Amd0002_A11_Questions_and_Answers_0002.pdf

United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION

Division of Acquisitions 1011 Indian School Road NW

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104

Questions & Answers for TORFP # 140A2324R0007 – Install VRF TCBS

Q1: Will the Government or Tuba City School staff be responsible for the removal and reinstallation of the furniture and personal items?

A1: TCBS will be responsible for moving furniture and any other personal items.

Q2: The solicitation for this project requires no overlapping of duties and responsibilities for the QC staff. Please expand on this requirement. Does this mean that the project requires a full time, onsite QC manager? Or can the QC manager be offsite and be assisted by designated onsite QC staff that also carry out other roles on the project? Can the other QC staff be dual-roled as site superintendent and/or site safety and health officer?

A2: The site superintendent is usually well trained with managing the QC aspect of the project and trained yearly in safety & health. A dual roled site person should be sufficient.

Q3: The Solicitation and SOW require that the work be completed in 180 calendar days. This timeline is unrealistic. The design will require significant time to complete as outlined in the SOW. VRF equipment procurement times have been exceeding 12 weeks once approved and up to 50 weeks for new electrical components, due to a full electrical upgrade required to support the new VRF equipment. 180 calendar days is not sufficient time to design the project, submit design for Government review and approval, procure materials and equipment, install the equipment and startup and commission the equipment. Will the project's duration and milestones be moved based on this input?

A3: POP (period of performance) will be extended to meet the duration of an updated project schedule per the critical path of long lead items.

Q4: The price to complete this project as described will far exceed the upper range of the Magnitude of Construction identified in the Solicitation. How should the Contractor proceed based on this information?

A4: Building 10 has been removed from Solicitation, thus, the SOW cost is reduced.

Q5: There is no listing in the SOW of the required or preferred mounting of the VRF units (wall mount, ceiling mount, floor mount). Does the Government have a required or preferred mounting orientation?

A5: preferred mounting method shall be Wall mount and Ceiling mount where applicable.

Q6: Can the condensate lines for these individual room units be routed directly through the exterior walls, down the wall and drain directly onto the ground. Or do the condensate lines need to be routed to waste piping for collection?

A6: Yes

Q7: Would the Government consider utilizing a Gas-Fired VRF Condensing unit versus the Electric VRF Condensing units described in the Statement of Work? The benefit to the Government and Tuba City School for accepting a Gas-Fired VRF System are Price and Schedule Duration. In order to install the Electric VRF Condensing units as described in the SOW, both Buildings 10 and 298 will require significant electrical upgrades to the existing building's infrastructure. These required electrical upgrades are a significant cost and also add significant time to complete to the period of performance. Gas-Fired VRF Condensing units have been used on other projects in close proximity to Tuba City in the towns of Winslow and Holbrook Arizona. A cut sheet of the Gas-Fired VRF Condensing system is included for consideration. Visits of the other locations utilizing a Gas-Fired VRF Condensing unit can also be arranged should the Tuba City School staff want.

A7: All electric only

Q8: The Statement of Work says that Building 10 is fed by natural gas to the boiler heating the building. Please confirm this is accurate.

A8: Building 10 is hereby removed from the solicitation.

Q9: The Statement of Work requires that only the first floor of Building 10 needs to be upgraded with a VRF system and that no work is required on the 2nd or 3rd floors. The first floor of Building 10 appears to only be occupied in a few rooms. Is the Contractor team to price a full VRF system for the 1st floor, or will the school designate only certain rooms that need to be conditioned?

A9: Building 10 is hereby removed from the solicitation.

Q10: It is the Contractor's understanding that Building 10's 2nd and 3rd floors have been condemned from occupancy due to animal intrusion and that previous solicitations had been issued to address and remedy the 2nd and 3rd floor animal intrusion and to clean and remove the hazards related to this intrusion. It appears the remediation work to the 2nd and 3rd floors have not been completed at the time of this solicitation. How should the Contractor price the work at Building 10 based on the hazards associated with the upper floors of this building?

A10: Building 10 is hereby removed from the solicitation.

Q11: The SOW requires that for Building 10, only the 1st floor will have the new VRF/HVAC system installed. From what the Contractor can deduce, the first floor is approximately 5,980 square-feet. Please confirm.

A11: Building 10 is hereby removed from the solicitation.

Q12: Please confirm the future intent for the 2nd floor of Building 10? Will the Contractor need to make provisions for future space conditioning or electrical requirements for that space? Will the upper floors (2nd and 3rd floors) need to be partially heated in the winter to prevent freezing?

A12: Building 10 is hereby removed from the solicitation.

Q13: The SOW says that Building 10 currently uses a high-pressure steam and boiler system to heat the building. Will this system need to remain in place to heat the 2nd floor of Building 10 since no work is to be done on that floor per the SOW? If this existing system is to remain in place, does that mean any devices on the 1st floor connected to the high-pressure distribution piping should be cut and capped?

A13: Building 10 is hereby removed from the solicitation.

Q14: The basement of Building 10 is currently missing significant piping insulation. The insulation that remains appears to be suspicious for asbestos. How should this existing piping be addressed? If new piping insulation is required, will it need to meet current code requirements (meaning thicker, more robust insulating properties)? If that is the case, will all existing pipe insulation need to be removed and replaced with new? The provided AHERA report does not address this piping insulation.

A14: Building 10 is hereby removed from the solicitation.

Q15: If a Hazard Analysis finds that controlled materials are present at these two buildings (Buildings 10 and 298), how will this be addressed by the Government? Will this be a change of conditions handled as a change order?

A15: Building 298 does have a few Hazards identified in the AHERA Manual. The VRF requirement will have very minimal to none ACBM present in the building.

Q16: The Statement of Work does not appear to list any commissioning requirements for the new HVAC system. Will commissioning be required? If commissioning is required, please provide further guidelines for completing. Will the Government be providing a commissioning agent to the project? What is the Contractor’s responsibility to a Government-supplied commissioning agent?

A16: No commissioning will be required for this requirement. GC and its subs shall be responsible for entire project including testing and balancing.

Q17: Please clarify how the Contractor is to price the project? The Price Schedule included in the solicitation is a bit confusing. Is Bid Item 0010 to include design and materials for Building 298? Is Bid Item 0020 to include only the labor to install at Building 298? Bid Item 0030 is similar to 0010, but for Building 10. However, there is no bid item for Building 10 labor. Please clarify.

A17: Bid Schedule has been revised; Building 10 (LINE 0030) has been removed