MODIFICATION
B -- Brazil - Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Plant
- Notice Date
- 9/21/2009
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- NAICS
- 541690
— Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
- Contracting Office
- United States Trade and Development Agency, USTDA, USTDA, 1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1600, C/O US TDA 1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1600, Arlington, Virginia, 22209-3901
- ZIP Code
- 22209-3901
- Solicitation Number
- 2009-51019A
- Archive Date
- 10/13/2009
- Point of Contact
- John Kusnierek, Phone: (703) 875-4357
- E-Mail Address
-
jkusnierek@ustda.gov
(jkusnierek@ustda.gov)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- The following questions have been answered by the Grantee and USTDA (question 5). Q1. The RFP mentions that MXP will be involved in the project by providing support services to the contractor at no cost. What is the nature of those services? A1. Logistic information i.e. information about best means of local transportation, hotels, and providing meeting rooms for the discussion of the project. Q2. We foresee the basic data requirements listed below would be best provided by local personnel and would like to know if this information is included as part of the services that MPX will provide at no cost. 1 Historical growth of municipality (population and economic growth) 2 Historical growth of solid waste generation of municipality 3 Expected growth in both aspects 4 Historical and expected pricing data of; electrivity, fuel gas, other utilities, manpower, other A2. No. We understand that it will be in the 20% of subcontractors from the Host Country under specific service Q3. The RFP mentions that one of the Brazilian companies involved has made available a portion of land of their ownership for construction of the site. Has the site selection essentially been completed? If so, is our job just to verify that the selection is appropriate? If not, what/how many other sites are there to be considered in site selection? A3. There is a case study, that is Caju Plant in Rio de Janeiro. Comlurb (municipal waste company) will give access to the site and information about characteristic of Rio de Janeiro´s waste. But, initially the feasibility study should consider the possibility of other sites and eventually indicate (in general) a different technology (option) according to the different sites analyzed - Please see Task 1. After then the feasibility study focuses only in the site of Caju Plant (as study case). It is important to get a replicable technology for other similar project / sites in Rio de Janeiro. And in case of any constrain of the Caju Plant to waste to energy project (for example environmental constrain) - it should be indicated. Q4. In regards to the Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment, could you provide further guidance in terms of the scope and detail of this study Vs a FULL EIA? Should the current sudy employ soil and air samples, for example, or should it take more of a qualititaive approach? A similar situation arises in regards to the legal, reglatory, and institutional review. How detailed should this study be? A4. The study should consider all relevant (environmental and regulatory) aspect to a possible implementation of the WtE Plant - in other words, see if the project can really be implemented considering all legal and environmental aspects and constrains (and the impacts of air emission and soil contamination should be considered, according to the technology adopted and the environmental legislation). It should be analyzed if the project comply with environmental (national and international - see task 5) and regulatory aspect - and, in case of regulatory aspect, what could be improved or adopted by the municipality to facilitate the process. Q5. Our firm will subcontract a portion of the work related to this project. Some subcontractors require a guarantee letter that somehow ensures that the work will be paid for if completed satisfactorily, can the USTDA issue something of this sort? A5. USTDA cannot provide a guarantee. Q6. As the RFP reads, the only requirement at the end of the project is to present a written Final Report BUT NOT a presentation in-person. Is this right? A6. Yes. But the report should be clear enough for understanding of MPX. If not, maybe a presentation in person or video- conference will be requested.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/TDA/TDA1/TDA1/2009-51019A/listing.html)
- Record
- SN01963572-W 20090923/090922000054-966d20bc17fe26e887113d70d6918445 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |