land or barge-based ocean-going vessel at-berth … · land or barge-based ocean-going vessel...

Land or Barge-Based Ocean-Going Vessel At-Berth

Exhaust Emissions Capture & Treatment Systems:

In-Use Demonstration at the San Pedro Bay Ports

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

THE PORT OF LONG BEACH AND PORT OF LOS ANGELES

CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN – TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM

MARCH 20, 2018

Request For Proposals OGV At-Berth Exhaust Emissions Capture & Treatment Systems

ii

DATE: March 20, 2018 TO: Technology Vendors SUBJECT: Request for Proposals for the Demonstration of Land or Barge-Based Ocean Going

Vessel At-Berth Exhaust Emissions Capture & Treatment Systems at the San Pedro Bay Ports

The Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles request the submittal of proposals by non-container terminal operators or qualified vendors of technologies that have been demonstrated to significantly reduce exhaust gas emissions from ocean-going vessel engines. This Request for Proposals (RFP) specifically seeks proposals for the in-use demonstration of land or barge-based exhaust emission capture and treatment systems that can be used to reduce OGV auxiliary engine and potentially boiler exhaust emissions while the vessel is “at-berth” at the Ports. The emission reduction systems sought for demonstration are intended as an alternative to “cold ironing” (i.e., shore power or Alternative Marine Power (AMP©) for vessels not covered under the California Air Resources Board (CARB) shore power regulation. The Ports’ 2017 Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) Update establishes a strategy to develop programs to control at-berth emissions from non-regulated vessels in advance of state regulation and at utilization rates higher than those proposed by CARB. The types of OGVs from which these emission reductions are sought include, but are not limited to, bulk carriers, roll-on/roll-off (RO-RO), auto carriers, and tanker vessels. The selection of one or more candidate at-berth emission capture systems for demonstration at the Ports will be performed in accordance with the RFP process described herein. This is a competitive procurement.

Vendors of exhaust gas emission reduction technologies and systems that meet the RFP technical

and programmatic requirements are encouraged to submit a Proposal in accordance with the

RFP guidelines.

Proposals must be received no later than April 26, 2018 at 3:00 pm. Proposal preparation

guidelines and submittal instructions are included in this RFP, along with a staff point of contact

should you have questions or need additional clarification. No proposals or parts of proposals

will be accepted after the deadline.

On behalf of the Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles, thank you for your participation in

this important clean air demonstration program.


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 2

3.0 SOLICITATION OVERVIEW....................................................................................... 4

3.1 Available Funding................................................................................................... 4

3.2 RFP Timeline.......................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Marine Terminal/Ocean Going Vessel Demonstration Partner............................. 5

3.4 Testing and In-Use Demonstration Schedule......................................................... 6

4.0 OGV CHARACTERIZATION………………………………………………………………………………..…. 6

5.0 AT-BERTH EMISSIONS REDUCTION SYSTEM TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS............. 6

5.1 Minimum Emission Reduction Effectiveness …………………………………………………... 6

5.2 Targeted Pollutants ……………………………………….…………………………………………..……. 7

5.3 Additional Targeted Pollutants …………………………………………………….……….…..…….. 7

5.4 Emission Capture System Interface with Ocean Going Vessel …........................... 7

5.4.1 Physical Modifications………………………………………………….………….…………….... 7

5.4.2 Undue Modifications to Normal OGV Hotelling………………………………………... 8

5.5 At-berth Emission Capture System Installation Location ………………………….………. 8

5.6 Environmental Permits ……………………………………….……………………………….…...….…. 8

5.7 Barge-Based Emission Capture Systems - US Coast Guard Approval ……………..…. 8

5.8 Wastewater Discharge Quality ………………………….…………………..…………………….…. 8

5.9 Ammonia Slip ……………………………………………..……………………………………………….….. 8

5.10 Utilities…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9

6.0 AT-BERTH EMISSIONS REDUCTION SYSTEM FULL SCALE TESTING & IN-USE

DEMONSTRATION REQUIREMENTS……………………………………………………………………. 9

6.1 Test Plan…………………………………………..………………………………………………………………. 9

6.2 Site Preparation …………………………………………..………………………………………………….. 9

6.3 Emission Reduction System Transport & Assembly ……………………………………….…. 9


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS – CONTINUED

6.4 Emissions Capture and Reduction System Checkout & Calibration ………..….…….. 10

6.5 Emissions Capture System Full Scale Testing on OGV ………….….……………………….. 10

6.6 Assessment of Emissions Capture & Treatment Effectiveness ……..……………….…. 10

6.7 In-Use Demonstration …………………………………….………….……………………….……….…. 10

6.8 Disassembly & Dock Restoration ………………………………………………………………..……. 11

6.9 Documentation & Reporting ………………………….…………………..…………………….…….. 11

6.10 Documentation from CARB Acknowledging Emission Reduction Potential of the At-Berth Emissions Reduction System……………………………………………………. 11

7.0 PROPOSAL PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS & GUIDELINES................................... 11

7.1 Proposal Format Requirements/Page Limit.……………………………….…………………….. 11

7.2 Cover Page……………….……………………………………..………..……………….…………………….. 11

7.3 Contact and Grant Experience Information ….………………………………………………….. 11

7.4 At-Berth Exhaust Emissions Capture & Treatment System: System Design & Configuration Description…………………………………………………….. 11

7.4.1 Scientific Basis for the Proposed Emissions Treatment Technology…………. 12

7.4.2 Vessel Interface – Exhaust Emissions Capture Strategy……………………….…… 12

7.4.3 Port Berth Infrastructure Requirements………………………………………..….…….. 12

7.4.4 Waste Generation and Disposal ………………………………………………….….………. 13

7.5 Emission Reduction Capability ……………..………………………………………….…………….. 13

7.5.1 Emission Reductions from Non-Regulated OGVs ………………………..…………. 13

7.5.2 System Capabilities for Regulated Vessels ……………….…..…………………….…… 14

7.5.3 Ammonia Slip …………………………………….………………….….…………………..….…….. 14

7.5.4 CARB Certification or Verification ……………………………….……………….….………. 14

7.6 Project Schedule Requirements ………………….……………………………………..…….………. 14

7.7 Cost Estimate ……………….………………….………………………………………………..……………. 15

7.7.1 Estimated Cost to Conduct Full Scale Testing and In-Use Demonstration at the Ports………………………………………………………..……………………………………. 15

7.7.2 Project Co-funding……………………………………………………..……………………….…… 16

7.8 Business Case Assessment & Commercialization Plan……………………………………… 16


v

TABLE OF CONTENTS – CONTINUED

7.8.1 Estimate Costs for the Proposed At-Berth Emissions Reduction System

When Fully Commercialized……………………..………………..……………………….…… 16

7.8.2 Issues Impeding Commercialization and Recommendations for Mitigation

or Eliminating Perceived Barriers………………..……………………………..……….…… 16

7.9 City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission (CEC) Form 55…………………….…….…………… 16

8.0 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS........................................................……….. 17

9.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION...............................................................................……….. 17

9.1 Evaluation Process ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17

9.2 Evaluation Criteria ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18

9.3 Board of Harbor Commissioners’ Review………………………………………………………… 19

9.4 Contracting with the Ports……………………………………………………………………………….. 19

10.0 QUESTIONS REGARDING THE RFP…........................................................................ 20

11.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION NOTICE……..………………........................................................ 20

Appendix A OGV CHARACTERIZATION……..……………….....................................................22

Appendix B PROPOSER CONTACT INFORMATION……..……………….................................. 26

Appendix C GRANT EXPERIENCE INFORMATION……..……………….................................. 27

Appendix D CITY OF LOS ANGELES ETHICS COMMISSION (CEC)– FORM 50 & 55…..... 28

Appendix E CITY OF LOS ANGELES STANDARD CONTRACT PROVISIONS....................... 30


- 1 -

1.0 BACKGROUND

In June 2017, City of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and City of Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia

signed a joint declaration that sets ambitious air pollution reduction goals for the Port of Los

Angeles and the Port of Long Beach under the 2017 Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) Update. The

mayors affirmed that the CAAP includes new investments in clean technology, including

expanding at-berth emission reductions.

The CAAP Update specifically targets emission reductions from ocean going vessels (OGV) that

are not subject to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Shore Power for Ocean-Going

Vessels Regulation1. The purpose of the CARB regulation is to reduce at-berth emissions and

associated health impacts from diesel-fueled auxiliary engines onboard container, cruise and

reefer ships docked at California ports, through the use of shore power or some alternative

compliance strategy.

Other OGV categories, including tankers, vehicle carriers, and bulk and general cargo ships, are

not currently affected by the CARB regulation; however, CARB is currently exploring ways to

amend the at-berth regulation to get up to 100% at-berth emission reductions by 2030.

To stimulate the identification, demonstration, and validation of technologies that can achieve

at-berth emission reductions from non-regulated OGVs beyond current State regulation, the

Ports have set aside $1,000,000 in funding from the CAAP Technology Advancement Program

(TAP) and seek submittal of proposals in accordance with the RFP process described herein. The

goals are to fund one or more projects that reasonably can:

Achieve meaningful reductions in non-regulated OGV air pollutant emissions while at-

berth, with emphasis on reductions in NOx, SOx, and total particulate matter2 along with

potential co-benefits in reducing GHGs;

Obtain an Executive Order (i.e., certification or verified emission reduction level) from the

California Air Resources Board; and

Present a business case on how the technology will be commercialized once successfully

demonstrated.

The following Sections describe project and applicant eligibility requirements, allowable costs

and match funding requirements, proposal evaluation criteria, and proposal submittal

instructions. Proposers are advised to review the TAP “Guidelines for Proposals” for additional

1 http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/shorepower/shorepower.htm 2 Sulphates are included in PM totals in accordance with ISO standards.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/shorepower/shorepower.htm


- 2 -

information regarding the proposal evaluation criteria definitions and evaluation process:

http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/documents/tap-guidelines.pdf

2.0 INTRODUCTION

This RFP requests the submittal of proposals to conduct full scale testing and in-use

demonstration of exhaust gas emissions capture and treatment technologies and systems (i.e.,

“emissions reduction systems”) capable of significantly reducing sulfur oxides (SOx), total

particulate matter (PM), and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from auxiliary engines on non-

regulated OGVs. For the purpose of this RFP, “auxiliary engines” are defined as an engine on an

ocean-going vessel designed primarily to provide power for uses other than propulsion.

This RFP is exclusively seeking proposals of technologies that are off-vessel (i.e. land or barge-

based), that do not require any significant retrofits or modifications to the vessels themselves.

Proposers under this RFP should focus on their emission reduction system’s capabilities in

treating OGV auxiliary engine exhaust emissions from tankers, vehicle carriers, or bulk and

general cargo ships. Proposers should also identify if their technology has the inherent capability

and capacity, or can be scaled-up, to meet the requirements for reducing at-berth emissions from

other vessel types, including container vessels, which have greater at-berth power demands and

exhaust gas flow rates.

Proposers are also requested to discuss their system’s capabilities in treating at-berth OGV boiler

emissions, if applicable. Proposers to this RFP are asked to present their system’s capabilities for

reducing OGV boiler emission reductions in terms of incremental requirements for their

proposed technology solution, if any, including impacts on system design, size, power

requirements, effluent discharge, system capital cost, operations costs, etc. This will be discussed

further in Section 4 of this RFP.

Who Should Respond to this Request for Proposals?

Vendors of exhaust gas emission reduction systems that can be readily adapted for use in

a land or barge-based at-berth OGV application are encouraged to review the RFP

requirements. This includes, but is not limited to, developers and manufacturers of

industrial exhaust gas scrubbing systems, marine exhaust gas scrubbing systems, diesel

emission control devices, selective catalytic reduction systems, etc.

Operators of non-container terminals in the San Pedro Bay Ports that can develop an

emission reduction system for at-berth OGV applications. Operators may work with one

or more technology developers.

http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/documents/tap-guidelines.pdf


- 3 -

Is the Proposed Emission Reduction System Required to be Commercially Available?

No. The Ports understand that many of the emissions reduction systems submitted in

response to this RFP will be based upon emission reduction technologies used in other

industrial applications but not currently available for maritime use. However, it is

important to stress that proposals submitted under this RFP must demonstrate a high

level of technical maturity and be capable of being configured for full-scale testing and in-

use demonstration on an OGV at the Ports. Respondents are required to provide detailed

technical and programmatic data as they pertain to adapting the proposed emission

reduction system to an at-berth exhaust emissions capture and treatment application.

What will be the Result of this Request for Proposals?

Depending on the merits of the proposals received, the following are potential outcomes

of this Request for Proposals:

– The Ports will evaluate, score, and rank proposals in accordance with the evaluation

and selection criteria specified in this RFP. One or more top ranked proposals may be

selected to enter into a contract with the Ports for the purpose of conducting a full-

scale test and in-use demonstration on an OGV(s).

– The Ports may determine that no proposals received in response to this RFP possess

the necessary technical and programmatic attributes to warrant full scale testing and

demonstration at this time. In this case, no further action will be taken. The Ports

retain sole authority for determining the merits of any proposal submitted under this

RFP.

What is the Anticipated Use of the At-Berth Exhaust Emissions Capture and Treatment Systems

following Successful In-Use Demonstration?

Assuming an at-berth emission capture system successfully completes the full scale

testing and in-use demonstration sponsored under this RFP, the system will have been

adequately tested to: 1) verify the emission reductions that can be achieved through use

of the system (including CARB approval via Executive Order), 2) understand how the

operation of the technology can be integrated into terminal operations, and 3) better

understand the costs associated with purchase and use of the technology. Following the

demonstration, the vendor or operator would be in a position to market their system or


- 4 -

services to tenants at the Ports. It is important to understand the Ports’ role following

completion of the level of effort sponsored under this solicitation:

– The Ports cannot mandate that any tenant pursue the acquisition, installation, or

retention of services of an at-berth emission capture system. The Ports will ensure

that tenants are aware of the availability of the systems or services and

corroborate test and in-use demonstration results if successfully completed.

– The Ports cannot guarantee the availability of incentive funding from any source

to co-fund the future acquisition of an OGV at-berth emission capture system. The

business case or future marketability of a vendor’s emission reduction system

should not be reliant or contingent upon the availability of public money. In the

event incentive funding is available to offset the cost of system acquisition, the

Ports will support the proposer in pursuing incentive funding.

– The acquisition or lease of OGV at-berth emissions capture systems or services will

be based upon an agreement between the Port tenant and the proposer or

manufacturer. The Ports do not intend to be a party to any future agreement

between a proposer and a Port tenant.

Proposers who wish to submit questions regarding this RFP must do so by Thursday, April 5, 2018

at 3:00 PM. Please send questions via email to Tanisha Herr at [email protected]. Questions

received after this date cannot be accepted and will not be answered.

The Ports will answer all questions received by the deadline and will post them online at:

http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/technology-advancement-program/. Response will also be

posted at www.LABAVN.org. The Ports anticipate posting answers to submitted questions by

April 12, 2018.

3.0 SOLICITATION OVERVIEW

3.1 Available Funding The Ports have set aside $1,000,000 in TAP funding to demonstrate one or more OGV at-berth

emissions capture systems. NOTE THAT MATCH FUNDING IS A TAP REQUIREMENT. TAP will fund

up to 50% of a project’s total cost. The proposer must contribute a minimum of 50% of the total

project cost. Of the proposer’s minimum 50% cost share, a minimum of 10% must be in the form

of a cash contribution to the project. All project costs, including Match Funding, must be tracked

and documented in accordance with contract requirements.

http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/technology-advancement-program/


- 5 -

Proposers that offer substantial co-funding to leverage the Ports’ investment will be considered

more favorably during project evaluation and scoring as discussed in Section 9 of this RFP.

3.2 RFP Timeline

Proposals submitted in response to this RFP must be received no later than 3:00 pm on Thursday, April 26, 2018. Evaluation of proposals received under this RFP will be conducted in accordance with the following timeline:

Table 3.2-1: Timeline for At-Berth Emission Reduction System RFP

Milestone Anticipated Date

Ports release RFP March 20, 2018

Deadline to submit questions via email April 5, 2018 3:00pm

Post answers to questions online By April 12, 2018

Deadline for submittal of proposals April 26, 2018 3:00pm

Ports’ staff and Technical Advisory Committee review proposals

May - July 2018

Ports’ staff recommend proposed project(s) to the Board of Harbor Commissioners for funding consideration and finalize funding contract for demonstration project(s) and receive final approval from the Board (tentative)

July - September 2018

Project(s) begin (tentative) October 2018

3.3 Marine Terminal/Ocean Going Vessel Demonstration Partner

Essential to the demonstration of at-berth emission reduction systems is a marine terminal

partner with access to a representative OGV(s). Note that proposers under this RFP are not

required to identify a marine terminal/OGV demonstration partner as an element of their

proposal. However, proposers without a partner who are applying to demonstrate land-based

technology will receive only conditional approval and will have four (4) months to find a partner.

If the proposer cannot find a partner within four (4) months, the Ports will move to award a

contract to the next highest-scoring proposal.

Proposers who are able to secure a demonstration partner, including a marine terminal and non-

regulated OGV operator, are encouraged to do so and submit documentation of the project

partnership as an element of their proposal. Proposers who submit signed letters of


- 6 -

commitment, memorandum of agreement, or other documentation attesting to the willingness

of a Port tenant or OGV operator to participate in a port-sponsored, at-berth demonstration

project as proposed by the Proposer will be considered more favorably during project evaluation

and scoring as discussed in Section 9 of this RFP.

3.4 Testing and In-Use Demonstration Schedule

The Ports have not established specific schedule requirements for the testing and in-use

demonstration of an at-berth emissions reduction system, as the demonstration schedule must

take into account the operational constraints of the marine terminal partner and the availability

of a representative non-regulated OGV. The demonstration must occur in the Port of Long Beach

or Port of Los Angeles.

When preparing a response to this RFP, proposers should provide schedule information that

details the milestones and timelines required to complete the development, fabrication, onsite

assembly, and initial testing of their proposed emissions reduction system. The schedule

information should be prepared from the perspective of the earliest date the proposed system

could be available for full-scale testing and in-use demonstration on an OGV, using contract

Authority to Proceed (ATP) as the initial timeline benchmark. The preparation and presentation

of proposal schedule information is discussed further in Section 7 of this RFP.

4.0 OGV CHARACTERIZATION

OGV characterization information is provided to assist proposers in designing and configuring

their OGV exhaust emissions capture and treatment systems for demonstration at the Ports in

Appendix A. Please note that this information is generic and may not encompass all potential

OGV configurations, auxiliary power ratings, or gas flow rates.

5.0 AT-BERTH EMISSIONS REDUCTION SYSTEM TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

The following are the minimum Technical Requirements that must be satisfied by all OGV at-

berth emission reduction systems proposed for demonstration in response to this RFP. Systems

that exceed these minimum requirements will score higher. Projects not meeting the minimum

requirements will not be further evaluated.

5.1. Minimum Emission Reduction Effectiveness

Cold Ironing, also known as shore power, achieves an approximately 90% emission reduction

from OGV auxiliary engines hotelling at berth. For the purpose of conducting an at-berth


- 7 -

emissions reduction in-use demonstration, the Ports expect a minimum requirement of achieving

at least 90% of the emission reductions achieved by cold ironing; i.e., the minimum requirement

for at-berth emissions reduction systems is an 81% reduction in OGV auxiliary engine emissions

(90% of 90% = 81%). Systems that achieve higher levels of emission reductions will receive more

points. Please note that the 81% or greater emission reduction requirement is above and beyond

emission reductions achieved through the use of low sulfur marine fuels. Any emission

reductions from OGV boilers achieved through the use of at-berth emissions reduction systems

is surplus to the > 81% requirement.

5.2 Targeted Pollutants

The “81% or greater” emission reduction requirement applies to the following criteria air

pollutants:

Total Particulate Matter (PM)

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

Sulfur Oxides (SOx)

For the purpose of conducting an at-berth emissions reduction demonstration, only candidate

emission reduction systems designed to reduce all targeted pollutants (PM, NOx, and SOx) will be

considered for evaluation and potential in-use demonstration. At-berth emission capture

systems that do not address all targeted pollutants or cannot demonstrate a high probability of

achieving 81% reduction for all targeted pollutants are not sought under this RFP and will not be

considered for in-use demonstration at the Ports.

5.3 Additional Targeted Pollutants

Emission reductions are also sought from additional criteria air pollutants, including carbon

monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Reduction in these criteria pollutants,

while beneficial and desired by the Ports, are less critical as compared to the primary criteria

pollutants PM, NOx, and SOx.

In addition, greenhouse gases (GHG), including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), etc. are not

included within the 81% at-berth emissions reduction requirement. However, reductions in GHG

are highly sought by the Ports; thus, proposers under this RFP should highlight their technology’s

capabilities as they pertain to the reduction of CO, VOCs, and GHGs.


- 8 -

5.4 Emission Capture System Interface with Ocean Going Vessel

5.4.1 At-berth emission capture systems must not require any significant physical modification,

alteration, or retrofit to any OGV.

5.4.2 At-berth emission capture systems should not require undue modifications to normal

OGV hotelling operations or procedures.

5.5 At-berth Emission Capture System Installation Location

OGV at-berth emission capture systems proposed under this solicitation must be located “off-

vessel”. Emission capture systems may, however, be designed for installation in a permanent,

semi-mobile, or mobile configuration affixed to the pier (dockside installation) or affixed to a

barge (barge-side installation).

5.6 Environmental Permits

Proposers are required to be cognizant of, and comply with, all environmental rules and

regulations at the Ports as well as those enforced by the South Coast Air Quality Management

District (SCAQMD). This includes, but is not limited to, acquiring any and all necessary permits

for the proposed demonstration, such as a Harbor Development Permit (HDP).

5.7 Barge-Based Emission Capture Systems – U.S. Coast Guard Approval

Proposers of at-berth emission reduction systems designed for installation and operation on a

barge must secure all necessary approvals and permits from the US Coast Guard prior to system

deployment.

5.8 Wastewater Discharge Quality

Proposers of at-berth emissions reduction systems that utilize water-based exhaust gas

scrubbing must include a water quality analysis, including test results, of the discharge effluent

in their RFP response. The method for properly discharging or disposing of all wastewater must

be clearly described. All proposed wastewater discharges must be in compliance with applicable

regulations.

5.9 Ammonia Slip

OGV at-berth emissions reduction systems that propose the use of selective catalytic reduction

(SCR) as a strategy to reduce auxiliary engine NOx emissions are required to mitigate any excess


- 9 -

ammonia emissions resulting from the use of an SCR reductant such as urea (i.e., ammonia slip).

The Ports have not established a threshold for an acceptable level of ammonia slip; however,

proposers under this RFP are required to estimate the net amount of ammonia slip associated

with their specific technology, if applicable.

5.10 Utilities

OGV at-berth emission reduction systems must identify all required utilities for their operations,

such as electrical, gas, water, or sewer, and estimate the costs associated with connection and

usage rates for the demonstration.

6.0 AT-BERTH EMISSIONS REDUCTION SYSTEM - FULL SCALE TESTING & IN-USE

DEMONSTRATION REQUIREMENTS

Emission reduction proposers selected to participate in Ports-sponsored at-berth emission

reduction full scale testing and in-use demonstration will be required to perform, at a minimum,

the tasks outlined below:

6.1 Demonstration Test Plan: Prior to proceeding with the project, the proposer will be

required to develop and submit a demonstration test plan for approval by the Ports which

includes detailed information on the parameters to be tested and the methodologies to

be utilized and the records to be kept during the demonstration. Further the

demonstration test plan must be approved by CARB for their evaluation of the

technology. The test plan may require testing for a minimum number of hours, on a

minimum number of vessels, various vessel types, and/or other requirements. Proposers

should review CARB’s “Recommended Emissions Testing Guidelines for Ocean-going

Vessels”3 for other potential requirements.

6.2 Site Preparation: The emissions reduction proposer will be required to coordinate with

the marine terminal demonstration partner as it pertains to necessary site preparations

at the marine terminal facility. This includes, but is not limited to, securing the necessary

permits for all work (e.g. Harbor Development Permit), and the construction of any

temporary modifications to the existing dock or port infrastructure, including utility

connections. Barge-based emissions reduction systems will be required to coordinate

barge movement procedures with the US Coast Guard as well as coordinating with the

3 https://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/documents/emissiontest/OGV%20Test%20Guidelines.pdf


- 10 -

marine terminal operator as it relates to the availability of shore power or other utility

requirements.

6.3 Emission Reduction System Transport and Assembly: The proposer will be required to

coordinate with the marine terminal demonstration partner as it pertains to the delivery,

assembly, and checkout of the emissions capture and treatment system at the marine

terminal facility.

6.4 Emissions Capture and Reduction System Checkout & Calibration: The assembled

emissions reduction system will undergo system checkout and calibration to be

conducted by the proposer. In addition, the assembled system will undergo an

independent safety assessment to ensure the system as configured complies with Ports’

requirements and SC AQMD permitting requirements as applicable.

6.5 Emissions Capture System Full Scale Testing on OGV: As part of the project, you will be

expected to include full scale testing of the emissions reduction system on OGVs. This

will include emissions monitoring and measurement to determine the exhaust capture

efficiency and emissions treatment efficiency. It is anticipated that an independent third

party will conduct emissions measurement in parallel with the proposer to independently

document the effectiveness of the emissions capture and treatment system.

6.6 Assessment of Emissions Capture & Treatment Effectiveness: At the completion of full-

scale testing of the emissions capture and treatment system, the Ports will make a

determination as to whether the system emissions reduction effectiveness warrants

continued in-use demonstration. The Ports reserve the right to utilize its Technology

Advancement Program (TAP) Advisory Committee to provide additional technical

expertise in determining the success of the full-scale testing. The decision to continue

demonstration of the at-berth emissions reduction system will be at the sole discretion

of the Ports.

6.7 In-Use Demonstration: Following successful full-scale testing on an OGV and verification

of the emissions capture and treatment effectiveness and approval to proceed from the

Ports, the emissions reduction system will remain onsite for continued demonstration on

OGVs. The Ports-contracted period of performance for in-use demonstration is

anticipated to be approximately six (6) months. This period may be extended in the event

the proposer and marine terminal operator reach an agreement for continued system

operation; however, the Ports do not intend to be a party to any extended demonstration


- 11 -

or operation of the system beyond the period of performance stipulated in the Ports’

contract.

6.8 Disassembly and Dock Restoration: Following the demonstration period, the proposer

may be required to disassemble the emissions capture and treatment system hardware, remove the hardware from the Port, and return the dock and other port infrastructure to its pre-demonstration condition.

6.9 Documentation and Reporting: The Ports will require that participating vendors prepare

detailed project documentation, including interim reporting at key project milestones, as well as the preparation and submittal of a comprehensive final report. The final report must include the results of the full-scale emissions testing as well as the results of the ongoing in-use demonstration, if applicable.

6.10 Documentation from CARB Acknowledging Emission Reduction Potential of the At-Berth

Emissions Reduction System: The Ports will require that the proposer seek concurrence from CARB as it pertains to the emission reduction effectiveness of the demonstrated system and acceptance of the system as an alternative to shore power. In the past, CARB has issued executive orders to this effect. This will allow the Ports to quantify and account for the emissions reductions attributable to the system when deployed. The accounting of emission reductions will be reflected in the Ports’ emissions inventories and used to demonstrate progress towards the Ports’ emission reduction obligations.

7.0 PROPOSAL PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES

The Ports require that Proposals submitted in response to this RFP be prepared in accordance

with the following guidelines.

7.1 Page Limit: Proposals submitted in response to this RFP should be prepared as follows:

Main Body – the main body of the proposal must not exceed a maximum of 25 sheets of

paper, double-sided printing. Cover page and contact information do not count against

the page limit. It is recommended that the proposal be concisely written.

Technical Appendix – the proposal may include a Technical Appendix not to exceed 30

sheets of paper. The Technical Appendix may include additional narrative, diagrams,

schematics, brochures, etc.

7.2 Cover Page – Include a cover page with a description and project title.

7.3 Contact and Grant Experience Information – Proposers are required to provide contact information for the primary project lead, additional project team members, and the marine terminal demonstration partner, if applicable. Appendix B provides a template for Contact


- 12 -

information and Appendix C provides a template for Grant experience. Multiple pages may be used if necessary. 7.4 At-Berth Exhaust Emissions Capture and Treatment System: System Design and Configuration Description Proposers are required to provide a detailed technical description and any applicable drawings

of the proposed at-berth exhaust emissions capture & treatment system. Proposers should not

include proprietary information in proposals. All proposals become property of the Ports, which

as public agencies, are subject to the California Public Records Act. The following elements must

be included in the proposal:

7.4.1 Scientific Basis for the Proposed Emissions Treatment Technology

Provide the following information regarding the proposed At-Berth Emissions Reduction

technology:

1. Description of the proposed emissions treatment technology(s), including scientific

principle(s) of operation for the emissions treatment system;

2. Technology development status and degree of technical maturity;

3. Description of any prototype or existing units that have been demonstrated or placed into

operation;

4. Description of known limitations of the emissions treatment technology;

5. Evidence that the proposer owns all intellectual property rights to the technology.

7.4.2 Vessel Interface – Exhaust Emissions Capture Strategy

Provide a detailed description of:

1. The interface between the proposed at-berth emissions reduction system and the OGV

exhaust system. Include drawings, schematics, diagrams, etc. to accurately and

comprehensively convey the physical interface between the exhaust capture system and

the OGV exhaust system;

2. The emissions capture efficiency; i.e., the percentage of auxiliary engine exhaust gases

captured and treated by the system. Provide the basis for the capture efficiency quoted;

i.e., empirical data derived from previous full-scale tests, results from subscale testing, or

results that were analytically derived.

7.4.3 Ports Berth Infrastructure Requirements


- 13 -

Provide a detailed description of the infrastructure requirements at the Ports to accommodate

the proposed at-berth emissions reduction system. This would include, but is not limited to:

1. Utility Requirements (power, water, gas, etc.)

2. Installation Requirements (number of dedicated square feet of wharf space required,

water space for barge, onsite equipment or waste storage, etc.)

7.4.4 Waste Generation and Disposal

Provide a detailed description of the waste - both solid and liquid - generated by the proposed

at-berth emissions reduction system, as well as the proposed method(s) of disposing of solid and

liquid waste, emphasizing the following:

1. Identify waste that is deemed hazardous material and discuss method of disposal;

2. For treated water that is intended for discharge back into San Pedro Bay, include a

detailed discussion of the water treatment method and discharged water quality;

3. Submit results of discharge water quality testing and analysis as an element of your

proposal.

7.5 Emission Reduction Capability

7.5.1 Emission Reductions from Non-Regulated OGVs

The proposal must include a discussion of the proposed at-berth emissions reduction system’s

capabilities to reduce exhaust air pollutant emissions from hotelling OGVs. The focus is non-

regulated OGVs – RO-ROs (i.e. roll on/roll off), Bulk Carriers, and Tankers. Provide estimates of

the proposed at-berth emissions reduction system’s potential to reduce PM, NOx, and SOx

emissions. The data included in Tables 4.3-2 through 4.3-5 in Appendix A can be used as a

baseline. If applicable, include information relative to the proposed technology’s capabilities to

obtain surplus emission reductions, including CO, VOCs, and GHGs, as applicable. Also, please

address, to the extent feasible, the proposed technology’s capability to reduce emissions from

OGV boilers in addition to auxiliary engines. The following chart is included as an example of how

the projected technology performance data could be summarized; however, data and analyses

substantiating the emission reduction estimates should be included in the proposal.

Respondents to this RFP are welcome to use an alternative data presentation format at their

discretion.


- 14 -

Example:

Vessel Type: RO-RO Auxiliary Engines

(% Reduction)

Auxiliary Engines PLUS Boiler Emissions

(% Reduction)

Particulate Matter (PM)

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Sulfur Oxides (SOx)

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Greenhouse Gases (CO2E)4

7.5.2 System Capabilities for Regulated Vessels

If applicable, please include a discussion of the proposed at-berth emissions reduction system’s

capability to interface with and achieve emission reductions from a Container Vessel that is not

compatible with shore power. Provide empirical test data or analytically derived data to

substantiate the emission reduction estimates for regulated container vessels.

7.5.3 Ammonia Slip

Proposers are required to estimate the net amount of ammonia slip associated with their specific

technology and include this value in their proposal. See Section 5.9 for more information.

7.5.4 CARB Certification or Verification

Discuss whether the proposed At-Berth Emissions Reduction technology is currently certified or

verified by CARB for ANY APPLICATION; e.g., a SCR currently verified for marine engines that is

proposed for adaptation to an OGV auxiliary engine application. If the proposed technology has

a CARB Executive Order Number, please provide it in your response. Also, if your technology is

currently in the CARB certification or verification protocol, please discuss the status of earning

CARB certification/verification in your Proposal response.

7.6 Schedule Requirements

Provide an estimate of the proposed at-berth emissions reduction system project schedule

requirements:

4 CO2E = greenhouse gases expressed as an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.


- 15 -

1. Provide schedule information that details the milestones and timelines required to

complete the development, fabrication, onsite assembly, and system checkout of their

proposed emissions reduction system;

2. Identify the earliest feasible date to conduct full-scale testing and in-use demonstration

of the proposed At-Berth Emissions Reduction technology on an at-berth OGV at the Port

of Long Beach or the Port of Los Angeles. Identify milestones that must be met prior to

implementing an in-use demonstration;

3. The schedule information should be prepared from the perspective of the earliest date

the proposed system could be available for full-scale testing and in-use demonstration on

an OGV, using contract Authority to Proceed as the initial timeline benchmark.

7.7 Cost Estimate

Proposers are required to provide detailed estimates of the proposed at-berth emissions

reduction system cost for the following cost categories:

7.7.1 Estimated Cost to Conduct Full-Scale Testing and In-Use Demonstration at the Ports

This should include, but not be limited to, the following cost elements:

1. Site Preparation Costs, including but not limited to dock modifications and infrastructure

requirements necessary to install the at-berth emissions capture and treatment system;

2. At-Berth Emissions Reduction System Capital Cost, including all costs elements associated

with the at-berth emissions reduction system hardware components, monitoring and test

equipment, etc. The Ports reserve the right to request more detailed cost estimates from

finalists. Upon request, proposers will need to provide system component manufacturer

quotes. Component or subsystem manufacturers who are essential project partners

should provide documentation attesting to their intent to participate in the proposed

project;

3. At-Berth Emissions Reduction System assembly, calibration, and checkout costs, including

but not limited to costs associated with transporting the system to the marine terminal,

assembly of the at-berth emissions reduction system, and calibration and checkout of the

emissions reduction system;

4. Full-Scale Testing Costs, including all costs associated with conducting a full-scale

demonstration on an eligible demonstration vessel. This should include costs associated

with acquiring needed permits, hiring a third party emissions testing company to conduct

independent emission reduction monitoring and testing in addition to testing costs borne

by the proposer.


- 16 -

5. In-Use Demonstration Costs. For this cost element, provide a “per vessel” demonstration

cost using the baseline assumptions included in Tables 4.3.2 through 4.3.5 of Appendix A;

6. At-Berth Emissions Reduction System Disassembly & Pier Restoration (if applicable),

including all costs associated with the removal of the system at the completion of the

demonstration and reconfiguration of the dock and port facilities and infrastructure to its

pre-demonstration condition;

7. Total Cost to the Ports to conduct full-scale testing on a scenario involving one (1) eligible

OGV and an additional six (6) months of in-use demonstration of the proposed at-berth

emissions reduction system on a minimum of four (4) additional eligible OGVs. Please

note, the actual test plan may require more testing; this scenario is used only for

comparison purposes.

7.7.2 Project Co-funding

In addition to the required match funding discussed in Section 3.1, identify the amount and

source of any additional demonstration project co-funding offered by the proposer, project

partners, or agencies, including specific cost elements that the co-funding will be applied

towards. State if the co-funding is a cash or in-kind contribution. Letters of commitment should

be included to document funding partner commitment.

7.8 Business Case Assessment & Commercialization Plan

Proposers must prepare a business case and commercialization plan as an element of the

proposal. This should include, at a minimum:

7.8.1 Estimated costs for the proposed at-berth emissions reduction system when fully

commercialized. To the extent possible, include costs for the following:

1. Estimated capital acquisition cost for the fully commercialized system;

2. Estimated operations costs for an average port call – please state the assumptions

used in estimating operations costs (see Table 4.3.5 for average call durations as a

function of vessel type);

3. Estimated life cycle cost for the fully commercialized system – please state the

assumptions used in estimating life cycle cost.

7.8.2 Identification of issues impeding commercialization, and recommendations for mitigating

or eliminating perceived barriers to at-berth emissions capture and treatment in a marine

terminal environment.


- 17 -

7.9 PORT OF LOS ANGELES CITY ETHICS COMMISSION (CEC) FORM 50 AND 55

To comply with Port of Los Angeles standards, proposers must submit CEC Form 50 and 55 (See

Appendix D) with the proposal. Proposers may not make campaign contributions to and or

engage in fundraising for certain elected City of Los Angeles officials or candidates for elected

City office from the time they submit the response until either the contract is approved or, for

successful proposers, 12 months after the contract is signed. The proposer’s principals and

subconsultants performing $100,000 or more in work on the contract, as well as the principals of

those subconsultants, are also subject to the same limitations on campaign contributions and

fundraising. Proposers must also notify their principals and subcontractors in writing of the

restrictions and include the notice in contracts with subcontractors. Responses submitted

without a completed CEC Form 50 and 55 may be deemed nonresponsive. Proposers who fail to

comply with City of Los Angeles law may be subject to penalties, termination of contract, and

debarment. Additional information regarding these restrictions and requirements may be

obtained from the City Ethics Commission at (213) 978-1960 or ethics.lacity.org.

8.0 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

One (1) original and four (4) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of your proposal (CD or flashdrive) must be submitted on or before 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 26, 2018 to: By Hand/Mail Delivery: Contracts and Purchasing Division

ATTN: Tanisha Herr REF: OGV At-Berth

500 Pier ‘A’ Street Wilmington, CA 90744 The digital and hard copy of your proposal must match. No additional information may be submitted. Electronically transmitted proposals will not be considered.

All proposals will be date stamped as the Harbor Department receives them. Proposers solely are responsible for the timeliness of their submittals. As such, proposers are cautioned to budget adequate time to ensure that their proposals are delivered at the location designated at or before the deadline set forth above. Proposers are cautioned that matters including, but not limited to, traffic congestion, security measures and/or events in or around the Harbor Department, may lengthen the amount of time necessary to deliver the proposal, whether the proposal is submitted in person or by mail.

By submitting a proposal, proposers certify that such proposal constitutes their full and complete written response to the RFP and evidences their acknowledgement that additional written material outside of such proposal shall not be considered by the City in connection with this RFP,


- 18 -

unless the City provides a written request that they submit additional written materials. Absent such written request, proposers are instructed to not submit to the City written or other materials outside of the proposal, either in a subsequent interview or otherwise.

9.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Proposals received in response to this RFP will be evaluated in accordance with the following Ports’ policies and procedures. 9.1 Evaluation Process

Proposals received under this solicitation will be evaluated using the criteria described below in Section 9.2. The evaluation team will be comprised of staff members from the Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles. Additionally, the Ports reserve the right to retain additional evaluators at their discretion to assist in proposal evaluation, scoring and ranking. Proposals will undergo an initial screening by Ports’ staff to ensure they meet the minimum requirements outlined throughout this RFP. Proposals that do not meet the minimum technical and proposal submission requirements stipulated in the RFP will be deemed nonresponsive and will not be further evaluated. This initial screening will assess each of the following elements on a pass or fail basis. Any proposal that fails to meet any of the following elements will not be forwarded to the evaluation committee:

Minimum of 50% match funding, of which 10% is cash match (Section 3.1)

Minimum emission reduction effectiveness (Section 5.1)

Pollutants that must be covered by the minimum emission reduction effectiveness (Section 5.2)

Proposers of at-berth emission reduction systems that utilize water-based exhaust gas scrubbing must include a water quality analysis, including test results, of the discharge effluent (Section 5.8)

Proposers must estimate the net amount of ammonia slip associated with their technology, if applicable (Section 5.9).

The proposed scope of work includes a path to CARB approval (Section 6.10)

The proposal and technical appendices do not exceed prescribed page count limits (Section 7.1)

The proposal includes a business case assessment and commercialization plan (Section 7.8)

The proposer must include contact information in Appendix B.

The proposer must complete Appendix C if they have received previous grant funding (Section 9.2).

The proposer must complete Appendix D to comply with Port of Los Angeles standards (Section 7.9).


- 19 -

The proposal team must describe its experience participating in in-use demonstrations (Section 9.2) Proposer has included letters of commitment for each project partner, if applicable (Section 9.2)

Proposals deemed responsive to this RFP that pass the above screening will undergo a thorough evaluation and will be scored based on how well the proposed emission reduction system satisfies the requirements defined in each evaluation criteria. Proposals will be ranked in order of numerical score. It is anticipated that one or more top-ranked proposals will be recommended for a funding award.

9.2 Evaluation Criteria

Each proposal that meets the minimum technical and submission requirements of this RFP will

be evaluated and scored relative to the following criteria. The maximum possible score is 100

points (for additional information see Appendix F):

1. Emission Reductions (15 points maximum)

The minimum requirement for reducing NOx, SOx, and PM emissions from OGV auxiliary

engines is 81%. Proposed systems will be evaluated and awarded additional points on a

relative scale for systems that are designed to achieve higher levels of targeted pollutant

reduction. At-berth emissions reduction systems that are effective in removing criteria

and/or greenhouse gas pollutants in addition to NOx, SOx, and PM from an OGV auxiliary

and/or boiler exhaust stream will be awarded additional points.

At-berth emissions reduction systems that are compatible with and effective in reducing

OGV boiler emission in addition to auxiliary engine exhaust emissions will be awarded

additional points.

2. Technical Readiness (20 points maximum)

The at-berth emissions capture and treatment system concept and system will be

evaluated relative to its state of technical maturity and readiness to participate in full-

scale testing and in-use demonstration at the port. Points will be awarded on a relative

basis based upon the level of technical maturity of the proposed at-berth emissions

reduction system. Systems that exist in prototype form or that have been commercialized

in other applications will receive additional points.

3. Proposal Team’s Qualifications [20 points maximum]

The proposal team must describe its experience participating in in-use demonstrations;

whether it is has developed this technology before, even in another application; and


- 20 -

whether the team has previously worked together and if so, whether the project was

completed per the scope of work, budget, and schedule. Teams that have worked

together in the past and successfully completed previous similar work will receive more

points. Proposers are required to describe previous grants or funds they have received

from public agencies (including but not limited to the Ports, CARB, or SCAQMD) on the

form in Appendix C. The Ports reserve the right to contact public agencies to obtain

additional input on their experience working with the proposer.

4. Vessel & Operations Compatibility (20 points maximum)

The emissions capture system design will be evaluated as to the system’s compatibility

and flexibility to interface with various non-regulated OGV exhaust stack configurations.

Systems deemed having greater compatibility with different OGV stack configurations -

including container vessels - will receive a higher point award.

The impact on existing ports operations and requirements for ports resources and

infrastructure will also be evaluated. At-berth emissions reduction systems that are less

intrusive to ongoing ports operations, are self-contained, and require fewer ports

resources will receive a higher point award.

5. Cost and Co-Funding (10 points maximum)

Projects that can be successfully implemented for a lower cost will receive a higher point

award. Above and beyond the required cost-share, proposers who offer co-funding to

partially offset the cost of conducting the at-berth emissions reduction system full-scale

testing and in-use demonstration will receive additional points. Points will be awarded

on a relative basis (i.e., the percentage of project co-funding as compared to the total

project cost).

6. Evaluation of the Emission Reduction System’s Business Case (10 points maximum)

The proposed system’s potential for successful commercial product development and/or

the commercial viability of future at-berth OGV emission reduction services will be

assessed. Points will be awarded on a relative basis based upon the perceived commercial

viability of the proposed system or services.


- 21 -

7. Secured Participation by Port Marine Terminal Tenant and (5 points maximum)

OGV Operator

Proposers who have secured a marine terminal demonstration partner and/or OGV vessel

operator to participate in the full-scale testing and/or in-use demonstration will be

awarded 5 points. Proposers must include letters of commitment or other supporting

documentation as an element of their proposal submittal. Proposers without a

demonstration partner will receive no points under this criterion.

9.3 Board of Harbor Commissioners’ Review

Projects recommended for TAP Funding by the Ports’ staffs, in consultation with the TAP Advisory

Committee, will be forwarded to each Port’s respective Board of Harbor Commissioners. The

Boards of Harbor Commissioners have final approval over all TAP projects and contracts.

9.4 Contracting with the Port

Proposers who are approved for a funding award are required to enter into a contract with one

of the Ports as a condition of receiving funding. The determination of which Port will be the

contracting lead will be made at the time of award. In order to contract with the Ports, the

Proposer will be required to demonstrate that there are no outstanding liens or judgments. Ports

reserve the right to verify finances. The Standard Contract Provisions and Sample Insurance

Requirements for the Port of Los Angeles are provided in Appendix E. Insurance Requirements

for the Port of Long Beach are provided in Appendix F. Proposers should anticipate a minimum

contract formation and legal review period of approximately three (3) months from the date of

preliminary approval by the Board of Harbor Commissioners. Please note that this contract

formation timeline is contingent upon timely receipt of all information and materials from the

contractor that will include a detailed scope of work and a timeline of milestones and deliverables

for the project. No work can commence on a project until the contract is fully executed and

authority to proceed has been issued by the Ports.

9.5 Payment Structure

Payments will be made on a reimbursement basis once work has been completed. Proposers

should ensure they have the financial wherewithal to complete each milestone on a

reimbursement basis.

10.0 QUESTIONS REGARDING THE RFP

If you need additional assistance or clarification with regard to this Request for Proposals, please

contact the following person no later than April 5, 2018:


22

Tanisha Herr, Contracts Coordinator

Port of Los Angeles

[email protected]

11.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION

Please note that any information and materials submitted in response to this Request for

Proposals becomes public information and may be released under a Public Records Act request

without further notification. Therefore, it is recommended that Company Proprietary and Trade

Secret information not be included in any proposal submitted under this solicitation. All

proposals submitted become the property of the Ports.

mailto:[email protected]


23

APPENDIX A

OGV CHARACTERIZATION

The following information is provided to assist proposers in designing and configuring their OGV

exhaust emissions capture and treatment systems for demonstration at the Ports. Please note

that this information is generic and may not encompass all potential OGV configurations, auxiliary

power ratings, or gas flow rates. Proposers are expected to conduct independent OGV research

and base their system design on their independent findings. This is especially important as it

relates to the various configurations of OGV exhaust stacks. Information regarding the various

configurations of non-regulated OGV exhaust stacks is not included in this RFP.

1.0 Types of Non-Regulated Ocean Going Vessels Applicable to At-Berth Emissions Reduction

System Full Scale Testing & In-Use Demonstration

The Ports have identified three classes of OGVs as primary candidates for achieving at-berth

emissions reductions under the CAAP Update. These vessels are not regulated under the CARB

Shore Power for Ocean-Going Vessels Regulation and include the following:

Auto Carrier/RO-RO Vessels - Auto Carriers and RO-ROs (i.e. roll on/roll off) vessels carry

wheeled cargo such as automobiles, wheeled construction equipment, trailers or railway

carriages. These vessels have built-in ramps, which allow the cargo to be easily moved on

or off the vessel when in port. Large car carriers are commonly called Pure Car Carriers

(PCCs) or Pure Car Truck Carriers (PCTCs). The largest PCC currently in service can carry

over 7,000 cars;

Bulk Carriers - Bulk carriers are vessels used to transport bulk items such as mineral ore,

grain, and petroleum coke. They have large box-like hatches on their deck, designed to

slide outboard for loading. The bulk carriers primarily carry dry cargoes, which are shipped

in large quantities and do not need to be carried in packaged form;

Tanker Vessels - Tanker vessels are vessels designed to transport liquids in bulk. Tankers

can range in size from several hundred tons, designed for coastal service, to several

hundred thousand tons, for transoceanic voyages. Different products require different

handling and transport, thus special types of tankers have been built, such as "chemical

tankers," and "oil tankers.”


24

2.0 Applicability to Containerships

At-berth emission reduction systems are principally sought for application to non-regulated

OGVs. However, it is foreseeable that a containership that calls at the Ports may also need to

use such a technology either for alternative compliance for the CARB regulation or to meet Ports’

lease requirements. Although it is anticipated that the need to use the system for containerships

will be infrequent, the Ports would like to understand the capability and compatibility of an at-

berth emissions reduction system as it relates to reducing emissions from containership auxiliary

engines. As discussed in the following Sections, containerships typically have significantly higher

hotelling power requirements as compared to non-regulated OGVs and thus generate

significantly higher levels of exhaust pollutants. A containership typically has twice the exhaust

flow rate as compared to a RO-RO vessel.

3.0 Vessel Auxiliary Engine Characterization

The following Sections are intended to provide general guidance relative to exhaust

characteristics of OGVs. While at-berth emission reduction systems are primarily sought for

reducing criteria air pollutant emissions from non-regulated OGV auxiliary engines, exhaust gas

data are also provided for containerships and OGV boilers. Proposers under this RFP are asked

to focus primarily on non-regulated bulk carrier, tanker, and auto carrier/RO-RO auxiliary engine

emission reductions, but also include details as to whether the technology being offered has the

inherent capability and capacity, or could be scaled, to accommodate boiler emissions or

container ship auxiliary engine’s emissions. This is discussed further in Section 6 of this RFP.

3.1. OGV Fuel Specifications

OGVs are required under the North American Emission Control Area (ECA) to use fuel with less

than or equal to 0.1% sulfur within 200 nm of the North American coast.

Table 3-1: Fuel Requirements for Ocean-going Vessel Main (Propulsion) Diesel Engines, Auxiliary Diesel

Engines, and Auxiliary Boilers

Fuel Requirement Effective Date Fuel Requirements

CARB Regulation January 1, 2014 Marine gas oil (DMA) or Marine diesel oil (DMB) at or below 0.1% sulfur within 24 nm of the CA coast and coastal islands

IMO ECA January 2015 Low sulfur fuel at or below 0.1% sulfur within 200 nm of the coast of North America


25

3.2 OGV Auxiliary Engine & Boiler Exhaust Emission Factors

Average emission factors for OGV auxiliary engines and boilers are shown in Table 4.3-2, below.

Note that Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) factors are included. Vessels are anticipated to continue to use

HFO outside of the regulatory boundaries.

Table 3-2: Estimated Average Emission Factors for OGV Auxiliary Engines and Boilers (g/kW-hr)

Fuel Marine Distillate

Sulfur Content 0.1%

Auxiliary Engines Emission Factor (g/kW-hr)

NOx 13.9 SOx 0.4

PM 0.25

Boilers Emission Factor (g/kW-hr)

NOx 2.0 SOx 0.6 PM 0.1

OGVs are typically configured with multiple auxiliary engines. Table 4.3-3 shows the typical

number of auxiliary engines as a function of vessel type:

Table 3-3: Number of Auxiliary Engines per Vessel

Number of Auxiliary Engines

Vessel Type Minimum Maximum Average

Auto Carrier/RO-RO 1 4 2

Bulk Carrier 1 4 2 Tanker 1 6 2

Container Ship 1 6 2

3.3 At-Berth (hotelling) OGV Auxiliary Engine & Boiler Exhaust Flow Rates

Table 3-4 below provides an estimate of the average total auxiliary engine and boiler power load

and exhaust flow rates as a function of vessel types. The auxiliary engine load represents the

total average auxiliary power used per vessel. The boiler fuel use rates were converted to

equivalent kilowatts. The estimated average and peak auxiliary engine and boiler exhaust flow

rates are based on the auxiliary engine and boiler loads and are presented as a function of vessel

type.


26

Table 3-4: Estimated Average OGV Auxiliary Engine and Boiler Hotelling Loads and Flow Rates as a Function of Vessel Type

Vessel Type

Auxiliary Engine(s) Boilers

Average Load (kW)

Average Flow Rate

(SCFM)

Peak Flow Rate

(SCFM)

Average Load (kW)

Average Flow Rate

(SCFM)

Peak Flow Rate

(SCFM)

Auto Carrier/RO-RO 780 2,339 4,139 278 1,112 1,668

Bulk Carrier 246 738 3,393 82 328 492 Tanker 608 1,824 3,228 1,593 6,372 9,558

Container Ship 1,468 4,404 11,255 380 1,520 2,280

3.4 Average Vessel Hotelling Time per Port Call

The average length of time an OGV spends hotelling at the Ports is shown below in Table 3-5 as

a function of vessel type. Please note that these are average times, and individual vessel port

calls will have varying call durations.

3-5: Average Hotelling Time

Vessel Type Average Hotelling

Time (hours per call)

Auto Carrier/Ro-Ro 28.4

Bulk Carrier 64.5 Tanker 33.5

Containership 34.9


27

APPENDIX B

Proposer Contact Information5

Company Name

Division of:

Subsidiary of:

Website Address

Address

City/Town

State/Province Zip

Phone ( ) - Ext Fax ( ) -

Contact Title

E-mail Address

Have any members of the company had prior employment at either Port as Commissioners, officers, or staff? Name: Position/Title: Dates of Port service:

Additional Project Team Member(s) or subcontractor Contact Information, if applicable. (Please add additional contact information as needed for your specific project):

Company Name

Phone E-mail

Contact Name Title


5 Refer to Section 7.3 for more information.


28

Company Name

Phone E-mail

Contact Name Title


Marine Terminal Demonstration Partner Contact Information, if applicable

Company Name

Phone E-mail

Contact Name Title


29

APPENDIX C

Provide information on past grants and/or other public agency funds that were managed by you

or your team. Use additional forms as necessary. 6

Grant Award Date:

Granting Agency:

Grant Award Amount

Purpose/Objective of the Grant Project

What was the outcome of the project? Was it completed as originally intended? Was the grant funding fully expended? Why or why not?

6 Refer to Section 7.3 for more information.


30

APPENDIX D

(Refer to Section 7.9 for more information)


31


32


33


34


35

APPENDIX E

CITY OF LOS ANGELES - STANDARD CONTRACT PROVISIONS AND SAMPLE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS7 The following sections are standard contract provisions for the Harbor Department. In

submitting a proposal, proposer agrees to accept these terms without change. If your firm

cannot agree to the following requirements, exactly as set forth below, please do not submit a

proposal.

Affirmative Action

Consultant, during the performance of the Agreement, shall not discriminate in its employment

practices against any employee or applicant for employment because of the employee’s or

applicant’s race, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, sexual orientation, disability, marital

status, domestic partner status, or medical condition. The provisions of Section 10.8.4 of the Los

Angeles Administrative Code shall be incorporated and made a part of the agreement. All

subcontracts awarded shall contain a like nondiscrimination provision. See Exhibit A.

Small/Very Small Business Enterprise Program and Local Business Preference

Programs

It is the policy of the Department to provide Small Business Enterprises (SBE), Very Small Business

Enterprises (VSBE), Minority-Owned, Women-Owned, Disabled Veteran-Owned and all Other

Business Enterprises (MBE/WBE/DVBE/OBE) an equal opportunity to participate in the

performance of all City contracts in all areas where such contracts afford such participation

opportunities. Consultant shall assist the City in implementing this policy and shall use its best

efforts to afford the opportunity for SBEs, VSBEs, MBEs, WBEs, DVBEs, and OBEs to achieve

participation in subcontracts where such participation opportunities present themselves and

attempt to ensure that all available business enterprises, including SBEs, VSBEs, MBEs, WBEs,

DVBEs, and OBEs, have equal participation opportunity which might be presented under this

Agreement. See Exhibit B.

7 Refer to Section 9.4 for additional information.


36

It is also the policy of the Department to support an increase in local and regional jobs.

The Department’s Local Business Preference Program aims to benefit the Southern California

region by increasing jobs and expenditures within the local and regional private sector.

Consultant shall assist the City in implementing this policy and shall use its best efforts to afford

the opportunity for Local Business Enterprises to achieve participation in subcontracts where

such participation opportunities present themselves. See Exhibit B.

NOTE: All consultants and subconsultants must be registered on the City’s Contracts

Management and Opportunities Database, Los Angeles Business Assistance Virtual Network

(LABAVN), at http://www.labavn.org, at the time proposals are due.

Business Tax Registration Certificate

The City of Los Angeles, Office of Finance requires the implementation and enforcement of Los

Angeles Municipal Code Section 21.09 et seq. This section provides that every person, other than

a municipal employee, who engages in any business within the City of Los Angeles, is required to

obtain the necessary Business Tax Registration Certificate and pay business taxes. The City

Controller has determined that this Code Section applies to consulting firms that are doing work

for the Los Angeles Harbor Department. See Exhibit C.

Indemnity and Insurance Requirements

REQUIRED AT PROPOSAL STAGE: A letter from each proposer’s broker must be provided with

their proposal. The letter should indicate that the requirements below are presently part of the

proposer’s coverage, or that the broker is able to provide such coverage should the proposer be

selected. The broker must be aware of the indemnification requirements below. Proposers are

not required to purchase the required insurance in order to respond, however all required

insurance will need to be submitted at the time of contract award. ACORD certificates will not

be accepted.

1. Indemnification

Except for the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, or any of its Boards,

Officers, Agents, Employees, Assigns and Successors in Interest, Contractor undertakes and

agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and any of its Boards, Officers, Agents,

Employees, Assigns, and Successors in Interest from and against all suits and causes of action,

claims, losses, demands and expenses, including, but not limited to, attorney's fees (both in

house and outside counsel) and cost of litigation (including all actual litigation costs incurred by

the City, including but not limited to, costs of experts and consultants), damages or liability of

http://www.labavn.org/


37

any nature whatsoever, for death or injury to any person, including Contractor’s employees and

agents, or damage or destruction of any property of either party hereto or of third parties, arising

in any manner by reason of the negligent acts, errors, omissions or willful misconduct incident to

the performance of this Contract by Contractor or its subcontractors of any tier. Rights and

remedies available to the City under this provision are cumulative of those provided for

elsewhere in this Contract and those allowed under the laws of the United States, the State of

California, and the City.

2. Acceptable Evidence and Approval of Insurance

Electronic submission is the required method of submitting insurance documents.

Consultant’s insurance broker or agent shall obtain access to Track4LA TM at

http://track4la.lacity.org/ and follow the instructions to register and submit the appropriate

proof of insurance on Consultant’s behalf.

Carrier Requirements

All insurance which Consultant is required to provide pursunt to this Agreement shall be placed

with insurance carriers authorized to do business in the State of California and which are rated

A-, VII or better in Best’s Insurance Guide. Carriers without a Best’s rating shall meet comparable

standards in another rating service acceptable to City.

Primary Coverage

The coverages submitted must be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance of the

City of Los Angeles Harbor Department. The City of Los Angeles Harbor Department’s program

shall be excess of this insurance and non-contributing.

Notice Of Cancellation

By terms of the contract, the Consultant agrees to maintain all required insurance in full force for

the duration of the contractor’s business with the City of Los Angeles Harbor Department. Each

insurance policy described below shall provide that it will not be canceled or reduced in coverage

until after the Board of Harbor Commissioners, Attention: Risk Manager and the City Attorney of

the City of Los Angeles Harbor Department have been given thirty (30) days’ prior notice (or 10

days notice of non payment of premium) by registered mail addressed to 425 S. Palos Verdes

Street, San Pedro, California 90731.


38

Modification of Coverage

Executive Director, at his or her discretion, based upon recommendation of independent

insurance consultants to City, may increase or decrease amounts an types of insurance coverage

required hereunder at any time during the term hereof by giving ninety (90) days’ written notice

to Consultant.

Renewal of Policies

At least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of each policy, Consultant shall direct their

insurance broker or agent to submit the City’s online insurance compliance system Track4LA™ at

http://track4la.lacity.org a renewal certificate showing that the policy has been renewed or

extended or, if new insurance has been obtained, evidence of insurance as specified below. If

Consultant neglects or fails to secure or maintain the insurance required below, Executive

Director may, at his or her own option but without any obligation, obtain such insurance to

protect the City’s interests. The cost of such insurance will be deducted from the next payment

due Consultant.

Policy Copies

Upon request by City, Consultant must furnish copy of full certified policy of any insurance policy

required herein. This requirement shall survive the termination or expiration date of this

contract.

Limits of Coverage

If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown below, City requires and shall

be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available

insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be

available to City.

Right to Self-Insure

Upon written approval by Executive Director, Consultant may self-insure if the following

conditions are met:

http://track4la.lacity.org/


39

a. Consultant has a formal self-insurance program in place prior to execution of this

Agreement. If a corporation, Consultant must have a formal resolution of its board of

directors authorizing self-insurance.

b. Consultant agrees to protect the City, its boards, officers, agents and employees at

the same level as would be provided by full insurance with respect to types of

coverage and minimum limits of liability required by this Agreement.

c. Consultant agrees to defend the City, its boards, officers, agents and employees in any

lawsuit that would otherwise be defended by an insurance carrier.

d. Consultant agrees that any insurance carried by Department is excess of Consultant’s

self-insurance and will not contribute to it.

e. Consultant provides the name and address of its claims administrator.

f. Consultant submits its most recently filed 10-Q and its 10-K or audited annual financial

statements for the three most recent fiscal years prior to the Executive Director’s

consideration of approval of self-insurance and annually thereafter.

g. Consultant agrees to inform Department in writing immediately of any change in its

status or policy which would materially affect the protection afforded Department by

this self-insurance.

h. Consultant has complied with all laws pertaining to self-insurance.

3. General Liability Insurance

Consultant shall procure and maintain in effect throughout the term of this Agreement, without

requiring additional compensation from the City, commercial general liability insurance covering

personal and advertising injury, bodily injury, and property damage providing contractual

liability, independent contractors, products and completed operations, and premises/operations

coverage written by an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of California


40

rated VII, A- or better in Best’s Insurance Guide (or an alternate guide acceptable to City if Best’s

is not available) within Consultant’s normal limits of liability but not less than One Million Dollars

($1,000,000) combined single limit for injury or claim. Where Consultant provides or dispenses

alcoholic beverages, Host Liquor Liability coverage shall be provided as above. Where Consultant

provides pyrotechnics, Pyrotechnics Liability shall be provided as above. Said limits shall provide

first dollar coverage except that Executive Director may permit a self-insured retention or self-

insurance in those cases where, in his or her judgment, such retention or self-insurance is justified

by the net worth of Consultant. The retention or self-insurance provided shall provide that any

other insurance maintained by Department shall be excess of Consultant’s insurance and shall

not contribute to it. In all cases, regardless of any deductible or retention, said insurance shall

contain a defense of suits provision and a severability of interest clause. Additionally, each policy

shall include an additional insured endorsement (CG 2010 or equivalent) naming the City of Los

Angeles Harbor Department, its officers, agents and employees as Primary additional insureds, a

10-days notice of cancellation for nonpayment of premium, and a 30-days notice of cancellation

for any other reasons.

4. Automobile Liability Insurance

Consultant shall procure and maintain at its expense and keep in force at all times during

the term of this Agreement, automobile liability insurance written by an insurance company

authorized to do business in the State of California rated VII, A- or better in Best’s Insurance Guide

(or an alternate guide acceptable to City if Best’s is not available) within Consultant’s normal

limits of liability but not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) covering damages, injuries or

death resulting from each accident or claim arising out of any one claim or accident. Said

insurance shall protect against claims arising from actions or operations of the insured, or by its

employees. Coverage shall contain a defense of suits provision and a severability of interest

clause. Additionally, each policy shall include an additional insured endorsement (CG 2010 or

equivalent) naming the City of Los Angeles Harbor Department, its officers, agents and

employees as Primary additional insureds, a 10-days notice of cancellation for nonpayment of

premium, and a 30-days notice of cancellation for any other reasons.

5. Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability

Consultant shall certify that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California

Labor code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’

Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and

that the Consultant shall comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of

the tasks under this Agreement. Coverage for claims under U.S. Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation Act, if required under applicable law, shall be included. Consultant shall submit

Workers’ Compensation policies whether underwritten by the state insurance fund or private


41

carrier, which provide that the public or private carrier waives it right of subrogation against the

City in any circumstance in which it is alleged that actions or omissions of the City contributed to

the accident. Such worker’s compensation and occupational disease requirements shall include

coverage for all employees of Consultant, and for all employees of any subcontractor or other

vendor retained by Consultant.

6. Ocean Marine Liability

Consultant shall procure and maintain insurance against claims for injuries to persons or

damages to property which may arise from or in connections with Consultant’s operations. The

cost of the insurance shall be borne by Consultant. The coverage shall be written by an insurance

company authorized to do business in the State of California rated VII, A- or better in Best’s

Insurance Guide (or an alternate guide acceptable to City if Best’s Rating is not available).

Coverage shall include, but not be limited to:

(i) Hull and machinery coverage up to the value of the vessel(s);

(ii) Protection and Indemnity coverage with combined single limits of One Million Dollars

($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, illness, death, loss of or damage to the property of

another, and Jones Act risks or equivalent thereto internationally. Coverage shall contain a

defense of suits provision and a severability of interest clause. Each policy shall also contain an

additional insured endorsement (CG 2010 or equivalent) naming the City of Los Angeles Harbor

Department, its officers, agents, and employees as Primary additional insureds, a 10-days notice

of cancellation for nonpayment of premium, and a 30-days notice of cancellation for any other

reasons.

Conflict of Interest

It is hereby understood and agreed that the parties to this Agreement have read and are aware

of the provisions of Section 1090 et seq. and Section 87100 et seq. of the California Government

Code relating to conflict of interest of public officers and employees, as well as the Los Angeles

Municipal Code (LAMC) Municipal Ethics and Conflict of Interest provisions of Section 49.5.1 et

seq. and the Conflict of Interest Codes of the City and Department. All parties hereto agree that

they are unaware of any financial or economic interest of any public officer or employee of City

relating to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, it is further

understood and agreed that if such financial interest does exist at the inception of this

Agreement, City may immediately terminate this Agreement by giving written notice thereof.

During the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall inform the Department when Consultant, or

any of its Subconsultants, employs or hires in any capacity, and for any length of time, a person

who has worked for the Department as a Commissioner, officer or employee. Said notice shall


42

include the individual’s name and current position and their prior position and years of

employment with the Department. Notice shall be provided by Consultant to the Department

within thirty (30) days of the employment or hiring of the individual.

Compliance with Applicable Laws

Consultant shall at all times in the performance of its obligations comply with all applicable laws,

statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations, and with the reasonable requests and directions of

the Executive Director.

Governing Law / Venue

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of

California, without reference to the conflicts of law, rules and principles of such State. The parties

agree that all actions or proceedings arising in connection with this Agreement shall be tried and

litigated exclusively in the State or Federal courts located in the County of Los Angeles, State of

California, in the judicial district required by court rules.

Termination Provision

The Board of Harbor Commissioners, in its sole discretion, shall be able to terminate and cancel

all or any part of the Agreement it enters into with the selected Consultant for any reason upon

giving the Consultant ten (10) days’ notice in writing of its election to cancel and terminate the

Agreement. It is agreed that any Agreement entered into shall not limit the right of the City to

hire additional Consultants to perform the services described in the Agreement either during or

after the term of the Agreement.

Proprietary Information

1. Writings, as that term is defined in Section 250 of the California Evidence Code (including,

without limitation, drawings, specifications, estimates, reports, records, reference material, data,

charts, documents, renderings, computations, computer tapes or disks, submittals and other

items of any type whatsoever, whether in the form of writing, figures or delineations), which are

obtained, generated, compiled or derived in connection with this Agreement (collectively

hereafter referred to as "property"), are owned by City as soon as they are developed, whether

in draft or final form. City has the right to use or permit the use of property and any ideas or

methods represented by such property for any purpose and at any time without compensation

other than that provided in this Agreement. Consultant hereby warrants and represents that City


43

at all times owns rights provided for in this section free and clear of all third-party claims whether

presently existing or arising in the future, whether or not presently known. Consultant need not

obtain for City the right to use any idea, design, method, material, equipment or other matter

which is the subject of a valid patent, unless such patent is owned by Consultant or one of its

employees, or its Subconsultant or the Subconsultant's employees, in which case such right shall

be obtained without additional compensation. Whether or not Consultant's initial proposal or

proposals made during this Agreement are accepted by City, it is agreed that all information of

any nature whatsoever connected with the Scope of Work, regardless of the form of

communication, which has been or may be given by Consultant, its Subconsultants or on either’s

behalf, whether prior or subsequent to this Agreement becoming effective, to the City, its boards,

officers, agents or employees, is not given in confidence. Accordingly, City or its designees may

use or disclose such information without liability of any kind, except as may arise under valid

patents.

2. If research or development is furnished in connection with this Agreement and if, in the

course of such research or development, patentable work product is produced by Consultant, its

officers, agents, employees, or Subconsultants, the City shall have, without cost or expense to it,

an irrevocable, non-exclusive royalty-free license to make and use, itself or by anyone on its

behalf, such work product in connection with any activity now or hereafter engaged in or

permitted by City. Upon City's request, Consultant, at its sole cost and expense, shall promptly

furnish or obtain from the appropriate person a form of license satisfactory to the City. It is

expressly understood and agreed that, as between City and Consultant, the referenced license

shall arise for City's benefit immediately upon the production of the work product, and is not

dependent on the written license specified above. City may transfer such license to its successors

in the operation or ownership of any real or personal property now or hereafter owned or

operated by City.

Trademarks, Copyrights, and Patents

Consultant agrees to save, keep, hold harmless, protect and indemnify the City and any of its

officers or agents from any damages, cost, or expenses in law or equity from infringement of any

patent, trademark, service mark or copyright of any person or persons, or corporations in

consequence of the use by City of any materials supplied by Consultant in the performance of

this Agreement.


44

Confidentiality

The data, documents, reports or other materials which contain information relating to the

review, documentation, analysis and evaluation of the work described in this Agreement and any

recommendations made by Consultant relative thereto shall be considered confidential and shall

not be reproduced, altered, used or disseminated by Consultant or its employees or agents in

any manner except and only to the extent necessary in the performance of the work under this

Agreement. In addition, Consultant is required to safeguard such information from access by

unauthorized personnel.

Notices

In all cases where written notice is to be given under this Agreement, service shall be deemed

sufficient if said notice is deposited in the United States mail, postage paid. When so given, such

notice shall be effective from the date of mailing of the same. For the purposes hereof, unless

otherwise provided by notice in writing from the respective parties, notice to the Department

shall be addressed to _____________, Los Angeles Harbor Department, P.O. Box 151, San Pedro,

California, 90733-0151, and notice to Consultant shall be addressed to it at the address set forth

above. Nothing herein contained shall preclude or render inoperative service of such notice in

the manner provided by law.

Termination Due to Non-Appropriation of Funds

This Agreement is subject to the provisions of the Los Angeles City Charter which, among other

things, precludes the City from making any expenditure of funds or incurring any liability,

including contractual commitments, in excess of the amount appropriated thereof.

The Board, in awarding this Agreement, is expected to appropriate sufficient funds to meet the

estimated expenditure of funds through June 30 of the current fiscal year and to make further

appropriations in each succeeding fiscal year during the life of the Agreement. However, the

Board is under no legal obligation to do so.

The City, its boards, officers, and employees are not bound by the terms of this Agreement or

obligated to make payment thereunder in any fiscal year in which the Board does not appropriate

funds therefore. The Consultant is not entitled to any compensation in any fiscal year in which

funds have not been appropriated for the Agreement by the Board.


45

Although the Consultant is not obligated to perform any work under the Agreement in any fiscal

year in which no appropriation for the Agreement has been made, the Consultant agrees to

resume performance of the work required by the Agreement on the same terms and conditions

for a period of sixty (60) days after the end of the fiscal year if an appropriation therefore is

approved by the Board within that 60 day period. The Consultant is responsible for maintaining

all insurance and bonds during this 60 day period until the appropriation is made; however, such

extension of time is not compensable.

If in any subsequent fiscal year funds are not appropriated by the Board for the work required by

the Agreement, the Agreement shall be terminated. However, such termination shall not relieve

the parties of liability for any obligation previously incurred.

Taxpayer Identification Number

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires that all consultants and suppliers of materials and

supplies provide a TIN to the party that pays them. Consultant declares that it has an authorized

TIN which shall be provided to the Department prior to payment under the Agreement. No

payments will be made under the Agreement without a valid TIN.

Service Contractor Worker Retention Policy and Living Wage Policy Requirements

The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles adopted Resolution No. 5771 on

January 3, 1999, agreeing to adopt the provisions of Los Angeles City Ordinance No. 171004

relating to Service Contractor Worker Retention (SCWR), Section 10.36 et seq. of the Los Angeles

Administrative Code, as the policy of the Harbor Department. Further, Charter Section 378

requires compliance with the City’s Living Wage requirements as set forth by ordinance, Section

10.37 et seq. of the Los Angeles Administrative Code. Consultant shall comply with the policy

wherever applicable. Violation of this provision, where applicable, shall entitle the City to

terminate the Agreement and otherwise pursue legal remedies that may be available.

Wage and Earnings Assignment Orders/Notices of Assignments

Consultant and/or any subconsultant are obligated to fully comply with all applicable state and

federal employment reporting requirements for the Consultant and/or subconsultant’s

employees.


46

Consultant and/or subconsultant shall certify that the principal owner(s) are in compliance with

any Wage and Earnings Assignment Orders and Notices of Assignments applicable to them

personally. Consultant and/or subconsultant will fully comply with all lawfully served Wage and

Earnings Assignment Orders and Notices of Assignments in accordance with Cal. Family Code §

5230 et seq. Consultant or subconsultant will maintain such compliance throughout the term of

the Agreement.

Equal Benefits Policy

The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles adopted Resolution No. 6328 on

January 12, 2005, agreeing to adopt the provisions of Los Angeles City Ordinance 172,908, as

amended, relating to Equal Benefits, Section 10.8.2.1 et seq. of the Los Angeles Administrative

Code, as a policy of the Harbor Department. Consultant shall comply with the policy wherever

applicable. Violation of the policy shall entitle the City to terminate any Agreement with

Consultant and pursue any and all other legal remedies that may be available. See Exhibit D.

State Tidelands Grants

The Agreement will be entered into in furtherance of and as a benefit to the State Tidelands

Grant and the trust created thereby. Therefore, the Agreement will at all times be subject to the

limitations, conditions, restrictions and reservations contained in and prescribed by the Act of

the Legislature of the State of California entitled “An Act Granting to the City of Los Angeles the

Tidelands and Submerged Lands of the State Within the Boundaries of Said City,” approved June

3, 1929, (Stats. 1929, Ch. 651), as amended, and provisions of Article VI of the Charter of the City

of Los Angeles relating to such lands. Consultant agrees that any interpretation of the Agreement

and the terms contained therein must be consistent with such limitations, conditions, restrictions

and reservations.

Contract Solicitations Charter Section 470 (c) (12)

Persons who submit a response to this solicitation (proposers) are subject to Charter section 470

(c) (12) and related ordinances. As a result, proposers may not make campaign contributions to

and or engage in fundraising for certain elected City officials or candidates for elected City office

from the time they submit the response until either the contract is approved or, for successful

proposers, 12 months after the contract is signed. The proposer’s principals and subcontractors

performing $100,000 or more in work on the contract, as well as the principals of those

subcontractors, are also subject to the same limitations on campaign contributions and

fundraising.


47

Proposers must submit CEC form 55 to the awarding authority at the same time the response is

submitted (See Exhibit F). The form requires proposers to identify their principals, their

subcontractors performing $100,000 or more in work on the contract, and the principals of those

subcontractors. Proposers must also notify their principals and subcontractors in writing of the

restrictions and include the notice in contracts with subcontractors. Responses submitted

without a completed CEC Form 55 may be deemed nonresponsive. Proposers who fail to comply

with City law may be subject to penalties, termination of contract, and debarment. Additional

information regarding these restrictions and requirements may be obtained from the City Ethics

Commission at (213) 978-1960 or ethics.lacity.org.


48

APPENDIX F

RFP SECTION 9.4

RFP – TAP OGV Pollution Reduction - Insurance Requirements

As a condition precedent to the effectiveness of this contract, Consultant shall procure and maintain in full force and effect during the term of this contract the types and levels of insurance described below. The required insurance and the documents provided as evidence thereof shall be in the name of Consultant as indicated on this contract. Package policies that contain more than a single coverage type and share primary per occurrence and/or aggregate limits are not permitted. Coverage that requires the City to tender a claim, suit to its own insurer, or make its own insurance available is not permitted. If policies are written with aggregate limits, the aggregate limit shall be at least twice the occurrence limits or as specified below. Excess or umbrella policies, if used, shall be following form and shall provide coverage that is equal to or broader than the underlying coverage.

Commercial General Liability: Commercial General Liability insurance shall be provided on Insurance Services Office (ISO) CGL Form No. CG 00 01 or the equivalent, including provisions for defense of additional insureds and defense costs in addition to limits. Policy limits shall be no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for all coverage provided and two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate. Coverage shall be included on behalf of the insured for claims arising out of the actions of independent contractors. The policy shall contain no provisions or endorsements limiting coverage for contractual liability or third party over action claims. Defense costs shall be in addition to limits.


49

The policy must include work performed “by or on behalf” of the Consultant. Coverage shall apply on a primary non-contributing basis in relation to any other insurance or self-insurance, primary or excess, available to City or any employee or agent of City. Coverage shall not be limited to the vicarious liability or supervisory role of any additional insured. Coverage shall not exclude contractual liability, restrict coverage to the sole liability of Consultant, require the City to tender defense or indemnity to its insurer(s), make its insurance available, or contain any other exclusion contrary to this contract. If this coverage is written on a claims-made basis, the retroactive date shall precede the effective date of this contract with the City, and continuous coverage will be maintained or an extended reporting period will be exercised for a period of at least three (3) years from the termination or expiration of this contract. Cancellation: The policy shall not be cancelled or the coverage reduced by endorsement unless agreed to in writing by the Executive Director of the Harbor. Consultant agrees to provide written notice as required by this paragraph within 24 hours of initiating cancellation or receiving notice of cancellation from its insurer, insurance broker, or insurance agent.

The policy of insurance shall be endorsed as follows: Additional Insured: The City of Long Beach, its Board of Harbor Commissioners, employees and agents shall be added as additional insured with regard to liability and defense of suits or claims arising from the operations and activities performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured using ISO Form CG 20 10 (2004) or its equivalent. Additional Insured endorsements shall not: 1) exclude “Contractual Liability”, 2) restrict coverage to the sole liability of the contractor, or 3) contain any other exclusion contrary to this contract.

Business Automobile Insurance: Automobile Liability Insurance shall be written on ISO Business Auto Coverage Form CA 00 01 or the equivalent, including symbol (1) (any Auto). Limit shall be no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident. Coverage shall apply on a primary non-contributing basis in relation to any other insurance or self-insurance, primary or excess, available to City or any employee or agent of City.


50

Defense costs shall be in addition to limits. If Consultant does not own any vehicles, this requirement may be satisfied by a non-owned vehicle endorsement to the general and umbrella liability policies provided that a separate policy limit is provided for this coverage as required by this contract. Cancellation: The policy shall not be cancelled or the coverage reduced by endorsement unless agreed to in writing by the Executive Director of the Harbor. Consultant agrees to provide written notice as required by this paragraph within 24 hours of initiating cancellation or receiving notice of cancellation from its insurer, insurance broker, or insurance agent.

The policy of insurance required above shall be endorsed as follows: Additional Insured: The City of Long Beach, its Board of Harbor Commissioners, employees and agents shall be added as additional insured with regard to liability and defense of suits or claims arising from the operations and activities performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured. Additional Insured endorsements shall not: 1) be limited to “on-going operations”, 2) exclude “Contractual Liability”, 3) restrict coverage to the sole liability of the contractor, or 4) contain any other exclusion contrary to this contract.

Workers’ Compensation: Workers’ Compensation Insurance, as required by the State of California, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and disease. Cancellation: The policy shall not be cancelled or the coverage reduced by endorsement unless agreed to in writing by the Executive Director of the Harbor. Consultant agrees to provide written notice as required by this paragraph within 24 hours of initiating cancellation or receiving notice of cancellation from its insurer, insurance broker, or insurance agent.

The policy of insurance required above shall be endorsed as follows: Waiver of Subrogation: A waiver of subrogation stating that the insurer waives all rights of subrogation against the City, its Board of Harbor Commissioners, employees and agents.

Deductible/Self-Insured Retention: Any deductible or self-insured retention must be approved in writing by the Executive Director of the Harbor and shall protect the City, its Board of Harbor Commissioners, agents and employees in the same manner and to the same extent as they would have been protected had the policy or policies not contained a deductible or self-insured retention. Any


51

deductible or self-insured retention must be approved in writing in accordance with City insurance guidelines.

Evidence of Insurance: The Consultant, concurrently with the execution of this contract, and as a condition precedent to the effectiveness of this contract, shall deliver either endorsements on forms approved by the City of Long Beach acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners (“Evidence of Insurance”) or certified copies of the required policies containing the terms and conditions required by this contract to the Executive Director of the Harbor for approval as to sufficiency and to the City Attorney or approval as to form. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of any such policy, evidence of insurance showing that such insurance has been renewed or extended shall be filed with the Executive Director of the Harbor.

Failure to Maintain Coverage: Consultant agrees to suspend and cease all operations hereunder during such period as the required insurance coverage is not in effect and evidence of insurance has not been approved by the City. The City shall have the right to withhold any payment due Consultant until Consultant has fully complied with the insurance provisions of this contract.

Acceptability of Insurers: Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A-:VII, and authorized to do business in the State of California or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law. Any other rating must be approved in writing in accordance with the City insurance guidelines.

Contractual Liability: The coverage provided shall apply to the obligations assumed by the Consultant under the indemnity provisions of this contract but this insurance provision in no way limits the indemnity provisions and the indemnity provisions in no way limit this insurance provision.


52

APPENDIX G

Evaluation Criteria

Potential Emission Reductions (Max = 15 pts)

-Has the proposer adequately justified the claimed ability of the technology’s potential to significantly reduce emissions? (6 points) -Does the technology exceed the minimum emission reduction requirements (81%)? (6 points) -Does the technology provide emission reductions for boilers? (3 points)

Technical Readiness (Max = 20 pts)

- Is the technology certified or verified for this application? (5 points) - Is the technology certified or verified in another application? (5 points) - Is the technology ready for in-use demonstration? (5 points) - Has the technology been demonstrated successfully in another application? (5 points)

Proposal Team’s Qualifications (Max = 20 pts)

-Has the proposer adequately described team qualifications per the RFP requirements? (14 points) -Has the team developed this technology before, even in another application? (3 points) -Has the team previously worked together? If so, did the team complete the project per the scope of work, budget, and schedule? (3 points)

Vessel & Operations Compatibility (Max = 20 pts)

-Is the emissions capture system able to interface with various non-regulated OGV exhaust stack configurations? (15 points) - Does the emissions reduction system proposed minimize intrusion to ongoing ports operations? (i.e., Is it self-contained? Does it require few port resources?) (5 points)

Cost & Co-Funding (Max = 10 pts)

- Is the cost for project implementation reasonable compared to other proposed projects? (5 points) - Does the proposer offer co-funding above and beyond the required cost-share? (5 point)

Evaluation of the Emission Reduction System’s Business Case (Max = 10 pts)

Does the proposer’s business case assessment, financial model, and commercialization plan provide sufficient detail to show promise for successful commercial product development and/or commercial viability? (10 points)

Secured Participation by Port Marine Terminal Tenant and OGV Operator (0 or 5 pts)

Has the proposer secured a marine terminal demonstration partner and/or OGV vessel operator to participate in the full-scale testing and/or in-use demonstration? Did the proposer submit letters of commitment or documentation as an element of their proposal submittal, upon which points for this category are contingent? (Proposers without a demonstration partner will receive 0 points under this criterion.)

land or barge-based ocean-going vessel at-berth … · land or barge-based ocean-going vessel...

Documents