RFIs-and-Responses.docx

DOCX document 16 KB Posted

Attached to
Plumbing Repairs, Phoenix Rearing Facility Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
12639526Q0197
Issued by
Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Marketing and Regulatory Programs Business Services

About this file

This file contains Requests for Information (RFIs) and official Government responses related to the Plumbing Repairs solicitation for the Phoenix Rearing Facility (Solicitation 12639526Q0197).

The RFIs address four key technical and specification questions. First, a contractor proposed tunneling beneath the building slab as an alternative to open-cut demolition for replacing sanitary sewer piping, which the Government approved as acceptable. The tunneling method would include excavating access pits, tunneling along the sewer-line route, removing and replacing existing piping, supporting new piping with clevis hangers at maximum four-foot spacing, maintaining required pipe slope, backfilling with flowable fill, testing, and restoring surface areas. This approach would reduce interior slab demolition, dust, noise, finish restoration, facility disruption, and construction duration. Second, the Government acknowledged that original as-built drawings, record drawings, plumbing plans, or utility surveys are available for the building but did not provide details in this document. Third, regarding existing sewer-line depths and invert elevations, the Government referenced an updated sheet PD-100 containing approximate depths. Fourth, contractors inquired about PVC pipe alternatives to cast-iron sanitary piping, specifically Schedule 40 and Schedule 80 PVC DWV pipe. The Government's response restricted PVC use to restroom areas extending to sewer mains only, while mandating epoxy-coated cast iron for all sewer piping connected to laboratory areas or receiving drainage from floor sinks, mop sinks, and non-restroom drainage areas. The Government referenced an updated Section 221316 SANITARY WASTE AND VENT PIPING specification for detailed requirements.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Plumbing Repairs, Phoenix Rearing Facility, newest first.
File Type Posted
12639526Q0197-0005.pdf PDF
More RFIs and Responses.docx DOCX document
RFIs and Responses.docx DOCX document
Attendance_07212026 site visit.pdf PDF
12639526Q0197-0003.pdf PDF
C04_12639526Q0197.docx DOCX document
12639526Q0197-0002.pdf PDF
12639526Q0197-0001.pdf PDF
C04_Atch 2_Specifications.pdf PDF
C04_Atch 3_ Drawings.pdf PDF
C04_Atch 1_Statement of Work.docx DOCX document
C04_Atch 4_Federal Construction Wage Rates_Maricopa.txt TXT text file
C04_12639526Q0197.docx DOCX document
Show all 13

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

RFIs and Responses

1. Tunneling beneath the building slab Would tunneling be accepted as an alternative method for replacing the sanitary sewer piping beneath the existing building slab instead of open-cut demolition and replacement of the interior concrete slab?

We have successfully performed sewer replacements using this method at government facilities and school districts under the oversight of engineers and architects. Parkhill is the Architect of Record for our most recent sewer replacement project utilizing this approach.

Our proposed method would generally include:

1. Excavating access pits at approved locations.

1. Tunneling beneath the existing slab along the sewer-line route.

1. Removing and replacing the existing sanitary piping from below.

1. Supporting the new piping with clevis hangers attached to concrete anchors drilled into the underside of the slab.

1. Installing supports at a maximum spacing of four feet on center, or closer where required by code or the approved piping manufacturer.

1. Maintaining the required pipe slope throughout the system.

1. Backfilling the tunnel and access areas with flowable fill.

1. Testing and inspecting the completed piping before backfilling.

1. Restoring all affected access-pit and surface areas.

This method could substantially reduce interior slab demolition, dust, noise, finish restoration, facility disruption, and overall construction duration.

Tunnelling, as described above, is an acceptable alternative.

2. Original as-built drawings Are original as-built drawings, record drawings, plumbing plans, or utility surveys available for this building?

Gov’t providing response

3. Existing sewer-line depths Are the approximate depths or invert elevations of the existing sanitary sewer lines known?

See attached updated sheet PD-100 for approximate depths.

4. PVC pipe alternative In lieu of the cast-iron sanitary piping, would either of the following be accepted for the replacement sanitary sewer piping?

1. Schedule 40 PVC DWV pipe and fittings.

1. Schedule 80 PVC pipe and fittings.

If PVC is not acceptable throughout the project, would it be accepted specifically in restroom and ordinary sanitary-waste areas while retaining epoxy-coated cast iron in process-waste or high-temperature discharge areas?

PVC is only acceptable at the restrooms and extending to sewer mains. All sewer piping connected to lab areas or receiving drainage from floor sinks mop sink and non-restroom drainage is to be coated cast iron. See attached updated Section 221316 SANITARY WASTE AND VENT PIPING.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .