale existing rooftop solar PV arrays on commercial facilities across multi-acre

properties


AIR-590 (1-15) 17 of 34 February 26, 2019

3.2.2 Solar PV arrays installed on large scale canopies constructed over parking lots and on the roof of parking garages

3.2.3 Infrastructure modifications required to install solar PV, wind energy, and/or battery energy storage systems on existing buildings, garages, and parking lots including: structural modifications, electric power system modifications, and other needed infrastructure modifications

3.2.4 Monitoring and control systems for DERs and integration with energy management and control systems

3.2.5 Cost-benefit and electric rate analysis for individual sites and for the combined DER system installations, which should include interconnection and integration costs

3.2.6 Battery energy storage facilities and analysis to confirm the value of storage in optimizing both resiliency and the beneficial use of paired solar and other renewable electricity solutions

3.2.7 Projects on which the firm performed both the DER analysis or feasibility study and the construction phase (desirable but not essential for this project phase)

4. Team Qualifications (up to 12 pages)

4.1 Team Qualifications Describe the structure of the proposed team and the specific expertise that the individual team members and lead project manager possesses to effectively deliver to the City the services described under Section II – Scope of Work. Proposers are to provide the following information:

4.1.1 List of key personnel for this project 4.1.2 Organization chart identifying the entire team and reporting structure 4.1.3 Detailed information on the qualifications of the lead project manager and each technical and

managerial staff including:

• Educational background • Relevant professional designations or licenses • Years of experience with the proposing firm • Details proposed staff members’ expertise in preparing DER feasibility assessments

and/or engaging in DER design, including the required structural and other infrastructure modifications, indicating years of experience for each member.

• Related airport project experience (desirable but not mandatory)

4.1.4 Project lead is clearly identified and has at least five (5) years demonstrated project management and technical expertise related to the RFP Scope of Work and a demonstrated ability to leverage the firm’s resources to deliver the Scope of Work.

4.1.5 Workload, staff availability, and accessibility. Proposers will include written assurance that the firm’s lead project manager will be performing the work and will not be substituted with other personnel or reassigned to another project without the City’s prior approval.

4.2 Team Experience for SFO Project Describe the specific expertise of the team to effectively deliver to the Airport the services described

under Section II – Scope of Work. Proposers are to include all of the following information:

4.2.1 Technical expertise to accurately evaluate and model the electrical power generation potential for the proposed DER installations at San Francisco International Airport.


AIR-590 (1-15) 18 of 34 February 26, 2019

4.2.2 Demonstrated understanding through application of the latest innovations in and capital costs for solar PV manufacturing for both roof / canopy mounted and building-integrated applications, battery energy storage system technologies, small- and micro-scale wind, grid interconnection requirements, and maintenance strategies.

4.2.3 Experience with assessing structural and other infrastructure modifications associated with installation of rooftop and canopy solar panel arrays and other types of DERs.

4.2.4 Technical expertise in electric power system integration to network dispersed DER systems using building or campus energy management and control systems, optimize and monitor the use of the electricity generated from and used by DER systems, including the use of batteries or other energy storage for cost-effectively optimizing the consumption of the generated renewable electricity and maximizing electric rate benefits (e.g. energy and demand charge savings).

4.2.5 Experience with cost-benefit and electric rate analysis for renewable energy and DER systems, including evaluating the greenhouse emission offset potential of on-site renewable electricity generation.

4.2.6 Experience developing DER asset management strategy, including O&M approaches of the installed DER systems over the system lifetime and the financial implications of these O&M approaches.

4.2.7 Expertise in municipal project finance, analysis of various ownership scenarios by municipal entities, and evaluation of incentives and subsidies, including an approach to assisting the Airport obtain financing and incentives for renewable DER projects.

4.2.8 Experience in campus-style and institutional scale planning, design, and construction projects, especially noting any direct Airport experience.

4.3 Team Qualifications for Optional Tasks

4.3.1 Experience analyzing and recommending microgrid configurations in campus-style settings

with a demonstrated technical understanding of microgrid controls and technology approaches, interconnection issues, applicable financing and incentives, and integration with existing building energy management and control schemes (for Optional Task 11).

4.3.2 Experience using software models or tools in microgrid analysis (for Optional Task 11). 5. Project Approach (up to 10 pages)

Describe the services and activities that your firm proposes to cost-effectively provide to the City the services described under Section II – Scope of Work. Proposers are to include (at minimum) the following information:

5.1 Overall scope of work tasks 5.2 Approach for coordinating/managing all work activities to meet project milestones and

deliverable due dates, including assignment of work within the firm’s work team 5.3 Project schedule and ability to complete the project within the City’s required time frame

and within budget 5.4 Potential for accelerating the schedule to deliver the Required Tasks in the Scope of Work in

less than the maximum required nine (9) months 5.5 Processes/measures for controlling cost and schedule; tracking document/report delivery and

quality, work performance, and effective QA/QC 5.6 Processes for internal and external notification and resolution of technical issues and

cost/schedule variances 5.7 Understanding of potential design, environmental, and/or building constraints


AIR-590 (1-15) 19 of 34 February 26, 2019

5.8 Familiarity with FAA, State, and local government rules and regulations pertaining to the construction of DER systems

5.9 Technical approach demonstrating clear understanding of the issues related to the installation of DER systems that incorporates an assessment of the required infrastructure modifications and approach for integration into the existing electrical distribution system. The approach must consider roof age and condition and security and access issues in an airport context

5.10 Criteria for DER requirements for future DER projects at SFO, including examples of high-level criteria to be included, such as electrical protection requirements, design criteria for meeting utility interconnection standards, etc.

5.11 Approach to DER modeling, noting the software and any other tools used 5.12 Technical approach for analyzing and recommending microgrid configurations in campus-

style settings, including any software models or tools that will be used in microgrid analysis (for Optional Task 11)

6. Fee Proposal (1 page)

The City intends to award this contract to the firm that it considers will provide the best overall value for program services. The City reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer and to reject any proposals that are not responsive to this request. Please provide a fee proposal in a sealed envelope that includes the following:

7.1 On-Site Distributed Energy Resource Feasibility Study Fee Proposal

DER Feasibility Study to be completed in no more than nine (9) months – Tasks 1 through 10 as separate line items

$

Total Cost of DER Feasibility Study (sum of Tasks 1 through 10)

$

Optional Task 11 $

7.2 Hourly rates for all team members. Hourly rates and itemized costs may be used to negotiate changes in the Scope of Work if necessary.

The approved direct labor rates, if any, as of the effective date of this Agreement will be specified in the contract, and shall remain in effect for the termination of the contract. If this is a multi-year contract, the Airport may approve an annual adjustment to the direct hourly labor rates effective July 1st, based on an increase in the Consumer Price Index for the preceding twelve (12) months for the San Francisco Bay Area as published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, under the title of: “Services Less Rent or Shelter – All Urban Consumers – San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose, California” or on an increase in the wages of comparable classifications as reflected in the collective bargaining agreements between the City and County of San Francisco and the labor organization representing those classifications, whichever is lower. Such adjustment is subject to prior written approval by the Airport and in no event will exceed the lower of the above specified indices unless the proposed adjustment is made pursuant to other specific terms of this contract or is necessary to meet the requirements of prevailing or minimum wage legislative mandates.


AIR-590 (1-15) 20 of 34 February 26, 2019

IV. Evaluation and Selection Criteria A. Minimum Qualifications Any proposal that does not demonstrate that the proposer meets these Minimum Qualifications (“MQs”) will be considered non-responsive and will not be eligible for award of the contract. Interested firms must meet the following minimum qualifications: 1. Firm must have at least four (4) years of verifiable experience since January 1, 2012, in developing,

conducting, and completing feasibility analyses of On-site Distributed Energy Resources of the type required in this RFP Scope of Work.

2. Firm must have completed at least seven (7) feasibility analyses of On-site Distributed Energy Resources since January 1, 2012, which must include projects involving at least two (2) large campuses*. At least three (3) DER systems that were recommended in those completed feasibility analyses must have been constructed or implemented. The proposing firm is not required to have been on the team that constructed or implemented the DER systems.

3. Firm’s Lead Project Manager shall have at least five (5) years of direct experience since January 1, 2012, in developing and leading the implementation of DER plans and/or feasibility studies that include at least one (1) project for a large campus*.

* “Large campus” refers to contiguous property having greater than 500,000 square feet of occupied space, with separately-metered buildings utilizing a medium-voltage electrical distribution system. Examples could include university, medical, and corporate office parks, and military installations. B. Selection Criteria The proposals will be evaluated by a selection committee comprised of parties with expertise in electrical distribution systems, small-scale power generation, facilities operation, and/or large airport capital projects. The City intends to evaluate the proposals generally in accordance with the criteria itemized below. Up to three (3) of the firms with the highest scoring proposals may be interviewed by the committee to make the final selection. If applicable, a rating bonus will be added to the overall score for qualifying LBE firms (see Section VI.N.2 – Certified LBE Bid Discount /Rating Bonus). 1. Firm Qualification (25 points)

Proposals will be evaluated on the firm or team’s experience performing and completing comprehensive technical feasibility analysis and to advise on implementation strategy for Distributed Energy Resources at a scale comparable to the anticipated SFO project. Firms should demonstrate in their proposals an understanding and experience with the following aspects of DER projects:

1.1 Large-scale existing rooftop solar PV arrays on commercial facilities across multi-acre properties;

1.2 Solar PV arrays installed on large scale canopies constructed over parking lots and on the roof of parking garages;

1.3 Infrastructure modifications required to install solar PV, wind energy, and/or battery energy storage systems on existing buildings, garages, and parking lots including: structural


AIR-590 (1-15) 21 of 34 February 26, 2019

modifications, electric power system modifications, and other needed infrastructure modifications;

1.4 Monitoring and control systems for DERs and integration with energy management and control systems;

1.5 Cost-benefit and electric rate analysis for individual sites and for the combined DER system installations, which should include interconnection and integration costs;

1.6 Battery energy storage facilities and analysis to confirm the value of storage in optimizing both resiliency and the beneficial use of solar and other renewable electricity solutions.

Proposals will also be evaluated on the relevance of the three (3) example projects completed by the Firm since January 1, 2012, that address the items listed in Section III – Submission of Proposals (at 3.2).

2. Team Qualifications (50 points)

Proposals will be evaluated on the structure of the proposed team:

2.1 List of key personnel for this project 2.2 Organization chart identifying the entire team and reporting structure 2.3 Detailed information on the qualifications of the lead project manager and each technical and

managerial staff including: 2.3.1 Educational background 2.3.2 Relevant professional designations or licenses 2.3.3 Years of experience with the proposing firm 2.3.4 Details proposed staff members’ expertise in preparing DER feasibility assessments

and/or engaging in DER design, including the required structural and other infrastructure modifications, indicating years of experience for each member.

2.3.5 Related airport project experience (desirable but not mandatory) 2.4 Clearly identified project lead having at least five (5) years demonstrated project management

and technical expertise related to the RFP Scope of Work and a demonstrated ability to leverage the firm’s resources to deliver the Scope of Work.

2.5 Workload, staff availability and accessibility.

Proposals will also be evaluated on the specific expertise that the individual team members and lead project manager possesses to effectively deliver to the City the services described under Section II – Scope of Work, including the following elements:

2.6 Technical expertise to accurately evaluate and model the electrical power generation potential for the proposed DER installations at San Francisco International Airport.

2.7 Demonstrated understanding through application of the latest innovations in and capital costs for solar PV manufacturing for both roof / canopy mounted and building-integrated applications, battery energy storage system technologies, small- and micro-scale wind, grid interconnection requirements, and maintenance strategies.

2.8 Experience with assessing structural and other infrastructure modifications associated with installation of rooftop and canopy solar panel arrays and other types of DERs.

2.9 Technical expertise in electric power system integration to network dispersed DER systems using building or campus energy management and control systems, optimize and monitor the use of the electricity generated from and used by DER systems, including the use of batteries or other energy storage for cost-effectively optimizing the consumption of the generated


AIR-590 (1-15) 22 of 34 February 26, 2019

renewable electricity and maximizing electric rate benefits (e.g. energy and demand charge savings).

2.10 Experience with cost-benefit and electric rate analysis for renewable energy and DER systems, including evaluating the greenhouse emission offset potential of on-site renewable electricity generation.

2.11 Experience developing DER asset management strategy, including O&M approaches of the installed DER systems over the system lifetime and the financial implications of these O&M approaches.

2.12 Expertise in municipal project finance, analysis of various ownership scenarios by municipal entities, and evaluation of incentives and subsidies, including an approach to assisting the Airport obtain financing and incentives for renewable DER projects.

2.13 Experience in campus-style and institutional scale planning, design, and construction projects, especially noting any direct Airport experience.

Team Qualifications for Optional Tasks 2.14 Experience analyzing and recommending microgrid configurations in campus-style settings

with a demonstrated technical understanding of microgrid controls and technology approaches, interconnection issues, applicable financing and incentives, and integration with existing building energy management and control schemes. (Optional Task 11)

2.15 Experience using software models or tools in microgrid analysis. (Optional Task 11) 2.16 Technical capability to perform tasks of the type anticipated in Optional Task 12.

Firms that do not possess the experience necessary to perform the Optional Tasks identified in Section II – Scope of Work are not excluded from proposing or being selected, as the Optional Tasks are unique and specific requests for support that are not essential to the Required Tasks. However, all proposers shall provide qualifications for all tasks. Proposers will be primarily evaluated on the basis of their ability to perform the Required Tasks, with less weight being given to their ability to perform the Optional Tasks.

3. Project Approach (25 Points)

3.1 Coordinating/managing all work activities to meet project milestones and deliverable due dates, including assignment of work within the firm’s work team;

3.2 Potentially accelerating the schedule to deliver the Required Tasks in the Scope of Work in less than the maximum required nine (9) months;

3.3 Controlling cost and schedule and the processes/measures used; 3.4 Tracking document/report delivery and quality, work performance and effective QA/QC; 3.5 Notifying and resolving technical issues and cost/schedule variances, and process(es) used; 3.6 Identifying potential design, environmental, and/or building constraints; 3.7 Demonstrating ability to complete the project within the City’s required time frame and within

budget; 3.8 Demonstrating familiarity with FAA, State and local government rules and regulations pertaining to

the construction of DER systems; 3.9 Technical approach demonstrating clear understanding of the issues related to the installation of DER

systems that incorporates an assessment of the required infrastructure modifications and approach for integration into the existing electrical distribution system. The approach must consider roof age and condition and security and access issues in an airport context.

3.10 Criteria for DER requirements for future DER projects at SFO, including examples of high-level criteria to be included, such as electrical protection requirements, design criteria for meeting utility interconnection standards, etc.

3.11 Modeling DERs, noting the software and any other tools used.


AIR-590 (1-15) 23 of 34 February 26, 2019

3.12 Analyzing and recommending microgrid configurations in campus-style settings, including any software models or tools that will be used in microgrid analysis (for Optional Task 11).

C. Oral Interview and Presentation - Optional (50 points) Following the evaluation of the written proposals, the Airport may decide to invite the three (3) highest-ranking proposers to an oral interview. The interview would consist of standard questions asked of each proposer. Each interview, with maximum 90-minute duration, may include a brief presentation of project approach, staff experience, and work experience by each team. The interview panel members may ask questions from each team relevant to the substance of each team’s proposal. The City would combine both the written and oral interview scores of the short listed proposers to arrive at the final scores used to select the proposer recommended to proceed with this work scope. Oral interview evaluation criteria may include, but is not limited to: 1. Experience and qualifications: Relevance of the team’s technical experience in conducting DER feasibility

studies, cost analyses, developing O&M strategies, actionable DER plans, and delivery of the project. 2. Demonstrated expertise in electrical energy systems and DER: Demonstrate a thorough understanding of

the technologies relevant to deployment at airports, and how those technologies are integrated and optimized.

3. Project Approach: Team’s approach to evaluating candidate sites, engaging Airport stakeholders, analyzing

data, synthesizing recommendations, and developing actionable project scoping documents (i.e. a set of next steps toward DER implementation with detailed project requirements).

4. Key staff assigned to project: Technical capability of the Project Lead and team members to deliver a high-

quality product on time. 5. Presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes of demonstrated DER project expertise and successful

completion of DER feasibility studies.


AIR-590 (1-15) 24 of 34 February 26, 2019

V. Pre-Proposal Conference and Contract award A. Pre-Proposal Conference Proposers are encouraged to attend a pre-proposal conference on March 8, 2019, at 10:00 am (Pacific Time) to be held at the Airport’s International Terminal, main hall level 4, in the Airport Conference Center Training Room. Detailed directions will be posted to the City Office of Contract Administration bid site (http://mission.sfgov.org/OCABidPublication/). Interested parties not able to attend in person may listen to the conference by calling (650) 466-0290, Conference ID: 6764136. A presentation will be posted to the bid site in advance of the meeting, and may be accessed during the pre-proposal conference online at: https://meet.lync.com/sfgov1-flysfo/john.galloway/H7J5KWQR All questions will be addressed at this conference and any available new information will be provided at that time. If you have further questions regarding the RFP, please contact the individual designated in Section VI.B. B. Contract Award The Airport Commission will select a proposer with whom Airport Commission staff shall commence contract negotiations. The selection of any proposal shall not imply acceptance by the City of all terms of the proposal, which may be subject to further negotiations and approvals before the City may be legally bound thereby. If a satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated in a reasonable time the Airport Commission, in its sole discretion, may terminate negotiations with the highest ranked proposer and begin contract negotiations with the next highest ranked proposer. Appendix E: draft copy of the Air-600 contract which will be signed by the successful contractor is attached for review.

http://mission.sfgov.org/OCABidPublication/

https://meet.lync.com/sfgov1-flysfo/john.galloway/H7J5KWQR


AIR-590 (1-15) 25 of 34 February 26, 2019

VI. Terms and Conditions for Receipt of Proposals A. Errors and Omissions in RFP Proposers are responsible for reviewing all portions of this RFP. Proposers are to promptly notify the Department, in writing, if the proposer discovers any ambiguity, discrepancy, omission, or other error in the RFP. Any such notification should be directed to the Department promptly after discovery, but in no event later than five working days prior to the date for receipt of proposals. Modifications and clarifications will be made by addenda as provided below. B. Inquiries Regarding RFP Inquiries regarding the RFP and all oral notifications of an intent to request written modification or clarification of the RFP, must be directed by email to: John Galloway, Program Manager Email Address: [email protected] C. Objections to RFP Terms Should a proposer object on any ground to any provision or legal requirement set forth in this RFP, the proposer must, not more than ten calendar days after the RFP is issued, provide written notice to the Department setting forth with specificity the grounds for the objection. The failure of a proposer to object in the manner set forth in this paragraph shall constitute a complete and irrevocable waiver of any such objection. D. Change Notices The City may modify the RFP, prior to the proposal due date, by issuing Change Notices, which will be posted on the website. The proposer shall be responsible for ensuring that its proposal reflects any and all Change Notices issued by the City prior to the proposal due date regardless of when the proposal is submitted. Therefore, the City recommends that the proposer consult the website frequently, including shortly before the proposal due date, to determine if the proposer has downloaded all Change Notices. E. Term of Proposal Submission of a proposal signifies that the proposed services and prices are valid for 120 calendar days from the proposal due date and that the quoted prices are genuine and not the result of collusion or any other anti-competitive activity. F. Revision of Proposal A proposer may revise a proposal on the proposer’s own initiative at any time before the deadline for submission of proposals. The proposer must submit the revised proposal in the same manner as the original. A revised proposal must be received on or before the proposal due date. In no case will a statement of intent to submit a revised proposal, or commencement of a revision process, extend the proposal due date for any proposer.


AIR-590 (1-15) 26 of 34 February 26, 2019

At any time during the proposal evaluation process, the Department may require a proposer to provide oral or written clarification of its proposal. The Department reserves the right to make an award without further clarifications of proposals received. G. Errors and Omissions in Proposal Failure by the Department to object to an error, omission, or deviation in the proposal will in no way modify the RFP or excuse the vendor from full compliance with the specifications of the RFP or any contract awarded pursuant to the RFP. H. Financial Responsibility The City accepts no financial responsibility for any costs incurred by a firm in responding to this RFP. Submissions of the RFP will become the property of the City and may be used by the City in any way deemed appropriate. I. Proposer’s Obligations under the Campaign Reform Ordinance Proposers must comply with Section 1.126 of the S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, which states: No person who contracts with the City and County of San Francisco for the rendition of personal services, for the furnishing of any material, supplies or equipment to the City, or for selling any land or building to the City, whenever such transaction would require approval by a City elective officer, or the board on which that City elective officer serves, shall make any contribution to such an officer, or candidates for such an office, or committee controlled by such officer or candidate at any time between commencement of negotiations and the later of either (1) the termination of negotiations for such contract, or (2) three months have elapsed from the date the contract is approved by the City elective officer or the board on which that City elective officer serves. If a proposer is negotiating for a contract that must be approved by an elected local officer or the board on which that officer serves, during the negotiation period the proposer is prohibited from making contributions to:

• the officer’s re-election campaign • a candidate for that officer’s office • a committee controlled by the officer or candidate.

The negotiation period begins with the first point of contact, either by telephone, in person, or in writing, when a contractor approaches any city officer or employee about a particular contract, or a city officer or employee initiates communication with a potential contractor about a contract. The negotiation period ends when a contract is awarded or not awarded to the contractor. Examples of initial contacts include: (1) a vendor contacts a city officer or employee to promote himself or herself as a candidate for a contract; and (2) a city officer or employee contacts a contractor to propose that the contractor apply for a contract. Inquiries for information about a particular contract, requests for documents relating to a Request for Proposal, and requests to be placed on a mailing list do not constitute negotiations. Violation of Section 1.126 may result in the following criminal, civil, or administrative penalties:

• Criminal. Any person who knowingly or willfully violates section 1.126 is subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and a jail term of not more than six months, or both.


AIR-590 (1-15) 27 of 34 February 26, 2019

• Civil. Any person who intentionally or negligently violates section 1.126 may be held liable in a civil action brought by the civil prosecutor for an amount up to $5,000.

• Administrative. Any person who intentionally or negligently violates section 1.126 may be held liable in an administrative proceeding before the Ethics Commission held pursuant to the Charter for an amount up to $5,000 for each violation.

For further information, proposers should contact the San Francisco Ethics Commission at (415) 581-2300. J. Sunshine Ordinance In accordance with S.F. Administrative Code Section 67.24(e), contractors’ bids, responses to RFPs and all other records of communications between the City and persons or firms seeking contracts shall be open to inspection immediately after a contract has been awarded. Nothing in this provision requires the disclosure of a private person’s or organization’s net worth or other proprietary financial data submitted for qualification for a contract or other benefits until and unless that person or organization is awarded the contract or benefit. Information provided which is covered by this paragraph will be made available to the public upon request. K. Public Access to Meetings and Records If a proposer is a non-profit entity that receives a cumulative total per year of at least $250,000 in City funds or City-administered funds and is a non-profit organization as defined in Chapter 12L of the S.F. Administrative Code, the proposer must comply with Chapter 12L. The proposer must include in its proposal (1) a statement describing its efforts to comply with the Chapter 12L provisions regarding public access to proposer’s meetings and records, and (2) a summary of all complaints concerning the proposer’s compliance with Chapter 12L that were filed with the City in the last two years and deemed by the City to be substantiated. The summary shall also describe the disposition of each complaint. If no such complaints were filed, the proposer shall include a statement to that effect. Failure to comply with the reporting requirements of Chapter 12L or material misrepresentation in proposer’s Chapter 12L submissions shall be grounds for rejection of the proposal and/or termination of any subsequent Agreement reached on the basis of the proposal. L. Reservations of Rights by the City The issuance of this RFP does not constitute an agreement by the City that any contract will actually be entered into by the City. The City expressly reserves the right at any time to:

• Waive or correct any defect or informality in any response, proposal, or proposal procedure;

• Reject any or all proposals;

• Reissue a Request for Proposals;

• Prior to submission deadline for proposals, modify all or any portion of the selection procedures, including deadlines for accepting responses, the specifications or requirements for any materials, equipment or services to be provided under this RFP, or the requirements for contents or format of the proposals;

• Procure any materials, equipment or services specified in this RFP by any other means; or

• Determine that no project will be pursued.


AIR-590 (1-15) 28 of 34 February 26, 2019

M. No Waiver No waiver by the City of any provision of this RFP shall be implied from any failure by the City to recognize or take action on account of any failure by a proposer to observe any provision of this RFP. N. Local Business Enterprise Requirements and Outreach The requirements of the Local Business Enterprise and Non-Discrimination in Contracting Ordinance set forth in Chapter 14B of the San Francisco Administrative Code as it now exists or as it may be amended in the future (collectively the “LBE Ordinance”) shall apply to this RFP. All prime consultants and subconsultants will be required to enter all subconsultants’ payment information and confirm all payments received in the City's secure web-based system called the Local Business Enterprise Utilization Tracking system (LBEUTS). This requirement is in addition to any other requirements for requesting payment from the City. The information previously submitted through CMD Forms 7 and 9 will now be entered into the LBEUTS for each progress payment. Prior to the Notice to Proceed, the prime consultant will be required to enter subconsultants information into LBEUTS. The prime consultant will then be required to enter information before and after each progress payment. After payment, subconsultants will be required to confirm receipt of payment through LBEUTS. The Contract Monitoring Division (CMD) will use this information to monitor compliance with the 14B LBE Ordinance. It is strongly encouraged that each consultant receive training in LBEUTS prior to the Notice to Proceed. For more information about LBEUTS and upcoming training sessions, please go to. http://www.sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=6182 . 1. LBE Subcontracting Participation Requirement The LBE subcontracting participation requirement for this project is 3.0% of the total value of the goods and/or services to be procured. The LBE subcontracting requirement can only be met with CMD-certified Small or Micro-LBEs. Pursuant to Sec. 14B.9 of the Administrative Code, proposers are hereby advised that the subcontracting requirement is based on data indicating availability of 1.0% Minority Business Enterprises (“MBE”), 1.0% Woman Business Enterprises (“WBE”) and 1.0% Other Business Enterprises (“OBE”) to perform subcontracting work on this project. Proposers are further advised that they may not discriminate in the selection of subconsultants on the basis of race, gender, or other basis prohibited by law, and that they shall undertake all required good faith outreach steps in such a manner as to ensure that neither MBEs, WBEs, nor OBEs are unfairly or arbitrarily excluded from the required outreach. Each Proposer responding to this solicitation shall demonstrate in its response that it has used good-faith outreach to select LBE subconsultants as set forth in S.F. Administrative Code 14B.8 and 14B.9, and shall identify the particular LBE subconsultant solicited and selected to be used in performing the contract. For each LBE identified as a subconsultant, the response must specify the value of the participation as a percentage of the total value of the goods and/or services to be procured, the type of work to be performed, and such information as may reasonably be required to determine the responsiveness of the proposal. LBEs identified as subconsultants must be certified with the San Francisco CMD at the time of the proposal due date, and must be contacted by the proposer (prime consultant) prior to listing them as subconsultant in the proposal. It is the sole responsibility of the Proposer to confirm the status of LBEs identified as subconsultants through the San Francisco CMD Directory of Certified LBEs, available at http://sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=6132. Any proposal that does not meet the requirements of this paragraph will be non-responsive.

http://www.sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=6182


AIR-590 (1-15) 29 of 34 February 26, 2019

In addition to demonstrating that it will achieve the level of subcontracting participation required by the contract, a proposer shall also undertake and document in its submittal the good faith efforts required by Chapter 14B.8 (D)&(E) and CMD Attachment 2, Requirements for Architecture, Engineering and Professional Services Contracts. However, pursuant to 14B.8 (B), if a proposer submits a proposal demonstrating LBE participation that exceeds by 35% of the established LBE subcontracting participation requirement for the project, the proposer will not be required to conduct good faith efforts or to file evidence of good faith efforts as required in Sections 14B.8 (D) & (E). A certified Small and/or Micro LBE prime proposer may count its participation towards meeting the good faith outreach exception set forth in 14B.8(B). Proposals which fail to comply with the material requirements of S.F. Administrative Code 14B.8 and 14B.9, CMD Attachment 2 and this RFP will be deemed non-responsive and will be rejected. During the term of the contract, any failure to comply with the level of LBE subcontracting participation specified in the contract shall be deemed a material breach of contract. Subcontracting requirements can only be met with CMD-certified LBEs located in San Francisco. 2. Certified LBE Bid Discount /Rating Bonus

a. Micro LBE and Small LBE Rating Bonus The City strongly encourages proposals from qualified, certified Micro and Small LBEs. Pursuant to Chapter 14B, a rating bonus will be in effect for the award of this project for any proposers who are certified by CMD as a Micro or Small LBE, or joint ventures whereby each joint venture partner meets the minimum qualifications in the proposal, with the specific levels of participation as identified below. For joint ventures, the certified Micro and /or Small LBE must be an active partner in the joint venture and perform work of a commercially useful function, manage the job and take financial risks in proportion to the required level of participation stated in the proposal, and must be responsible for a clearly defined portion of the work to be performed and share in the ownership, control, management responsibilities, risks, and profits of the joint venture. The portion of the certified Micro and/or Small LBE joint venture’s work shall be set forth in detail separately from the work to be performed by the non-LBE joint venture partner. The certified Micro and/or Small LBE joint venture’s portion of the contract must be assigned a commercially useful function. The LBE joint venture partner must perform Prime Level Work and be CMD certified for the scope of work they are proposing to perform in order to be eligible for the bid discount/rating bonus. Joint ventures receive bid discounts/rating bonuses depending upon the LBE percentage of prime level participation. Certification applications may be obtained by calling CMD at (415) 581-2310. The rating bonus applies at each phase of the selection process. The application of the rating bonus is as follows:

i) 10% to a certified Micro or Small LBE; or a joint venture between or among certified Micro or Small LBEs;

ii) 5% to a joint venture with certified Micro and/or Small LBE participation, whose participation is equal to or exceeds 35%, but is under 40% or

iii) 7.5% to a joint venture with certified Micro and/or Small LBE participation, whose participation equals or exceeds 40%; or

iv) 10% to a certified non-profit entity. The rating bonus will be applied by adding 5%, 7.5%, or 10% (as applicable) to the score of each Proposer eligible for a bonus for the purposes of determining the highest ranked Proposer.


AIR-590 (1-15) 30 of 34 February 26, 2019

b. Small Business Administration (SBA) LBE Rating Bonus Pursuant to Chapter 14B.7(E), for contracts between $400,000 and $10 million, a 5% rating bonus will be in effect for proposers who are certified by CMD as a SBA LBE; however, the 5% rating bonus shall not be applied at any stage if it would adversely affect a Micro or Small LBE proposer or a J/V with LBE participation. 3. CMD Forms to Submit with Proposal

a. All proposals submitted must include the following CMD Forms contained in the CMD Attachment 2: i) Form 2A, CMD Contract Participation Form, ii) Form 2B - CMD “Good Faith Outreach” Requirements Form, iii) Form 3, CMD Compliance Affidavit, iv) Form 4, CMD Joint Venture Form (if applicable), and v) Form 5, CMD Employment Form. If these forms are not returned with the proposal, the proposal may be determined to be non-responsive and may be rejected.

b. Please submit only one (1) copy of the above forms with your proposal. The forms should be placed

in a separate, sealed envelope labeled CMD Forms. Airport Commission staff will deliver them to the attention of the San Francisco CMD.

If you have any questions concerning the CMD Forms, you may call Antonio Tom, at (650) 821-9477 or via email at [email protected].


AIR-590 (1-15) 31 of 34 February 26, 2019

VII. City and Airport Contract Requirements A. Standard Contract Provisions The successful proposer will be required to enter into a contract substantially in the form of the Agreement for Professional Services, attached hereto as Appendix E. Failure to timely execute the contract, or to furnish any and all insurance certificates and policy endorsement, surety bonds or other materials required in the contract, shall be deemed an abandonment of a contract offer. The City, in its sole discretion, may select another firm and may proceed against the original selectee for damages. Proposers are urged to pay special attention to the requirements of Administrative Code Chapters 12B and 12C, Nondiscrimination Requirements, (§10.5 “Nondiscrimination Requirements” in the Agreement); the Minimum Compensation Ordinance (§10.7 “Minimum Compensation Ordinance” in the Agreement); the “Health Care Accountability Ordinance” (§10.8 “Health Care Accountability Ordinance” in the Agreement); the First Source Hiring Program (§10.9 “First Source Hiring Program” in the Agreement); and applicable conflict of interest laws (§10.2 “Conflict of Interest” in the Agreement), as set forth in paragraphs B, C, D, E and F below. B. Nondiscrimination in Contracts and Benefits The successful proposer will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of Chapters 12B and 12C of the San Francisco Administrative Code. Generally, Chapter 12B prohibits the City and County of San Francisco from entering into contracts or leases with any entity that discriminates in the provision of benefits between employees with domestic partners and employees with spouses, and/or between the domestic partners and spouses of employees. The Chapter 12C requires nondiscrimination in contracts in public accommodation. Additional information on Chapters 12B and 12C is available on the CMD’s website at: http://sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=6125 . C. Minimum Compensation Ordinance (MCO) The successful proposer will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance (MCO), as set forth in S.F. Administrative Code Chapter 12P. Generally, this Ordinance requires contractors to provide employees covered by the Ordinance who do work funded under the contract with hourly gross compensation and paid and unpaid time off that meet certain minimum requirements. For the contractual requirements of the MCO, see §10.7 “Minimum Compensation Ordinance” in the Agreement. For the amount of hourly gross compensation currently required under the MCO or additional information, see www.sfgov.org/olse/mco . Note that this hourly rate may increase on January 1 of each year and that contractors will be required to pay any such increases to covered employees during the term of the contract. D. Health Care Accountability Ordinance (HCAO) The successful proposer will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of the Health Care Accountability Ordinance (HCAO), as set forth in S.F. Administrative Code Chapter 12Q. Contractors should consult the San Francisco Administrative Code to determine their compliance obligations under this chapter. Additional information regarding the HCAO is available on the web at www.sfgov.org/olse/hcao .

http://sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=6125

http://www.sfgov.org/olse/mco

http://www.sfgov.org/olse/hcao


AIR-590 (1-15) 32 of 34 February 26, 2019

E. First Source Hiring Program (FSHP) If the contract is for more than $50,000, then the First Source Hiring Program (Admin. Code Chapter 83) may apply. Generally, this ordinance requires contractors to notify the First Source Hiring Program of available entry-level jobs and provide the Workforce Development System with the first opportunity to refer qualified individuals for employment. Contractor will complete, sign and submit a First Source Hiring Agreement with the Contractor’s proposal. Failure to submit a completed and signed First Source Hiring Agreement with the Contractor’s proposal will result in a rejected bid or proposal. The link to the First Source Hiring Agreement can found in Appendix B. F. Conflicts of Interest The successful proposer will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the applicable provisions of state and local laws related to conflicts of interest, including Section 15.103 of the City's Charter, Article III, Chapter 2 of City’s Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, and Section 87100 et seq. and Section 1090 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California. The successful proposer will be required to acknowledge that it is familiar with these laws; certify that it does not know of any facts that constitute a violation of said provisions; and agree to immediately notify the City if it becomes aware of any such fact during the term of the Agreement. Individuals who will perform work for the City on behalf of the successful proposer might be deemed consultants under state and local conflict of interest laws. If so, such individuals will be required to submit a Statement of Economic Interests, California Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700, to the City within ten calendar days of the City notifying the successful proposer that the City has selected the proposer. G. Administrative Code Chapter 12X: Contractors in Certain States This Contract is subject to the requirements of Administrative Code Chapter 12X, which prohibits the City from entering into a contract with a contractor that has its United States headquarters in a state with a law or laws that perpetuate discrimination against LGBT people, or a contractor that will perform any or all of the work on the contract in such a state. Chapter 12X requires the City Administrator to maintain a list of states that meet the definition of a Covered State, as that term is defined under Administrative Code Section 12X.2. The Covered State List is available at the website of the City Administrator. Subject to certain exceptions located at section 12X.5(b), Proposers are hereby advised that Chapter 12X prohibits the City from entering into a contract with a Proposer that has its United States headquarters in a state on the Covered State List, or a Proposer that will perform any or all of the work on the contract in a state on the Covered State List. Contractor will complete, sign and submit the information requested on Appendix C with the Contractor’s proposal. Failure to submit a completed and signed document with the Contractor’s proposal will result in a rejected bid or proposal. The link to the Administrative Code 12X can be found here: http://sfgsa.org/chapter-12x-anti-lgbt-state-ban-list . H. Airport Intellectual Property Pursuant to Resolution No. 01-0118, adopted by the Airport Commission on April 18, 2001, the Airport Commission affirmed that it will not tolerate the unauthorized use of its intellectual property, including the SFO logo, CADD designs, and copyrighted publications. All proposers, bidders, contractors, tenants, permittees, and others doing business with or at the Airport (including subcontractors and subtenants) may not use the Airport intellectual property, or any intellectual property confusingly similar to the Airport intellectual property, without the Airport Director’s prior consent.

http://sfgsa.org/chapter-12x-anti-lgbt-state-ban-list



AIR-590 (1-15) 33 of 34 February 26, 2019

I. Labor Peace / Card Check Rule Without limiting the generality of other provisions herein requiring Contractor to comply with all Airport Rules, Contractor shall comply with the Airport’s Labor Peace/Card Check Rule, adopted on February 1, 2000, pursuant to Airport Commission Resolution No.00-0049 (the “Labor Peace/Card Check Rule”). Capitalized terms not defined in this provision are defined in the Labor Peace/Card Check Rule. To comply with the Labor Peace Card Check Rule, Contractor shall, among other actions: (a) Enter into a Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement with any Labor Organization which requests such an agreement and which has registered with the Airport Director or his/her designee, within thirty (30) days after the Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement has been requested; (b) Not less than thirty (30) days prior to the modification of this Agreement, Contractor shall provide notice by mail to any Labor Organization or federation of labor organizations which have registered with the Director or his/her designee (“registered labor organization”), that Contractor is seeking to modify or extend this Agreement; (c) Upon issuing any request for proposals, invitations to bid, or similar notice, or in any event not less than thirty (30) days prior to entering into any Subcontract, Contractor shall provide notice to all registered Labor Organizations that Contractor is seeking to enter into such Subcontract; and (d) Contractor shall include in any subcontract with a Subcontractor performing services pursuant to any covered Contract, a provision requiring the Subcontractor to comply with the requirements of the Labor/Peace/Card Check Rule. If Airport Director determines that Contractor shall have violated the Labor/Peace/Card Check Rule, Airport Director shall have the option to terminate this Agreement, in additional exercising all other remedies available to him / her.


AIR-590 (1-15) 34 of 34 February 26, 2019

VIII. Protest Procedures A. Protest of Non-Responsiveness Determination Within five working days of the City's issuance of a notice of non-responsiveness, any firm that has submitted a proposal and believes that the City has incorrectly determined that its proposal is non-responsive may submit a written notice of protest. Such notice of protest must be received by the City on or before the fifth working day following the City's issuance of the notice of non-responsiveness. The notice of protest must include a written statement specifying in detail each and every one of the grounds asserted for the protest. The protest must be signed by an individual authorized to represent the proposer, and must cite the law, rule, local ordinance, procedure or RFP provision on which the protest is based. In addition, the protestor must specify facts and evidence sufficient for the City to determine the validity of the protest. B. Protest of Contract Award Within five working days of the City's issuance of a notice of intent to award the contract, any firm that has submitted a responsive proposal and believes that the City has incorrectly selected another proposer for award may submit a written notice of protest. Such notice of protest must be received by the City on or before the fifth working day after the City's issuance of the notice of intent to award. The notice of protest must include a written statement specifying in detail each and every one of the grounds asserted for the protest. The protest must be signed by an individual authorized to represent the proposer, and must cite the law, rule, local ordinance, procedure or RFP provision on which the protest is based. In addition, the protestor must specify facts and evidence sufficient for the City to determine the validity of the protest. C. Delivery of Protests All protests must be received by the due date. If a protest is mailed, the protestor bears the risk of non-delivery within the deadlines specified herein. Protests should be transmitted by a means that will objectively establish the date the City received the protest. Protests or notice of protests made orally (e.g., by telephone) will not be considered. Protests must be delivered to: Cynthia Avakian [email protected] Tel: 650-821-2014


AIR-590 (1-15) B-1 February 26, 2019

Appendix A

Contract Monitoring Division Forms 1. Attachment 2. Requirements for Architecture, Engineering, & Professional Services Contracts:

http://sfgov.org/cmd/important-forms

Appendix B First Source Hiring Agreement

The First Source Hiring Agreement can be downloaded online at: http://oewd.org/sites/default/files/Documents/professional_services_fsha.pdf

http://sfgov.org/cmd/important-forms

http://oewd.org/sites/default/files/Documents/professional_services_fsha.pdf


AIR-590 (1-15) C-1 February 26, 2019

Appendix C Administrative Code Chapter 12X: Contractors in Certain States

http://sfgsa.org/chapter-12x-anti-lgbt-state-ban-list Proposers are hereby advised that Chapter 12X prohibits the City from entering into a contract with a Proposer that has its United States headquarters in a state on the Covered State List, or a Proposer that will perform any or all of the work on the contract in a state on the Covered State List. I certify that my company’s United States headquarters, if any, is at the following address and will notify the City if my company's United States headquarters moves: Signature Date I certify that the work on this contract will be performed in the following state or states: Signature Date



AIR-590 (1-15) D-1 February 26, 2019

Appendix D Standard Forms

The requirements described in this Appendix are separate from those described in Appendices A and B. Before the City can award any contract to a contractor, that contractor must file electronically standard information which can be found at: https://sfcitypartner.sfgov.org/ for information about the City and County of San Francisco's Supplier Portal and its new financial system - Financials and Procurement System. SF City Partner User Support Knowledge Center Online: https://sfcitypartnersupport.sfgov.org/support/home . Email: https://sfcitypartnersupport.sfgov.org/support/tickets/new/?form_1=true. Phone: 415/944-2442

https://sfcitypartner.sfgov.org/

https://sfcitypartnersupport.sfgov.org/support/home

https://sfcitypartnersupport.sfgov.org/support/tickets/new/?form_1=true


AIR-590 (1-15) E-1 February 26, 2019

Appendix E Agreement for Professional Services

Provided as a separate document


AIR-590 (1-15) F-1 February 26, 2019

Appendix F Scope of Work for Phase 1 Project and Draft Scope of work for Phase 3 Project

PHASE 1 – GENERAL SITE SUITABILITY ANALYSIS

[This phase was completed in February 2018 and is included in this RFP for information only to guide the respondents in preparing the requested submittals.]

The intent of the Ocular Glint and Glare Hazard Analysis of the study program tasks is to develop a list of suitable candidate roof tops and parking lot sites for installation of photovoltaic (PV) panels at San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”) based on FAA’s ocular glint and glare hazard standards included in the “Technical Guidance for Evaluating Selected Solar Technologies on Airports” and “Interim Policy, FAA Review of Solar Energy System Projects on Federally Obligated Airports,” and in conformance with the FAA conditionally approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for SFO. This assessment includes four tasks as described below. 1. Task A – Develop an Initial Candidate Site List for Installation of Solar PV Arrays on SFO

Building Rooftops, Parking Garages, and Parking Lot Spaces. Commission staff has compiled data on the gross surface area of roof spaces of existing buildings and, parking garages, and the surface area of parking lots at the Airport as shown in Appendices G through I. Commission staff will provide Contractor with maps showing the location of the buildings and parking garages, and the parking lots. Contractor shall review and verify the information provided in the above sources in preparation for conducting the Ocular Glint and Glare Hazard Analysis as described in this Scope of Services. Areas associated with the United Airlines Maintenance Operations Center (MOC) are delineated separately in recognition of the MOC leasing agreements. Contractor is also required to prepare a schematic layout of the hypothetical solar panel arrays that might be installed over individual roof spaces and on top of canopies that would be constructed over the roof of parking garages and on parking lots. The height of the lowest point of the canopies should be assumed to be 25 feet above the roof elevation in parking garages and 30 feet above the ground elevation at parking lots. The slope of each canopy shall be determined based on the optimal orientation of the panels to minimize the potential glare and glint hazards. 2. Task B – Conduct a Survey of Current and Near-term Solar PV Panel Technology Contractor shall conduct a comprehensive assessment of the current solar PV panel technologies, as well as technologies that are expected to be introduced to the market in the near term. This analysis shall recommend optimal PV panel material, panel configurations, orientation, and layouts for the individual candidate sites at SFO listed in Tables 1 and 2, as inputs for performing the ocular glint and glare hazard analysis under Task C. A task report shall be prepared summarizing the results of this review and describing the rationale for the recommendations. 3. Task C – Assess the Ocular Glint and Glare Hazards of Candidate PV Panel Array Sites, in

Conformance with FAA Requirements. Contractor shall perform a detailed assessment of the ocular glint and glare hazards of planned candidate solar PV panel arrays on roof spaces and parking lots at SFO, listed in Tables 1 and 2, using FAA’s Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT). Contractor shall also evaluate the collective ocular glint and glare hazards of the combined candidate sites using such other methods and tools that may be identified by the proposer that would address the unique issues posed by the large scale and the degree of concentration of


AIR-590 (1-15) F-2 February 26, 2019

the proposed PVC array installations at SFO. Based on this analysis the candidate sites shall be ranked in the following order:

3.1 Sites posing no potential for ocular glare or glint hazards for the existing and recently completed FAA Air Traffic Control Tower Cabs at SFO.

3.2 Sites posing no potential for glare or “low potential for after-image” (shown in green in

Figure 1 of FAA’s October 2013 “Interim Policy, FAA Review of Solar Energy System Projects on Federally Obligated Airports”) along the final approach path for any existing landing threshold or future landing thresholds (including any planned interim phases of the landing thresholds) as shown on the current FAA- conditionally approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The final approach path is defined as two (2) miles from fifty (50) feet above the landing threshold using a standard three (3) degree glide path. Ocular impact must be analyzed over the entire calendar year in one (1) minute intervals from when the sun rises above the horizon until the sun sets below the horizon.

3.3 Compliance with additional FAA requirements including Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) airspace safety criteria. The FAA’s “Technical Guidance for Selected Solar Technologies at Airports” (published by the FAA in November 2010, and also referred to as the FAA Solar Guide) should be consulted for information on the required airspace safety compliance issues.

A list of viable candidate sites shall be developed using the results of the above analyses, including the recommended optimal panel orientation and tilt at each site. All unsuitable sites shall be summarized as well. Documentation shall be provided for the results of SGHAT and glint hazard analysis of candidate sites in conformance with FAA guidance and requirements. The analysis shall also include an assessment of SGHAT and glint hazard of the combined solar power generation facilities, which have met the FAA’s glare and glint hazard limits, when considered as separate solar panel array sites. 4. Task D – Reporting Requirements A task report shall be submitted upon completion of each of the Tasks A through C summarizing the technical approach and the findings of the relevant task. Contractor shall also prepare a detailed report summarizing the combined results of the findings of Tasks A through C in a format compatible with FAA and other applicable regulatory requirements.

PRELIMINARY DRAFT Phase 3 Scope of Work for Implementing Proposed Airport-Wide DER Systems

A detailed plan will be developed for consideration by the Airport Commission to potentially implement the DER systems that were recommended in Phase 2 and will be further developed into discrete projects in this task. These projects are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to consideration by the Airport Commission for approval. The plan shall address the following steps in defining a potential implementation process:

• Sequencing of the infrastructure development/modification including structural strengthening of the recommended building sites and construction of required canopies over parking lots and parking structures.


AIR-590 (1-15) F-3 February 26, 2019

• Phasing of installation of DERs on roofs, parking lot canopies, and suitable mounting locations. • Electrical infrastructure modifications for distributing the DER electricity generated (e.g. solar

PV, battery discharge) and consumed (e.g. battery charging) at SFO. • Design of required interconnection facilities and protection equipment, assistance with any

required facility studies, and application processing; coordination with utility providers regarding same.

• Assessing the feasibility for storage of excess generated electricity at a central site or at distributed sites to meet the demand for electricity during night time hours and/or reduce peak demand.

• Metering and networking the various solar panel sites to allow tracking and assessing the performance of each site, and integrating the systems where possible into existing EMCS. An approach to energy reporting and data analysis are anticipated in this step.

• Identify any additional staffing requirements and required training for operation and maintenance of the installed solar power and/or solar-storage generation facilities.

The actual deliverables in this Phase will be determined after the completion of Phase 2, and may include but not be limited to:

* engineering drawings and calculations; * engineering design and/or consulting support; * additional cost analyses to support the final system designs; * DER technical specifications; * commissioning specifications, including a prefunctional checklist, drawing upon SFO’s existing

electrical commissioning documents; * engineering inspections; * building code support, including structural, electrical, fire code and seismic ratings; * permitting support; * development, construction, and commissioning services for installation of the selected energy

systems; * potential execution of a maintenance and/or asset management contract; * training of staff for ongoing operation and maintenance needs; * data analysis and reporting of system performance; * troubleshooting and fault analysis.

If SFO proceeds with an RFP for Phase 3, prior to the issuance of a Phase 3 RFP, the Phase 2 results would be reviewed by SFO Planning Design and Construction to determine the final project list and design the Phase 3 program scope of work.


AIR-590 (1-15) G-1 February 26, 2019

Appendix G List of SFO Facility Roof and Parking Areas

Table G-1

Gross Roof Area for United Maintenance Operations Center and SFO Controlled Buildings in Excess of 5,000 Square Feet

Building Type Description

Roof Area, sq. ft. *

Roof Area Subtotal,

acres

MOC UNITED AIRLINES MAINTENANCE CENTER 1,832,410 42.07

SFO TERMINAL BUILDINGS 2,078,773 47.72 SFO NON-TERMINAL BUILDINGS 2,521,153 57.88 Gross Roof Area 6,432,336 147.67

* Roof area is calculated from two-dimensional GIS maps and does not represent

actual roof size due to sloping

Table G-2 Gross Square Footage of Various Parking Lots at SFO

Name Lot Area,

sq. ft.

Lot Area Subtotal,

Acres MOC Parking 853,504 19.59 SFO Non-Public Parking 2,163,768 49.67 SFO Public Parking 2,951,573 67.76

Total Lot Area, Acres 5,968,845 137.02


AIR-590 (1-15) H-1 February 26, 2019

Appendix H Maps of Rooftop Areas at SFO


AIR-590 (1-15) H-2 February 26, 2019


AIR-590 (1-15) I-1 February 26, 2019

Appendix I Maps of Surface Parking Lots at SFO


AIR-590 (1-15) I-2 February 26, 2019


AIR-590 (1-15) J-1 February 26, 2019

Appendix J Excerpts of SFO Solar Glint and Flare Hazard Analysis Report

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Purpose of Report This report summarizes the findings of the comprehensive glare assessment of candidate rooftop and parking sites

at the San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”). The assessment encompassed both individual analyses of

potential photovoltaic (“PV”) sites, as well as an airport-wide coalescence analysis of all sites. 46 parking sites and

71 rooftop sites were evaluated for potential glare to the Air Traffic Control Tower (“ATCT”), eight approach

paths and two pseudo-runway paths. Recommendations include panel configurations (tilts and orientations) for

individual sites and for combined coalescing sites which adhere to current FAA policy.

1.2 Report Contents This Final Report comprises the following sections:

Key Definitions (Section 5) – Brief descriptions of relevant terminology used in glare analysis and in this report.

Introduction (Section 6) – Overview of report contents, method and results.

Site Rankings (Section 7) – Tabulated results of SFO coalescence analysis. These rankings specify the panel

configurations for sites, and site partitions, which successfully adhere to FAA requirements when considered in

combination.

Methodology (Section 8) – Detailed explanation of the analysis methods used when conducting the individual

site analyses and optimizations, as well as the custom coalescence analysis. This section also includes background

information on the science of glare and PV installations.

References & Acknowledgements (Sections 9 & 10) – List of pertinent sources and papers, as well as key

colleagues and personnel.

Appendices (Section 11) – Additional supporting documents including:

• Site maps and lists – Map visualizations and tabular information on rooftop and parking sites

• Site partition images – Visualizations of all site partitions, as well as the acceptable partitions comprising

the coalescence analysis recommendations

• Independent Site Optimizations – Optimization analysis results for each site and site partition. These

analyses evaluated potential glare from each partition over a range of panel orientations and tilts and

comprised the Task B effort. (Optimal individual configurations derived from these results represented

the starting setup of the Coalescence Analysis.)

• Site Partition Analysis Results – Compilation of analysis data for each site including partition map,

recommended individual panel configurations, recommended roof slope configurations (if applicable), and

optimal coalescence configurations, if found.

• Coalescing Site FAA Reports – Documents containing FAA-themed glare analysis reports for the 198

site partitions comprising the successful Coalescence Analysis. These reports are normally submitted with

Form 7460 when proposing PV installations.

• PV Module Survey – PV module survey data, including pertinent information on the various PV

technologies available.

• Airport Details Document – Information on runway and flight paths used to model the ten approach

path receptors during glare analysis.

• Candidate Site Partition Data – geodetic coordinate and PV parameter data for all 603 partitions.

50117 GLARE ASSESSMENT

Page 2

• Scientific Model Assumptions – Information on the simulation assumptions and approximations utilized

in glare analysis.

1.3 Assessment Findings The 117 candidate sites were partitioned into approximately 603 partitions for glare analysis. Single-site glare

analyses yielded optimal panel configurations (tilts and orientations) for the partitions on an individual basis,

excluding coalescence. These configuration recommendations prioritized system output while adhering to FAA

requirements. Additional configurations which accounted for roof slopes were also developed. These results are

included in Appendix 11.8: Site Partition Analysis Results and represent the Task B findings.

A subsequent Coalescence Analysis was conducted on all partitions to identify configurations which, if built, would

still adhere to FAA requirements when accumulating glare together. This analysis yielded 198 coalescing partitions

which meet FAA requirements even when combined. The Coalescence Analysis required an iterative approach to

identifying usable sites. Accordingly, sites with the largest surface area were prioritized. A tabular summary of

these successful partitions can be found in Section 7: Site Rankings.

Finally, a PV technology survey was conducted to identify optimal module selections. This survey aggregated panel

data such as manufacturer location, material types and cost information (when available). The utilization of smooth

glass panels with anti-reflective coatings – the industry standard – is generally recommended. A more specific

recommendation is not applicable - for the purposes of glare, PV material types follow a similar reflectance profile.

Glare output is not impacted appreciably by current module variations. Accordingly, further refinement of the

recommended PV modules should be performed on a project-by-project basis by PV developers and installers who

can better account for local differentiators such as cost and availability.

This report contains a substantial amount of information on many hundreds of potential PV array locations. A

suitable rule-of-thumb for using the contents is as follows:

• If the objective is to follow the coalescence results, proceed to the Site Rankings table, which prioritizes

sites with acceptable glare and large surface areas which coalesce in an acceptable manner.

• If investigating a single location, use the Appendix Analysis Results and Optimization Results to ascertain

optimal configurations for PV modules at that site.


Page 10

7 SITE RANKINGS This section tabulates the optimal site partitions which were derived from the full site coalescence analysis. These

partitions are ranked in order of glare generation and land area. If constructed, these sites will together adhere to

FAA requirements. A map visualization of the ideal coalescing sites is presented in section 7.1, for convenience.

Grey footprints in the map generate unacceptable coalescence results and are excluded from the optimal list. Note

that visualized partitions may not align perfectly, due to map tile and minor conversion offsets.

The original building site and parking site lists from the Statement of Work are included in this report as Appendix

0 through Appendix 11.4. These lists include the site name, number, map reference, surface area, and number of

partitions for each site. A map view of the original sites is also included.

7.1 Map of Optimal Coalescing Sites

Figure 6 – Map view of acceptable coalescing site partitions.

7.2 Table of Optimal Coalescing Site Rankings

These site partitions adhere to FAA glare guidelines even after coalescence. A similar table which includes all site

partitions, sorted by ID, is available in Appendix 11.6. These partitions also follow the 2010 guidance pertaining to

airspace and height limitations. The total acceptable coalescing surface area is

Note: partitions in red italics represent existing PV installations. Glare entries of ‘-‘ indicate no glare is expected.

Table 1 – List of ideal candidate site partitions based on coalescence analysis

RANK # SITE / PARTITION

ID AREA ORIENTATION TILT ATCT

GLARE RUNWAY

GLARE

sq. ft. acre 1 42PL 278,643 6.40 210 10 - -

2 B70-01 146,745 3.37 210 30 - -

3 46PG-SW 105,432 2.42 210 35 - -

4 46PG-NW 95,750 2.20 220 40 - -

5 17PL-3 90,371 2.08 220 40 - -

6 B52-1 86,820 1.99 200 30 - -

7 B71-08 65,841 1.51 210 30 - -

8 B55-1 58,418 1.34 210 30 - -

9 35PL 54,868 1.26 210 30 - -

10 B64-03 44,540 1.02 210 30 - -

11 B70-11 44,432 1.02 210 30 - -

12 B68-12 42,711 0.98 210 30 - -

13 B56-3 38,730 0.89 210 30 - -

14 B66-06 38,730 0.89 210 40 - -

15 B48-1 37,332 0.86 210 30 - -

16 B48-2 37,332 0.86 210 30 - -

17 B41-1 33,351 0.77 220 40 - -

18 B68-01 31,199 0.72 210 30 - -

19 30PL 30,124 0.69 220 30 - -

20 34PL 30,124 0.69 210 30 - -

21 B68-09 27,326 0.63 210 40 - -

22 B71-03 26,896 0.62 210 30 - -

23 B71-06 26,896 0.62 210 30 - -

24 B63-4 22,485 0.52 180 30 - -

25 B68-20 22,270 0.51 210 30 - -

26 17PL-6 21,517 0.49 220 35 - -

27 B51-2 19,795 0.45 220 40 - -

28 B64-23 16,998 0.39 200 30 - -

29 B65-06 15,707 0.36 210 40 - -

30 B70-10 15,062 0.35 210 30 - -

31 B70-12 15,062 0.35 210 30 - -

32 B60-2 14,739 0.34 200 30 - -

33 B69-34 14,739 0.34 180 25 - -

34 B46-01 14,416 0.33 210 30 - -

35 B64-14 14,309 0.33 200 30 - -

36 B51-1 14,201 0.33 220 40 - -

37 B64-19 13,556 0.31 200 30 - -

38 B70-03 13,448 0.31 210 30 - -

39 B46-04 13,340 0.31 180 30 - -

40 B71-07 13,233 0.30 210 30 - -

41 B70-04 12,910 0.30 210 30 - -

42 B70-05 12,910 0.30 210 30 - -

43 B64-11 12,695 0.29 200 30 - -

44 B64-22 12,480 0.29 200 30 - -

45 B64-17 11,511 0.26 200 30 - -

46 B58-41 11,081 0.25 210 30 - -

47 17PL-1 10,974 0.25 220 40 - -


Page 12



GLARE RUNWAY

GLARE

sq. ft. acre 48 B68-13 10,220 0.23 210 30 - -

49 B68-14 9,898 0.23 210 30 - -

50 B60-7 9,683 0.22 190 30 - -

51 B58-43 9,037 0.21 210 30 - -

52 B66-01 8,607 0.20 210 35 - -

53 B64-04 7,746 0.18 210 30 - -

54 B69-32 7,423 0.17 170 25 - -

55 B62-18 7,316 0.17 180 30 - -

56 B69-16 7,208 0.17 170 35 - -

57 B20-1 6,778 0.16 200 30 - -

58 B34-4 6,132 0.14 210 30 - -

59 B58-05 6,132 0.14 210 30 - -

60 B58-42 5,810 0.13 210 30 - -

61 B27-2 5,702 0.13 180 15 - -

62 B61-06 5,594 0.13 210 35 - -

63 B14-1 5,379 0.12 210 30 - -

64 B27-3 5,379 0.12 210 30 - -

65 B66-15 5,379 0.12 210 20 - -

66 B28-2 5,272 0.12 210 15 - -

67 B29-2 4,949 0.11 210 15 - -

68 B58-02 4,949 0.11 210 30 - -

69 B68-17 4,949 0.11 210 30 - -

70 B68-19 4,949 0.11 210 30 - -

71 B11 4,841 0.11 210 40 - -

72 B28-3 4,841 0.11 210 10 - -

73 B51-3 4,841 0.11 220 40 - -

74 B61-21 4,734 0.11 210 30 - -

75 B64-09 4,734 0.11 210 30 - -

76 B65-01 4,626 0.11 210 35 - -

77 B32-1 4,519 0.10 210 20 - -

78 B58-37 4,519 0.10 210 30 - -

79 B58-38 4,519 0.10 210 30 - -

80 B17-2 4,411 0.10 170 25 - -

81 B64-10 4,411 0.10 210 30 - -

82 B67-3 4,303 0.10 210 40 - -

83 B58-10 3,873 0.09 210 30 - -

84 B58-11 3,873 0.09 210 30 - -

85 B20-2 3,765 0.09 200 30 - -

86 B57-18 3,765 0.09 210 30 - -

87 B57-16 3,550 0.08 210 30 - -

88 B58-26 3,443 0.08 200 35 - -

89 B57-19 3,335 0.08 210 30 - -

90 B62-28 3,335 0.08 210 20 - -

91 B32-2 3,228 0.07 210 20 - -

92 B57-17 3,228 0.07 210 30 - -

93 B57-20 3,228 0.07 210 30 - -

94 B57-21 3,228 0.07 210 30 - -

95 B58-12 3,228 0.07 210 30 - -

96 B58-19 3,228 0.07 200 30 - -

97 B69-37 3,228 0.07 170 30 - -

98 B21-1 3,120 0.07 180 35 - -

99 B30-1 3,012 0.07 170 10 - -

100 B58-27 2,797 0.06 210 30 - -

101 B56-5 2,690 0.06 210 30 - -

102 B62-16 2,690 0.06 190 30 - -

103 B69-36 2,582 0.06 170 30 - -

104 B68-02 2,474 0.06 210 30 - -



GLARE RUNWAY

GLARE

sq. ft. acre 105 B30-4 2,367 0.05 170 25 - -

106 B32-3 2,367 0.05 220 15 - -

107 B69-38 2,367 0.05 170 30 - -

108 B47-7 2,259 0.05 220 40 - -

109 B56-1 2,259 0.05 210 30 - -

110 B15-4 2,152 0.05 210 35 - -

111 B30-2 2,152 0.05 180 20 - -

112 B58-14 2,152 0.05 210 30 - -

113 B61-02 2,152 0.05 210 40 - -

114 B58-16 1,937 0.04 210 30 - -

115 B58-24 1,937 0.04 210 30 - -

116 B58-17 1,829 0.04 210 30 - -

117 B61-11 1,721 0.04 210 30 - -

118 B15-3 1,625 0.04 210 35 - -

119 B58-25 1,614 0.04 200 30 - -

120 B58-34 1,614 0.04 210 30 - -

121 B58-40 1,614 0.04 210 30 - -

122 B35-3 1,506 0.03 210 30 - -

123 B46-02 1,506 0.03 210 30 - -

124 B58-32 1,506 0.03 210 30 - -

125 B62-14 1,506 0.03 130 20 - -

126 B58-23 1,399 0.03 180 30 - -

127 B58-35 1,291 0.03 210 30 - -

128 B62-19 1,291 0.03 180 30 - -

129 B58-13 1,076 0.02 210 30 - -

130 B58-15 1,076 0.02 210 30 - -

131 B17-1 968 0.02 170 25 - -

132 B58-36 646 0.01 210 30 - -

133 B58-29 538 0.01 210 30 - -

134 B62-23 441 0.01 190 30 - -

135 B58-28 430 0.01 180 30 - -

136 B15-2 161 0.00 160 25 - -

137 43PL-1 396,985 9.12 120 35 - green

138 43PL-3 376,544 8.65 165 30 - green

139 40PL 348,572 8.01 130 30 - green

140 43PL-2 290,477 6.67 130 35 - green

141 13PL 260,353 5.98 180 10 - green

142 12PL 240,988 5.53 140 30 - green

143 08PG-1 199,030 4.57 150 30 - green

144 02PL 188,272 4.32 155 35 - green

145 01PL-2 167,831 3.85 110 15 - green

146 06PL 163,528 3.76 140 30 - green

147 29PL 150,618 3.46 220 30 - green

148 38PG 138,783 3.19 220 30 - green

149 B59 125,873 2.89 135 30 - green

150 40PG 115,115 2.64 243 10 - green

151 46PG-SE 107,261 2.46 260 35 - green

152 46PG-NE 106,508 2.45 120 30 - green

153 B08-05 106,508 2.45 150 20 - green

154 07PL 103,281 2.37 165 35 - green

155 B67-7 98,547 2.26 180 30 - green

156 16PL 95,750 2.20 170 30 - green

157 B63-5 93,598 2.15 60 5 - green

158 03PL 89,295 2.05 220 10 - green

159 B65-03 79,612 1.83 130 5 - green

160 B08-01 74,233 1.70 160 30 - green

161 44PL 72,081 1.66 220 35 - green

162 B49-1 71,759 1.65 235 10 - green

163 21PL 71,005 1.63 160 10 - green


Page 14



GLARE RUNWAY

GLARE

sq. ft. acre 164 37PG 68,423 1.57 180 30 - green

165 B54-3 65,626 1.51 180 10 - green

166 18PL 64,550 1.48 180 35 - green

167 B65-07 58,095 1.33 205 5 - green

168 B45 57,020 1.31 160 20 - green

169 B08-04 55,944 1.28 140 30 - green

170 B06-2 53,792 1.24 170 15 - green

171 B63-3 51,640 1.19 60 5 - green

172 17PL-4 50,564 1.16 180 30 - green

173 B53-4 47,014 1.08 180 10 - green

174 33PL 43,787 1.01 180 30 - green

175 B66-03 43,034 0.99 180 30 - green

176 B44 40,882 0.94 180 30 - green

177 B60-6 40,882 0.94 190 30 - green

178 B60-5 39,806 0.91 320 5 - green

179 14PL 39,376 0.90 180 30 - green

180 41PL-1 38,730 0.89 190 30 - green

181 39PL 38,192 0.88 180 30 - green

182 B60-4 36,579 0.84 330 5 - green

183 B47-6 35,503 0.82 180 10 - green

184 B65-05 34,427 0.79 205 5 - green

185 B67-5 34,427 0.79 180 30 - green

186 B42 34,319 0.79 170 30 - green

187 B67-2 31,737 0.73 180 25 - green

188 B66-11 30,339 0.70 180 15 - green

189 B50-13 28,402 0.65 120 5 - green

190 31PL 26,573 0.61 180 10 - green

191 B47-5 26,466 0.61 180 15 - green

192 B71-05 25,820 0.59 330 10 - green

193 B62-11 25,497 0.59 180 30 - green

194 B61-10 25,175 0.58 180 10 - green

195 B67-1 25,067 0.58 180 30 - green

196 B66-04 23,668 0.54 180 35 - green

197 B65-04 15,600 0.36 180 5 - green

198 B31 11,834 0.27 205 5 - green


Page 38

11.6 Site Partition Coalescence Results This table summarizes the results of the coalescence analysis for all site partitions. The table is sorted by partition

ID. Partitions with only green flight path (“FP”) glare adhere to FAA policy. Columns include the following:

• Site/Partition - partition ID

• Receptor glare - green, yellow, ‘-‘ (no glare), or empty if the partition was skipped (see Notes column)

• Notes – reason for partition being excluded from coalescence analysis

Table 6 – Site partition coalescence results of all parking and rooftop sites

Site / Partition

ATCT Glare FP Glare Notes

01PL-1 yellow 01PL-2 - green 02PL - green 03PL - green 04PL yellow 05PL yellow 06PL - green 07PL - green 08PG-1 - green 08PG-2 yellow 08PG-3 yellow 09PL yellow 10PL yellow 11PL yellow 12PL - green 13PL - green 14PL - green 15PL yellow 16PL - green 17PL-1 - - 17PL-2 yellow 17PL-3 - - 17PL-4 - green 17PL-5 yellow 17PL-6 - - 18PL - green 19PL 20PL yellow 21PL - green 22PL yellow 23PL yellow 24PL yellow 25PL yellow 26PL yellow 27PL yellow 28PL yellow 29PL - green

Site / Partition


30PL - - 31PL - green 32PL yellow 33PL - green 34PL - - 35PL - - 37PG - green 38PG - green 39PL - green 40PG - green 40PL - green 41PL-1 - green 41PL-2 shading

41PL-3 shading

42PL - - 43PL-1 - green 43PL-2 - green 43PL-3 - green 44PL - green 45PL yellow 46PG (full) yellow yellow 46PG-NE - green 46PG-NW - - 46PG-SE - green 46PG-SW - - B01-1 yellow B01-2 yellow B02-1 yellow B02-2 yellow B02-3 shading

B03-1 small

B03-2 shading

B03-3 shading

B03-4 small

B03-5 shading

B03-6 blockage

B04-1 blockage

Site / Partition


B04-2 yellow B04-3 shading

B04-4 yellow B05-1 facing


B05-4 small

B05-5 facing

B05-6 yellow B06-1 yellow B06-2 - green B07-1 yellow B07-2 yellow B07-3 yellow B07-4 yellow B07-5 yellow B08-01 - green B08-02 blockage

B08-03 blockage

B08-04 - green B08-05 - green B08-06 yellow B08-07 yellow B08-08 blockage

B08-09 small


B09-02 shading

B09-03 yellow B09-04 yellow B09-05 small

B09-06 yellow B09-07 small



B09-12 small

B09-13 yellow B09-14 yellow B09-15 yellow B09-16 yellow B09-17 yellow B09-18 yellow B09-19 yellow B09-20 yellow B09-21 yellow B09-22 narrow

Site / Partition


B09-23 shading

B09-24 small

B09-25 yellow B09-26 yellow B09-27 yellow B09-28 yellow B09-29 yellow B09-30 yellow B09-31 shading


B09-35 yellow B09-36 yellow B09-37 yellow B09-38 yellow B09-39 yellow B09-40 yellow B09-41 yellow B09-42 yellow B09-43 yellow B09-44 small

B09-45 small

B09-46 small

B09-47 small

B09-48 small

B09-49 small

B09-50 small

B09-51 yellow B09-52 yellow B09-53 yellow B09-54 yellow B09-55 yellow B09-56 blockage

B09-57 blockage

B09-58 blockage

B09-59 blockage

B10-1 yellow B10-2 yellow B10-3 shading

B11 - - B12-1 facing

B12-2 yellow B13 yellow B14-1 - - B14-2 blockage

B15-1 shading

B15-2 - -


Page 40

Site / Partition


B15-3 - - B15-4 - - B16 yellow B17-1 - - B17-2 - - B18-1 shading

B18-2 shading

B18-3 shading

B19-01 yellow B19-02 yellow B20-1 - - B20-2 - - B21-1 - - B21-2 yellow B22-1 yellow B22-2 small

B23 yellow B24-1 shading

B24-2 yellow B25-1 yellow B25-2 yellow B26-1 shading


B27-1 small

B27-2 - - B27-3 - - B27-4 small

B28-1 small

B28-2 - - B28-3 - - B28-4 small

B29-1 yellow B29-2 - - B29-3 small

B29-4 small

B30-1 - - B30-2 - - B30-3 yellow B30-4 - - B31 - green B32-1 - - B32-2 - - B32-3 - - B32-4 yellow B33-1 yellow

Site / Partition


B33-2 yellow B33-3 yellow B33-4 yellow B33-5 yellow B34-1 yellow B34-2 yellow B34-3 facing

B34-4 - - B34-5 small

B34-6 small

B35-1 small

B35-2 yellow B35-3 - - B35-4 small

B35-5 small

B35-6 small

B35-7 small

B35-8 small

B36-1 yellow B36-2 yellow B37-1 yellow B37-2 yellow B38-1 shading

B38-2 shading


B39-2 facing



B40-1 yellow B40-2 yellow B40-3 shading

B41-1 - - B41-2 small

B41-3 small

B41-4 small

B41-5 small

B42 - green B43-1 yellow B43-2 yellow B44 - green B45 - green B46-01 - -

Site / Partition


B46-02 - - B46-03 yellow B46-04 - - B46-05 facing


B46-08 small

B47-1 shading

B47-2 shading

B47-3 shading

B47-4 shading

B47-5 - green B47-6 - green B47-7 - - B48-1 - - B48-2 - - B49-1 - green B49-2 small

B49-3 small

B50-01 small

B50-02 small

B50-03 small

B50-04 small

B50-05 small

B50-06 shading

B50-07 small

B50-08 yellow B50-09 yellow B50-10 yellow B50-11 yellow B50-12 yellow B50-13 - green B51-1 - - B51-2 - - B51-3 - - B51-4 shading

B51-5 yellow B51-6 yellow B52-1 - - B52-2 small

B53-1 shading

B53-2 blockage

B53-3 yellow B53-4 - green B53-5 shading

B54-1 small

B54-2 yellow B54-3 - green

Site / Partition


B55-1 - - B55-2 small

B56-1 - - B56-2 yellow B56-3 - - B56-4 yellow B56-5 - - B56-6 small

B56-7 small

B57-01 yellow B57-02 blockage

B57-03 blockage

B57-04 blockage

B57-05 small

B57-06 small

B57-07 small

B57-08 small


B57-11 facing

B57-12 facing

B57-13 facing

B57-14 facing

B57-15 facing

B57-16 - - B57-17 - - B57-18 - - B57-19 - - B57-20 - - B57-21 - - B57-22 small

B57-23 small

B58-01 yellow B58-02 - - B58-03 narrow

B58-04 narrow

B58-05 - - B58-06 blockage

B58-07 small

B58-08 small

B58-09 small

B58-10 - - B58-11 - - B58-12 - - B58-13 - - B58-14 - - B58-15 - - B58-16 - -


Page 42

Site / Partition


B58-17 - - B58-18 narrow

B58-19 - - B58-20 narrow

B58-21 blockage

B58-22 blockage

B58-23 - - B58-24 - - B58-25 - - B58-26 - - B58-27 - - B58-28 - - B58-29 - - B58-30 demol

B58-31 demol

B58-32 - - B58-33 yellow B58-34 - - B58-35 - - B58-36 - - B58-37 - - B58-38 - - B58-39 blockage

B58-40 - - B58-41 - - B58-42 - - B58-43 - - B59 - green B60-1 small

B60-2 - - B60-3 small

B60-4 - green B60-5 - green B60-6 - green B60-7 - - B60-8 yellow B61-01 yellow B61-02 - - B61-03 yellow B61-04 yellow B61-05 yellow B61-06 - - B61-07 blockage

B61-08 yellow B61-09 yellow B61-10 - green

Site / Partition


B61-11 - - B61-12 yellow B61-13 yellow B61-14 blockage

B61-15 yellow B61-16 yellow B61-17 blockage

B61-18 blockage

B61-19 yellow B61-20 yellow B61-21 - - B61-22 yellow B61-23 yellow B61-24 yellow B61-25 blockage

B61-26 blockage

B62-01 yellow B62-02 yellow B62-03 yellow B62-04 yellow B62-05 yellow B62-06 yellow B62-07 yellow B62-08 yellow B62-09 yellow B62-10 yellow B62-11 - green B62-12 facing

B62-13 facing

B62-14 - - B62-15 yellow B62-16 - - B62-17 yellow B62-18 - - B62-19 - - B62-20 yellow B62-21 yellow B62-22 yellow B62-23 - - B62-24 yellow B62-25 yellow B62-26 yellow B62-27 yellow B62-28 - - B62-29 yellow B63-1 blockage

Site / Partition


B63-2 yellow B63-3 - green B63-4 - - B63-5 - green B64-01 blockage

B64-02 narrow

B64-03 - - B64-04 - - B64-05 small

B64-06 small

B64-07 yellow B64-08 blockage

B64-09 - - B64-10 - - B64-11 - - B64-12 blockage

B64-13 blockage

B64-14 - - B64-15 blockage

B64-16 blockage

B64-17 - - B64-18 blockage

B64-19 - - B64-20 blockage

B64-21 blockage

B64-22 - - B64-23 - - B64-24 small

B64-25 small

B64-26 small

B64-27 small

B64-28 small

B64-29 small

B64-30 small

B65-01 - - B65-02 yellow B65-03 - green B65-04 - green B65-05 - green B65-06 - - B65-07 - green B65-08 yellow B66-01 - - B66-02 blockage

B66-03 - green B66-04 - green B66-05 blockage

B66-06 - -

Site / Partition


B66-07 narrow

B66-08 blockage

B66-09 yellow B66-10 yellow B66-11 - green B66-12 blockage

B66-13 narrow

B66-14 blockage

B66-15 - - B66-16 yellow B67-1 - green B67-2 - green B67-3 - - B67-4 yellow B67-5 - green B67-6 yellow B67-7 - green B68-01 - - B68-02 - - B68-03 small

B68-04 facing

B68-05 small

B68-06 yellow yellow ATCT base

B68-07 yellow yellow ATCT mid

B68-08 yellow yellow ATCT top

B68-09 - - B68-10 small

B68-11 small

B68-12 - - B68-13 - - B68-14 - - B68-15 facing

B68-16 small

B68-17 - - B68-18 yellow B68-19 - - B68-20 - - B68-21 small

B69-01 facing

B69-02 blockage

B69-03 facing

B69-04 blockage

B69-05 facing

B69-06 blockage

B69-07 facing

B69-08 blockage


Page 44

Site / Partition


B69-09 facing

B69-10 blockage

B69-11 facing

B69-12 blockage

B69-13 facing

B69-14 blockage

B69-15 facing

B69-16 - - B69-17 facing

B69-18 blockage

B69-19 facing

B69-20 blockage

B69-21 facing

B69-22 blockage

B69-23 facing

B69-24 blockage

B69-25 facing

B69-26 blockage

B69-27 facing

B69-28 blockage

B69-29 facing

B69-30 blockage

B69-31 facing

B69-32 - - B69-33 yellow B69-34 - - B69-35 yellow B69-36 - - B69-37 - - B69-38 - - B70-01 - -

Site / Partition


B70-02 blockage

B70-03 - - B70-04 - - B70-05 - - B70-06 small

B70-07 small

B70-08 small

B70-09 small

B70-10 - - B70-11 - - B70-12 - - B71-01 yellow B71-02 yellow B71-03 - - B71-04 blockage

B71-05 - green B71-06 - - B71-07 - - B71-08 - - B71-09 small

B71-10 small

B71-11 small

B71-12 small


B71-15 small

B71-16 small

B71-17 blockage

B71-18 blockage

B71-19 blockage

SFO 50117 Site Optimizations Page 12

PARKING SITES

01PL – MOC Parking 01PL-1 module configurations exhibit the common Flight Path Green profile and adhere to FAA policy.

Table 3 – 01PL-2 PV module configuration analysis results. Tables filtered for (A) FAA policy

adherence, (B) ocular impact levels, (C) flight paths only and (D) ATCT only

02PL – MOC Parking 02PL module configurations exhibit the common Flight Path Green profile and adhere to FAA policy.

50117 Final Report – Site Partition Results Page 5

Parking Lot & Parking Garage Sites

Schematic layouts are provided for 46 parking lot and parking garage sites. Parking lot IDs are signified with ‘PL’

while parking garage IDs include ‘PG’.

01PL – MOC Parking

(A) (B)

Figure 1 – 01PL (A) map view and (B) site partition footprint(s)

Table 1 – 01PL recommended PV panel configurations

INDEPENDENT COALESCING

Partition Orientation Tilt Orientation Tilt

1 180 30 - -

2 140 35 110 15

01PL-2 coalesces with: 6PL, 12PL, 40PL, 43PL-2, B08-04, B59

Figure 2 – 01PL-2 annotated occurrence plot of predicted coalescing glare


AIR-590 (1-15) EXHIBIT A February 26, 2019

EXHIBIT A

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS VERIFICATION Complete this form and attach it as an exhibit to your firm’s Statement of Qualifications

Firm Name: _________________________________________________________________

Minimum Qualifications Please check the boxes that your firm meets the following Minimum Qualifications below.

Proof of experience must be documented in proposal submission.

Firm must have at least four (4) years of verifiable experience since January 1, 2012, in developing, conducting, and completing feasibility analyses of On-site Distributed Energy Resources of the type required in this RFP Scope of Work.

Firm must have completed at least seven (7) feasibility analyses of On-site Distributed Energy Resources since January 1, 2012, which must include projects involving at least two (2) large campuses*. At least three (3) DER systems that were recommended in those completed feasibility analyses must have been constructed or implemented. The proposing firm is not required to have been on the team that constructed or implemented the DER systems. List location and completed construction date of the three (3) DER systems: 1. ______________________________________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________________________________ 3. ______________________________________________________________________

Firm’s Lead Project Manager shall have at least five (5) years of direct experience since January 1, 2012, in developing and leading the implementation of DER plans and/or feasibility studies that include at least one (1) project for a large campus*. * “Large campus” refers to contiguous property having greater than 500,000 square feet of occupied space, with separately-metered buildings utilizing a medium-voltage electrical distribution system. Examples could include university, medical, and corporate office parks, and military installations.

I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the State of California that the attestations of meeting the minimum qualifications representation set forth above are true and correct. Signed: __________________________________ Dated: ___________________________________ Name: ___________________________________ Title: ____________________________________ Company: __________________________________________________________________________

City and County of San Francisco Request for Proposals for...

Documents

Transcript of City and County of San Francisco Request for Proposals for...