Seismic_IDIQ_Questions_and_Answers_for_RFIs_Amendment_4_0004.pdf

Seismic IDIQ Questions and Answers for RFIs:

1. Does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have a defined list of facilities anticipated to be evaluated under this contract? If so, will that list be provided as Government- Furnished Information?

Answer: The Service maintains a comprehensive national inventory of owned and leased facilities subject to seismic safety monitoring. Because this is an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, specific facilities will be identified, prioritized, and evaluated via individual Task Orders based on agency need, funding availability, and regional priority over the 5-year period of performance.

Relevant inventory data, historical evaluation records, facility drawings, and site-specific information will be provided as Government-Furnished Information (GFI) at the time an individual Task Order is requested or negotiated.

2. How does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identify buildings considered seismically at risk? Is there an existing list, database, or screening methodology used by the Government, or is the A/E contractor expected to determine which facilities are seismically at risk as part of the scope?

Answer: The US FWS maintains a national constructed real property inventory database that tracks asset locations, building types, occupancy, and seismic design categories. Initial identification of potentially at-risk facilities is performed by the Government based on geographic seismic hazard data (USGS mapping), structural age, construction type, and mission criticality.

The A/E contractor is not expected to independently search the entire FWS inventory to find at-risk facilities. Instead, specific facilities or clusters of facilities will be pre-identified by the Government and assigned to the contractor via Task Orders.

Under the scope of those Task Orders, the A/E contractor will be responsible for executing technical screening and engineering evaluations—such as Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) and ASCE 41 Tier 1, 2, or 3 structural assessments—to determine, verify, and quantify the seismic risk level and recommend mitigation strategies.

3. Can we receive a sample of building types that would be involved in these studies?

(i.e. Building name, Function, GSF Area, Stories above ground, Seismicity Risk, Essential Building Code, Date of Construction, Building Type (from ASCE 41-23) Answer: Yes. While specific assets will be designated at the Task Order level, the following matrix represents a typical cross-section of FWS asset classes, structural profiles, and construction eras that may be subject to seismic evaluation under this contract:

Representative Asset Function Typical GSF Range Stories Typical Era / Const.

Date Common Structural System(s)

Potential ASCE 41-23 Building Type(s) Expected Risk Category (IBC)

Regional / Refuge Visitor Center 5,000 – 15,000 1–2 1990s – 2010s Wood frame, Light-gauge steel, or Concrete Masonry (CMU) W1, W2, RM1

Cat II (Standard) or Cat III (High Occupancy)

Refuge Headquarters & Admin Office 2,000 – 8,000 1–2 1960s – 1980s Wood frame or Unreinforced/Reinforced Masonry W1, URM, RM1 Cat II

National Fish Hatchery (NFH) Main Building / Lab 8,000 – 20,000 1 1950s – 1970s

Reinforced Concrete or Concrete Tilt-up C1, PC1 Cat II

Hatchery Water Treatment / Pump Station 1,500 – 5,000 1 1970s – 1990s

Reinforced CMU or Precast/Tilt-up Concrete RM1, PC1

Cat III or IV (If designated essential infrastructure)

Equipment Maintenance Shop / Storage Facility 3,000 – 10,000 1 1970s – 2000s

Pre-engineered Metal Building (PEMB) or Wood/Pole barn S2, W1 Cat I or II

Remote Field Station Quarters / Housing 1,200 – 3,500 1–2 1940s – 1980s Light wood frame W1 Cat II

4. The Standards reference ASCE 41-06. The current edition of Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings is ASCE 41-23. Should the A/E use this updated code?

Answer: Yes. The A/E contractor shall utilize the current consensus code, ASCE 41- 23 (Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings), as the primary baseline standard for all evaluations, screenings, and retrofit designs performed under this contract.

This aligns with federal mandates—including the Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction (ICSSC) Recommended Practices—which direct agencies to use the latest editions of nationally recognized model codes. Any specific deviations, or instances where a previous code edition is explicitly required due to legacy criteria or specific state/local interfaces, will be defined by the Government and mutually agreed upon at the individual Task Order level.

5. How much time is allocated for the completion of a Tier 1 screening and report? Is it the expectation of the Service that the A/E will recommend a timeline? How much time is allocated between the completion of a Tier 1 report and a Tier 2 or 3?

Answer: Performance periods and milestones will be explicitly defined at the individual Task Order level, as schedule requirements vary based on facility complexity, geographical location, access constraints, and the volume of assets batched together.

For proposal planning purposes, the Service's typical expectations and programmatic workflows are outlined below:

• Tier 1 Screening and Report: The typical period of performance ranges from 45 to 90 calendar days from the Task Order Notice to Proceed (NTP). This includes historical data/drawing review, the physical site visit, structural engineering analysis, and draft/final report submittals. The Service welcomes A/E offerors to propose or recommend optimized schedules within their technical proposals based on their resource capacity and regional mobilization strategies.

• Lag Time Between Tiers: There is no automatic transition between evaluation phases. If a Tier 1 screening indicates that a Tier 2 (Deficiency-Only or Full Evaluation) or Tier 3 (Detailed Procedure) assessment is required, the Tier 1 final report must first be accepted and approved by the FWS Seismic Program Manager.

• Pacing for Tier 2/3: The allocation of time between tiers is dependent on agency funding cycles, regional mitigation priorities, and mission criticality. A subsequent Tier 2 or Tier 3 task order may be issued immediately following Tier 1 approval, or it may be deferred to a future fiscal year.

6. Part IV A indicates that recommendations for Tier 1 follow up are included in the deliverable, including whether to proceed to a Tier 2. Is it the expectation of the Service that most of the buildings subject to evaluation will proceed to a Tier 2, or is this meant to be left to the A/E to recommend?

Answer: The Service does not have a predetermined expectation regarding the percentage of buildings that will advance to a Tier 2 evaluation. The recommendation to proceed must be an objective, data-driven engineering conclusion determined by the A/E contractor, strictly adhering to the screening criteria and deficiency triggers established in ASCE 41-23.

Historically across the FWS inventory, many standard wood-frame structures, modern post-1990 constructions, and low-occupancy storage facilities successfully pass Tier 1 screening without triggering a Tier 2 requirement. The A/E is expected to utilize professional engineering judgment to screen out low-risk facilities. A Tier 2 evaluation should only be recommended when a Tier 1 screening identifies specific, unquantified structural deficiencies, critical load-path gaps, or life-safety hazards that cannot be definitively resolved without more detailed analysis.

7. The project lists geotechnical engineering as a service but also indicates that the seismic hazard will be determined based on available information. Are new soil borings and geotechnical evaluations to be included in the Scope of Work or will we utilize previously completed studies?

Answer: For the vast majority of Tier 1 screenings and baseline seismic hazard determinations, the A/E contractor shall utilize existing, available information. This includes historical geotechnical reports, nearby USGS borehole data, local well logs, and regional geological mapping provided as Government-Furnished Information (GFI), or publicly available data to determine the ASCE 41-23 Site Class.

New field geotechnical investigations, such as new soil borings, Standard Penetration Testing (SPT), or cone penetration testing, are not expected as part of standard initial screenings.

However, geotechnical engineering services are included in the overarching IDIQ scope to provide capability for advanced phases. If a Tier 2/3 evaluation or an approved retrofit design reveals that existing data is insufficient—or if high-risk site-specific hazards such as severe liquefaction, lateral spreading, or slope instability are suspected at a critical facility—the Government may explicitly authorize targeted soil borings and laboratory testing via a specific, negotiated Task Order scope.