May 25, 2016
Mr. Courtney Powell
Founder & Chief in Editor
Renewable Energy Blog
Please see O.U.R.’s responses to your correspondence requesting clarification:
1. On the 27th of January 2016 the OUR reported to have received a total of 17 bids in a media release titled: “OUR GETS 17 RENEWABLE ENERGY BIDS”. However, in the final media release on 9th May 2016 the OUR contradicts this by stating that it had received a total of 19 bits.
ANSWER: There were 10 entities that submitted bids in response to the OUR’s request for proposals (RFP). One of the bidders submitted two base bids. Mention was made in the proposal letter for each of these bids that they were accompanied by a set of alternative bids. While a notation was made on the bid opening form of the number of alternative bids that were as said to have accompanied one of the base bids (i.e. three alternatives), a similar notation was not included for the other (i.e. two alternatives). The specifics of the alternative bids were not announced and recorded as these details were embedded within the proposal documentation of their relative base bids. During the detailed examination of the bid packages by the evaluation team, the details of all alternative bids were located (including the two alternatives which were not noted on the bid opening form), recorded and subjected to evaluation in accordance with the RFP. This accounted for the difference in number of bids mentioned in the first press release, which was issued immediately after the public bid opening, and the subsequent press release which was issued at the end of the bid evaluation process.
2. We also noted from the media release on the 27th January 2016 that Eight RiversEnergy Company Ltd submitted two (2) bids for solar PV (one for a 37MW and an alternative for 21MW). However, we also noted that the 33.1 MW Solar PV project they are selected to provide was not listed as one of the bids received in the media release on the 27th of January 2016.
ANSWER: Although Eight Rivers Energy Company Ltd submitted a bid for a 37MW plant, upon evaluation it was clarified that the plant capacity at the required power factor, was in fact 33.1 MW. It was this project proposal that was ranked highest based on the criteria set out in the RFP.
3. What prevented the OUR from achieving the intended 37 MW of renewable energy capacity, given that over 300 MW of primary project proposals were reportedly received. And why no mention was made of how the OUR plans to achieve the remaining 4.9 MW. This is of concern because it is a large short fall – by comparison this size capacity is greater than the JPS owned wind farm in St. Elizabeth and all but two of the Island’s nine hydro plants.
ANSWER: The proposals received represented complete plants of a particular design configuration. These proposals were evaluated based on the criteria specified in the RFP. The RFP specifically requested capacity “up to” 37 MW, which allowed for the selection of any amount not exceeding 37 MW. Additionally, the RFP could not have reasonably required proposers to make their plants available in various “portions” so as to allow for selection of fragments of capacity (for example a fragment of 4.9 MW) to arrive at exactly 37 MW.
The National Energy Policy includes a schedule for the addition of renewables in Jamaica’s energy mix. As the Government of Jamaica continues its role out of this policy, it is expected that there will be further opportunities for the procurement of additional renewables.
Director, Consumer & Public Affairs