proposed edits to the terms of reference€¦ · consolidate and advance skills and knowledge to...

Informe Brian entregable 2b 150601_final Page 1 of 7

Brian McNiff 43 Dog Island Rd Harborside, ME

04642 USA +1-207-326-7148 (o) +1-207-632-7118 (m)

Recommendations for Modification to Contractor Specification to Design, Fabricate and Certify MEM WTG Blades

Brian McNiff

Document: MLI_15_IIE-6a_MEM_bladespec_Task2b_150601.docx Contract: MCNIFF/E/NC/18165

Deliverable 2b, Rev 1.3 Date: 4 June 2015

1 OBJECTIVE

The following are comments and recommended modifications to the statement of work for the production of 4 blades for the Mexican Eólico Machina (MEM) 1.2 MW wind turbine including design, fabrication and certification entitled: “TERMINOS DE REFERENCIA PARA LA PROVEEDURÍA DE BIENES Y SERVICIOS CUYO RESULTADO FINAL PERMITA EL SUMINISTRO DE UN JUEGO DE ASPAS CERTIFICADAS PARA UN PROTOTIPO DE AEROGENERADOR CLASE 1A DE 1.2 MW DE POTENCIA NOMINAL(MEM)” [_TdR para fabricacion de Aspas.docx ]. This is a part (Deliverable 2b) of a McNiff review of capabilities within the MEM collaborative to manufacture MW scale wind turbine (WTG) blades in Mexico per the Terms of Reference (TDR_Rotor_Blade_Consultancy.pdf) under IIE project ME-X1011 “Promotion and Development of Local Wind Technologies” . 2 APPROACH

Comments and suggested modifications to the blade manufacture statement of work are provided with the project key objectives in mind. These objectives are restated here:

1. consolidate and advance skills and knowledge to design MW wind turbines 2. promote and strengthen a supply chain in Mexico for goods and services related to

wind energy 3. consolidate and advance local, high tech capabilities needed to manufacture,

assemble, test, certify, install, operate and maintain MW scale turbines 4. support the development of a 1.2 MW turbine for distributed generation in Mexico

and promote local use by small power producers.


04642 USA


Comments and suggested edits are included in Clause 3. Clause 4 contains a recommended approach for rating and scoring proposals submitted in response to the statement of work to achieve the objectives.

3 PROPOSED EDITS TO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE

The following items are offered as edits to improve the blade manufacturing terms of reference. As noted previously, the document referenced is “_TdR para fabricacion de Aspas.docx” dated November 2014. I recommend that wind turbine standards (see Table 1) should be referenced and required explicitly since they are the fundamental requirements of the certification process. Ideally, the certification process is a well-informed 3rd party review of the design methodology and the validation process based on the “best practices” in the standards.

- 2nd to last bullet under Clause 2 (Objetivo y Alcance) add to end “according to IEC 61400-22.” This standard defines the documentation requirements and references the appropriate standards used in the certification process.

- Stage 1, Deliverable 2a: clarify that any loads analysis should use the IEC 61400-1 design standard – especially as you are talking about the extreme design loads. The standard has all the necessary details on required load cases and safety factors as well.

- Stage 1, Deliverable 2a: COMMENT- I am not sure I understand this correctly: The blade designs from Deliverable 1 are used to estimate the wind turbine structural design loads (using aeroelastic simulation codes approved for certification by DNV and GL rules). These design loads are compared to the “prototype” wind turbine loads from the initial IIE analysis. The design is modified until the estimated loads converge on the provided IIE loads. Is this because you have provided the IIE design loads for other components to be designed to? Normally, a designer would optimize energy capture for minimal structure or cost.

- Stage 1, Deliverable 3a: add to ” protection against lightning” the text “as per IEC 61400-24”. This is the lightning protection standard with requirements and recommendations.

- COMMENT: The contractor should develop the acceptance criteria as part of designing the blade structure (Stage 1) or the manufacturing process (Stage 2). Ideally, the contractor should propose acceptance criteria to IIE based on risk areas identified using, for example, a failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). The IIE could discuss the proposed approach and help evolve it.


04642 USA


For instance, I would suggest a static rated-load tip deflection test for all blades at the factory to assure that the stiffness is as expected. This would provide FEA model validation and assure fabrication consistency at a location where a remedy can be implemented if needed.

- Stage 1, Deliverable 3b: need to add some items to the list:

o Acceptance criteria – should include inspections for voids, effective bond areas and laminate defects and a definition of the acceptable levels for each type (acceptance/ rejection)

o Acceptance criteria- should specify process/ criteria for weight measurement and balancing (to match the set); for measuring tip deflection at a given load for all blades

- Stage 3, Deliverable 1a: add to last bullet: “according to the developed acceptance criteria.”

- Stage 3, Deliverable 2a: add before the Non-Compliance Report “for items not meeting the developed acceptance criteria” – otherwise you don’t have a definition for what is in compliance and what is not.

- Stage 4, add to end of first two bullets “as per IEC 61400-22”

- Stage 4, Deliverable 1a: add “as per IEC 61400-23.”

Table 1 Useful standards for certification

Standard Title Date Notes

IEC 61400-22 (replaces IEC WT01)

Conformity Testing and Certification of Wind Turbines, Rules and Procedures

2010 certification framework used by GL, DNV, TUV, etc

IEC 61400-1 Wind Turbines - Part 1: Design Requirements

2015, ed 4 design requirements with all DLCs

IEC 61400-23 Full Scale Testing of Wind Turbine Blades

2014, ed 1 blade testing procedures & required documentation

IEC 61400-24 Lightning Protection for Wind Turbines

2010, ed 1 lightning protection standard

DNV-DS-J102 Design and manufacture of wind turbine blades for onshore and offshore

2010 not a standard, but good guidance on how to navigate certification

4 RATING AND EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

4.1 PROPOSED METHOD

A methodology is proposed here to evaluate and rate candidate contractors and proposals for design, fabrication, validation and certification of wind turbine blades in response to the IIE Specification and terms of reference. This is for inclusion into Clause 4 (Crierios de


04642 USA


Evaluación) in the terms of reference document. IIE no doubt has a methodology for selecting proposals, but these are offered as suggestions. The following is a review of the salient attributes for any entity or group to be considered, a criteria for rating of each of these attributes and how to apply a weighting that reflects their relative importance to the project goals. 4.2 EXPECTED CONTRACTOR SKILLS AND CAPABILITIES

Table 2 is a summary of important contractor skills and capabilities required to complete the project as described in “MLI_15_IIE-5_MEM_capabilities_Task2a_150531.pdf” with some attempt at prioritization. This is a higher-level summary of the more detailed version in that document.

Table 2 Required Capabilities

Required Critical Capabilities Priority Notes

1 Wind turbine blade design 1 critical

2 High performance composite engineering 2 Important, available expertise

3 Process manufacturing experience using FRP including fabricating molds & tooling

1 critical

4 Project management 1 critical

5 Acceptance testing - manufacture 2 important

6 Blade certification experience 2 readily subcontracted

4.3 IDENTIFICATION OF KEY ATTRIBUTES

The skills and capabilities are not the only part of a successful project. Table 3 provides a list of key attributes of any proposal and candidate team that can contribute to project success. The items are rated for priority (1 = highest), and each one is described in the text below as to how the bidder will be evaluated on its importance. Note that “item” numbering is consistent with attribute categories in Table 4.

4.3.1 Required skills, capabilities and experience

Applicable experience of organization and team members is a key element and should be detailed and matched to the project requirements. The experience and capabilities of all subcontractors and consultants included in the team should be presented and described. Subcontractors in the high priority skill sets noted in Table 2 must provide letters of commitment.

4.3.2 Project leadership and coordination

The lead organization must demonstrate a history of completing projects similar in scope and magnitude within planned time and budget constraints.

4.3.3 Appropriate analytical and design tools

Experience with the design and analytical software and tools proposed to be used by the bidder’s team should be listed and described especially those critical to the project.


04642 USA


Table 3 Key attributes for rating proposals

Item Priority Attributes Comment

1.1 1 Experience and capabilities of team

CVs, and other evidence to demonstrate all Table 1 capabilities

1.2 2 Project coordination and integration experience of organization/ leader

Working with and coordinating team efforts, scheduling, reporting, plays well with others, document control

1.3 1 Appropriate WTG engineering, analytical and design tools

Blade aeroelastic and aerodynamics, FEM, laminate constructor, standard engineering (design, drafting, etc)

1.4 1 Fabrication capability and project support resources

Facilities, available space, tools, equipment and expertise to make molds, tooling, substructures, blades

3.1 2 Realistic schedule & appropriate use of resources and labor

Are there enough resources, people and hours applied to each effort?

3.2 1 Realistic budget and overall cost

4.3.4 Blade manufacturing capability

Does the bidder demonstrate sufficient facilities, available space, tools, equipment and expertise to make molds, tooling, substructures, and, of course, the blades themselves?

4.3.5 Schedule and resource planning

The proposed schedule should be realistic with a solid understanding of the overall MEM schedule without being excessively conservative or aggressive. A chart should be provided that shows when the various team skills and capabilities are required, especially as regards critical consultants and contractors.

4.3.6 Budget and overall cost

The details of the budget should reflect a solid knowledge of the required sequence of steps and tasks. Identified uncertainties and exceptions (i.e., limitations to expected costs born by bidder) should be clearly stated with defined boundaries. These should be expected for such a complex project, and, in fact, how realistic they are can be a sign of bidder competence.

4.3.7 Proposal completeness and clarity

Missing items in the proposal are a sign of poor attention to detail by bidder and should be a mark against them. 4.4 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ATTRIBUTES

4.4.1 Rating an attribute

The effectiveness of a bidder in addressing each of the attributes identified above will be scored or rated from 1 – 5 in a linear scale with 5 being the best or most effective at meeting the requirements and 1 the least effective.


04642 USA


4.4.2 Use of Mexican Personnel, Facilities and Other Capabilities

The program objectives include promoting skills, utilizing capacities and accumulating needed WTG knowledge in Mexico as noted in Clause 2 above. In light of this it is suggested that bidders should be encouraged to maximize in-Mexico participation and content in their proposals. This is readily achieved by making the use of Mexican expertise and adding value in Mexico as a highly weighted part of evaluating proposals. A method for doing this is in presented in the next sub-clause. It may also be the case that IIE would give additional scoring points for partnerships developed with Mexican companies to promote local transfer of the accumulated experience from this project (see last bullet of Clause 2 of terms of reference).

4.4.3 Weighting and final score

Some of these attributes are more important than others. By multiplying a weighting ratio to each criteria rating allows the attribute importance to be included in the final score. The rating is in the form of a percentage, and the higher level weightings should add to 100%. The IIE partners should discuss and agree on the distribution of weighting, but an example is shown in Table 4. The product of rating and weighting for each attribute (last column) should be summed to make the final score.

Table 4 Proposed attribute rating criteria and weighting

Item Criteria Rating (5 is best)

Weighting Score (rating x

weighting)

1.0 Contractor Capability and Experience 1-5 30%

2.0 Amount of participation of companies in Mexico (or % of project funds spent in

Mexico?)

1-5 30%

3.0 Overall Cost and Realistic Budget & Schedule

1-5 30%

4.0 Clarity and Completeness of Proposal 1-5 5%

5.0 Technology exchange to Mexican companies or organizations

1-5 5%

5 SUMMARY

Comments and edits were suggested to improve the MEM project blade manufacturing statement of work (terms of reference). Many of the suggestions included direct reference to IEC international WTG standards to make the design and certification requirements un-ambiguous. A recommendation was made to formalize the rating and scoring of proposal responses to include important capabilities and emphasize the importance of utilizing Mexican expertise,


04642 USA


capability and facilities. This is offered as a suggestion, of course, and if done properly can utilize the bidding process to maximize Mexican contributions and in-country added value. End of document

proposed edits to the terms of reference€¦ · consolidate and advance skills and knowledge to...

Documents