B09_Amd_08_GOGA_311373_Solicitation_QA_TO_POST_0008.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 343 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 140P2024R0025
About this file
This federal solicitation seeks proposals for seismic stabilization and rehabilitation work at the Alcatraz Prison Hospital Wing located in San Francisco, California. The National Park Service is soliciting proposals for GOGA 311373 Alcatraz Prison Hospital Wing Seismic and Stabilize project. Work will be conducted over six phases and must be completed within 1,140 calendar days of the notice to proceed date of July 29, 2024. The project involves seismic strengthening of existing structures, construction of new concrete shear walls, micropile installation, and fiber reinforced polymer reinforcement. Proposers should demonstrate experience with historic preservation, coastal construction, and working in environmentally and logistically challenging locations.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 88 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
GOGA 311373
| Solicitation Question + Answer | Schedule of Changes | |||
| PMIS | GOGA 311373 | ||
| Solicitation | 140P2024R0025 | ||
| # | Question | Answer | Amd # |
| 1 | Plant Construction Company would like to request a one (1) month time extension to sub our bid proposal. We would like to have an extension of the bid due date to February 28th. | Amendment #3 on 1/16/2024: "Yes, the solicitation due date is extended to February 29, 2024." | 3 |
| 2 | Provide updated Contact Information in Summary of Work Section 01 11 00. | Revise section 01 11 00 paragraph 1.09.F.1 to remove "Aaron Warren 415.559.3126" and replace with "Antonette Sespene 415.559.3123". Revise section 01 11 00 paragraph 1.09.F.3 to remove "Aaron Warren 415.559.3126" and replace with "Trevor Hendronetto 415.866.3948". | 4 |
| 3 | The geotechnical report recommends proof testing to 150% of design load. The specifications indicate testing to 100% of design load. Please clarify what the test load will be. Geotech paragraph 3.2 vs. Spec. Section 31 63 33 | Specification 31 63 33 - Drilled Micropiles will be followed for proof testing of micropiles. Please be advised that the test load provided in Section 3.4.C.4 will be modified in an addendum so that the "Maximum Test Load = 150 kips". |
| Additionally, 03 30 00, under section 2.4, micropile reinforcing will be modified in an addendum from "ASTM A615, Grade 60" to "ASTM A615, Grade 75". | 4 | |||
| 4 | Per the project plans, it appears that the center bar for micropiles has already been designed. Is our design responsibility limited to the bond length of the micropile? S440, S450 & S460 | The Contractor is responsible for providing the complete design calculations and shop drawings, signed and sealed by a Registered Professional Engineer for the micropiles per Specification 31 63 33 - Drilled Micropiles. The Contract Documents do have requirements for the size and type of material for the center bar. Please see bidder question response #3 for clarification on the center bar material. | 6 | |
| 5 | The project specifications have provisions for steel casing. The project plans do not indicate casing. Is permanent steel casing required on this project? Spec Section 31 63 33 | Steel casing is not needed from a geotechnical standpoint. | 4 | |
| 6 | If steel casing is required, what is the maximum casing OD allowed for this installation? Spec Section 31 63 33 | Steel casing is not needed from a geotechnical standpoint. | 4 | |
| 7 | Is it anticipated that all existing foundations to be retrofitted with micropiles are bearing directly on bedrock? Spec Section 31 63 33 | Micropiles will be installed into new foundations for the new concrete shear walls per the Contract Documents. Note that Sheet S001 in the drawing set requires that the new foundations be extended a minimum of 12 inches into the bedrock. Sheet S501 provides additional foundation depth requirements. Additional subsurface information is available in the March 1, 2018 Langan Geotechnical Report. | 6 | |
| 8 | What is the anticipated compressive strength of the underlying bedrock formation? Spec Section 31 63 33 | Nearby data indicates the compressive strength of the underlying rock varies from about 7,700 to 9,000 psi. | 6 | |
| 9 | Please clarify the emergency egress plan for the Phase 3A Basement work as drawing G007 only shows an emergency egress path from the First Floor and which is not accessible from the Basement level. Sheet G007 | There is no work being completed in the basement level of the Hospital Wing during Phase 3A, and the egress plan for this floor remains unchanged from its current configuration. | 4 | |
| 10 | We would want to check the overall number of micropiles in this project. We believe the total number of piles is 27. Please confirm. Sheets S440, S450 & S460 | There are a total of 27 micropiles for the project. | 4 | |
| 11 | Please clarify the symbols at the wall elevations (similar to sheet A360 at grid K.3): symbols are 920-PLp0 & 901-BF or 901-SM at wall? What does the 0 mean after the PLp symbol? Are these symbols the existing conditions of the walls? Sheet A360 | The "O/" is provided in the definitions on Sheet G003 and is defined as "over". For example, 920-PLp O/ 901-BF OR 901-SM reads: direct applied plaster over board-formed concrete finish or smooth concrete finish. |
| These symbols represent the finishes after the new concrete is placed. | 4 | |||
| 12 | Will we be allowed to set up a batch plant for concrete on the island? If so, please advise to the location we should assume. | Yes, a batch plant for this project is required, see section 01 27 00 paragraph 3.1. A permissable location for the batch plant may be at "Barbershop Plaza" in staging area 6A on drawing G005. See contract documents for additional details on staging areas or other limitations. | 4 | |
| 13 | Please consider removing the overall 15 page limit for Factor 1 and instead limit each project to no more than 3 pages. This would enable primes and key subcontractors sufficient pages to provide the maximum number of allowable projects (5 prime projects + 3 subcontractor projects at 3 pages each = 24 pages). | The page limit shall be revised to not exceed 24 pages and no relevant project shall exceed three (3) pages. | 6 | |
| 14 | Please allow up to 15 pages total for Factor 2 so that offerors can adequately address all that is requested for technical approach of this highly unique and logistically challenging project with complex phasing and sequencing requirements. | The page limit shall be revised to not exceed 15 pages for Factor 2. | 6 | |
| 15 | Factor 3 is limited to 21 pages total, which is only enough pages to include resumes for each role required to be performed by the prime contractor (4 prime roles + 3 prime alternates for 7 total prime resumes each limited to 3 pages = 21 pages for prime contractor). Therefore, please confirm that Key Subcontractor resumes and the requested Organizational Chart do not count against the 21 page limit. | Follow resume and page limitation requirements as stated for Prime Contractor personnel. Key Subcontractor resumes do not count against 21 page limit and each Key Subcontractor resume shall not exceed three (3) pages. Organization Chart does not count against the 21 page limit and shall be limited to one (1) page. | 6 | |
| 16 | Please confirm Primavera P6 for the Gantt Chart is allowable. | Use of Primavera P6 is acceptable. | 6 | |
| 17 | Please confirm the Gantt Chart schedule does not count towards the page limit for Factor 4, Schedule. | The Gantt Chart Schedule does not count towards the page limit for Factor 4, Schedule. | 6 | |
| 18 | Please allow up to 8 pages for offerors to adequately present management approach plus address safety in this same factor. Usually NPS makes management and safety separate subfactors, instead both are asked for in the space usually allotted to the management approach. | The page limit shall be revised to not exceed eight (8) pages for Factor 5. | 6 | |
| 19 | In "Section H - Special Contract Requirements" the Solicitation does not include a definition for "Small Business Participation" that defines the minimum percent of the total contract value to be performed by Small Business. In past NPS proposals, for similar specialized, remote, and logistically challenging locations we have seen 5% of the total contract value. Please add the applicable clause defining minimum small business participation for percent of total contract value for the subject project. | The Clause is no longer used in NPS projects. In place of the Special Clause NPS instead has made small business participation as a factor and provided NPS Small Business Subcontracting Goals in the solicitation. No clause as requested. Subcontracting goals and the Small Business as an Evaluation Factor apply. | 6 | |
| 20 | The NPS is asking for a discussion of operational risks twice: Once in Factor 2 Technical Approach and again in Factor 5 Management Approach where both factors require addressing the same operational risks (weather, working around unforeseen site conditions, material lead times, and work force availability, plus identifying other potential issues and problems). In the Management Approach, the NPS asks offerors to include “areas of concern with technical approach” but those would already be stated in Factor 2, Technical Approach. Therefore, we encourage the NPS to review and revise so that a discussion of operational risks is not duplicated between Factors 2 and 5. It seems more appropriate for a discussion of operational risks to remain in Factor 2 Technical Approach. Factor 5 Management Approach already requires a discussion of safety risks associated with the project. Please clarify that the discussion of operational risks does not need to be duplicated in Factor 5 Management Approach. | Factor 2 includes identifying the means and methods for Risk Mitigation as described in Factor 2. Factor 5 includes the Management Approach for risk analysis as described in Factor 5. Provide narratives as described in Factors 2 and 5. | 6 | |
| 21 | Solicitation SF 1440 identifies a 1140 calendar day (approx. 38 month) period of performance (POP). The 01 11 00 Summary of work 1.3 work phases identifies a 900 Days (30 month) POP following completion of phase 3B. Please confirm the NPS intends for a 8 month duration between award and commencement of phase 3C, and 30 months for the remaining work. | The 8 month duration between the start of the project and the completion of phase 3B is intended to give the contractor sufficient time to perform delelgated design and temporary construction tasks in CLIN 2 with reviews and approvals by NPS. This timeframe takes into account the limitations with bird nesting season. If the contractor wishes to propose a faster schedule, please feel free to do so. | 6 | |
| 22 | Solicitation SF 1442 as well as Section F states the period of performance at 1140 calendar days from NTP. Whereas 01 11 00 Summary of work 1.3 work phases 3B and 3F refers to a 900 Days POP . Please confirm the overall project period of performance is 1140 calendar days from Phase 3A's Partial NTP and 01 11 00 Summary of Work should be revised to reflect the 1140 day POP. | Confirmed | 6 | |
| 23 | 01 11 00 - 1.3 Work Phases provides the order and phasing of the various CLINs. Only the last phase, Phase 3F, has a required completion date of 900 days from NTP. Please confirm there are no required interim milestones associated with the other phases (phases 3C through 3E), that these only have to be completed in order and in sufficient time to complete 3F by the contract completion date. | Milestones are listed in the summary of work for each phase: 3C, 3D, 3E and 3F. | 6 | |
| 24 | 01 11 00 - 1.3 Work Phases has many sections highlighted, as well as noting <Insert Number of Days> as an undefined period of performance of each phase. Please confirm there are not individual phase calendar day milestones and that the only calendar related milestone is the overall period of performance of 1140 calendar days from Partial NTP, or provide individual milestones. | Find the corrected set of specifications for use. This set of specifications shall be used. File "B08_Attach_01_GOGA_311373_Combined_Specifications_.pdf" shown in the solicitation shall be disregarded and not used. | 5 | |
| 25 | For bidding purpose, please provide a schedule duration for the government activities listed in Phase 3B. | Allow no less than seven (7) calendar days for Government activities in section 01 11 00 paragraph 1.3.A.2.b. and paragraph 1.3.A.2.d. Allow no less than one (1) calendar day for Government activities in paragraph 1.3.A.2.e. The Contractor shall provide no less than 21 calendar days notice to the Government prior to beginning Work in Phase 3B. | 6 | |
| 26 | 01 31 00 - 1.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE, B. On-Site Superintendent, item 2 states “2. This position cannot perform any of the Superintendent responsibilities and must be on-site when work is being performed.” Please correct to allow Superintendent to perform Superintendent duties. | |||
| Section 01 31 00 paragraph 1.3.B.2 shall read "This position cannot perform any of the Quality Control Manager responsibilities and must be on-site when work is being performed". | 6 | |||
| 27 | 1 35 23 - 1.3 B. On-Site Safety Supervisor item 2 states “2. On-Site Safety Supervisor is a full-time responsibility of the Prime Contractor, and shall be on-site when work is being performed. This position cannot perform any of the Superintendent or On-Site Quality Control Supervisor responsibilities. “ Please reconsider this requirement, past projects have allow adequately qualified Superintendents to also fill the Safety Supervisor role. Adding a full time dedicated Site Safety Supervisor, who cannot perform other supervisor or quality control responsibilities adds unnecessary staff and cost to the project. | Section 01 35 23 paragraph 1.3.B.2 shall read "On-Site Safety Supervisor is a full-time responsibility of the Prime Contractor, and shall be on-site when work is being performed. This position may also perform Superintendent or On-Site Quality Control Supervisor responsibilities". | 6 | |
| 28 | 01 40 00 - 1.5 - B. Contractors Quality Control Staff: item 1. Requires that “The Quality Control Supervisor is required to have a professional engineer registration in the state of California with a minimum of 5 years construction experience on construction similar to this Contract. This Quality Control Supervisor is on the site at all times during construction and is employed by the Prime Contractor.” Having a full time onsite CA PE employed by the contractor will be a very costly and difficult to fill position. Please consider removing the PE requirement from this onsite position, and/or allow delegated authority of the QC reporting to an offsite CA PE such that the PE need not be onsite full time. | The requirement shall remain as stated in the Contract Documents. | 6 | |
| 29 | 01 35 91 - 1.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE: Please confirm the 01 35 91 -1.4 - A. Historic Preservation Treatment Specialist will be provided by the Government. | The Historic Preservation Treatment Specialist as described in section 01 35 91 paragraph 1.4 shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. | 6 | |
| 30 | 02 01 11 - 1.4.H. Please clarify whether Shoring Design Criteria requires resistance by the shoring and shored structure to seismic events, and whether that analysis will be performed by the Owner’s engineer, or the Contractor’s shoring engineer. | Specification 02 01 11 Para 1.4 A.3, which requires design of the shoring system, is the responsibility of the Contractor. Para 1.4 D and 1.4 H.2 require the Contractor to provide a shoring design that accounts for horizontal loads during construction per ASCE 37. Para 1.4 B allows the use of existing structural elements in the design subject to specified requirements. | 6 | |
| 31 | 02 01 11 - Requires shoring design and installation to be performed by the Contractor, however, the drawings are not clear as to which locations require shoring in order to maintain structural stability during construction. Please clarify the areas / elements of the existing structure requiring shoring during construction. | Specification 02 01 11 Para 1.4 A requires shoring where temporary support for existing and new structural components is necessary. The necessity for and design of the shoring system, including layout of shoring locations is responsibility of the Contractor. The design drawings do not call out where shoring is necessary as this will vary with means and methods. | 6 | |
| 32 | Specification section 08 03 51.23 Historic Treatment of Windows, Section 3.5 C.1/C.2 calls for the preparation of substrates to SSPC SP-5, requiring a “white metal” surface and the removal of all existing corrosion. It also later in 3.7 A refers to the Painting specification for surface preparation requirements. In specification section 09 90 00 – Painting, under 2.4 C.2, existing steel and iron substrates are to be prepared to SSPC-SP 3 “Power Tool Cleaning” followed by solvent cleaning. This allows for prepared rusty steel and tightly adhered paint to remain followed by an epoxy primer. Do all existing steel windows need to be brought to a white metal condition (SSPC SP-5), or can we follow the power tool cleaning level (SSPC SP-3)? | Per Specification 08 03 51.23 ‘Historic Treatment of Windows’ Para 3.4.A ‘Paint Coating Removal’ and 3.2.54.B ‘ Mechanical Rust Removal’ refer to Specification 09 90 00 ‘Painting’ Para 2.4.C.2 which indicates existing steel and iron substrates to be treated by SSPC-SP3 “Power Tool Cleaning” or “SSPC-SP6 “Commercial Blast Cleaning” as required by the Contracting Officer, depending on the condition of the substrate. |
| SSPC SP-5 is indicated in Specification 08 03 51.23 Section 3.5.C for areas of corrosion that are to be repaired with patching compound to fill pitted areas, small holes and minor undulations. | 6 | |||
| 33 | In Specification 03 30 00 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Section 2.3 B.1, the only cement material standards referenced are for ASTM C150 – Portland Cement. Most suppliers (both ready mix and bagged materials) do not have straight Portland Cement which conforms to ASTM C150 in stock. Blended cements are mentioned in various points of the document, but we wanted to confirm that ASTM C595 Blended Cements (particularly Type 1L or PLC) would be allowed in the concrete mix designs. | Specification 03 30 00 Para 2.3.B.1 will be modified to include: ASTM C595 Type IL (MS or HS) | 6 | |
| 34 | ACI 440.2R does not specify FRP reinforcement for in-plane diaphragm shear strengthening (only for walls or beams). A document published by IAPMO in 2019 utilizes the equations from section 11.4 in ACI 440.2R and was specifically created for in-plane diaphragm shear strengthening. Shall all bidders design the FRP system in accordance with IAPMO EC 038-2019, “Evaluation Criteria for Diaphragm Strengthening using Fiber Reinforced Polymers,” & in accordance with the bidder’s respective evaluation report/design manual? | "ACI 440.2R" will be replaced by "IAPMO EC 038-2019" in Specification 03 25 00 Para 1.3 C in a future addendum. |
| Note that for Section 1.3 A.3, ICC ESRs are still permissible for the evaluation report. | 6 | |||
| 35 | Structural – S120/S130 – FRP Reinforcement - Shall the FRP reinforcement be designed to resist the shear load | |||
| (1000 lb/in alias 12 kip/ft) acting in both principle orthogonal building directions? | The FRP system shall be designed for the specified capacity in each of the two principal orthogonal building directions. | 6 | ||
| 36 | Section 2.2B of the specification lists composite fabrics that are bi-directional (+/-45 degree fibers). Is it acceptable to use uni-directional FRP materials if the FRP is installed in both principal orthogonal building directions & the performance goal (12 kip/ft.) is met? | Subject to specified requirements, two uni-directional fabric sheets, installed in orthogonal directions, may substitute for a single sheet of bi-directional fabric. | 6 | |
| 37 | Field anchors are not required to meet the performance goal (12 kip/ft) as per ACI 440 or IAPMO. Is it acceptable for | |||
| delegated designers to omit FRP field anchors? | The FRP designer is responsible for determining whether the field anchors are required for the system designed. | 6 | ||
| 38 | The detail does not seem constructible upon initial review. Is the (N) collector required to be installed prior to FRP |
reinforcement? If so, is it acceptable to install FRP anchors only into the new concrete collector per the detail below?
Detail 3/S520 can be constructible with proper sequencing and coordination. For example, FRP anchors can be installed prior to the concrete collector installation. Once the concrete collector is installed, the FRP can be installed with the anchor splays.
The referenced detail is conceptual, and it is up to the FRP designer to provide an anchorage detail for the design and the Contractor to determine the installation sequence. The new collector is not necessarily required to be installed prior to the FRP.
| Note that the proposed alternate anchor location is anchored into a region where high concrete slab stresses are expected and would not acceptable. Furthermore, anchoring vertically through the slab (i.e. through holes) is prohibited due to the historic floor finishes on the floor above. | 6 | ||||
| 39 | We note that the micropiles are closely spaced. Please confirm the loads and testing requirements provided consider group effects, if applicable. | Group effects for the micropiles do not need to be considered. The testing requirements for the micropiles will be modified in an addendum per the response for bidder question 3. The loads for the micropiles are provided in the design drawings. Please see the response for bidder question 40 regarding load factors on the demands provided. | 6 | ||
| 40 | The loads provided are in LRFD format. Please provide design loads in ASD format. | Per the drawings, the micropiles are intended to resist uplift demands only. These demands are earthquake demands. Per ASCE 7, the LRFD earthquake demands can be converted to ASD earthquake demands using a 0.7 factor. | 6 | ||
| 41 | RFP requires the installation of a 2,300 SF Temporary Book Store. At the site visit the location was mentioned to be the area directly out side to the Administrative Wing Exit Doors. Please confirm. | ||||
| The location will be on Eagle Plaza with a gap between the existing building and the new Temporary Book Store that will allow pedestrian traffic between the two buildings. | 6 | ||||
| 42 | RFP requires the installation of a 2,300 SF Temporary Book Store. At the site visit to location was mentioned to be the area directly out side to the Administrative wing Exit Doors. This location currently has two fire hydrants and a flag pole which will interfere with the large footprint of a 2,300 SF temporary bookstore as well as the existing stair and ramp access. Please consider reducing the size to avoid the obstructions and fire/safety concerns, or provide an alternate location. | ||||
| The 2,300 SF size of the Temporary Bookstore shall not conflict with the flagpole and the fire hydrants. The fire hydrants are not functional and shall be removed, stored and reinstalled at the end of this phase. Further details will be included in a future addendum. | 6 | ||||
| 43 | Please confirm there are no HVAC requirements for the Temporary Bookstore. | ||||
| This information will be included in a future addendum | 6 | ||||
| 44 | Please clarify where localize power connection can be made for the temporary bookstore power needs. | ||||
| This information will be included in a future addendum | 6 | ||||
| 45 | Please clarify where localize communication connection can be made for the temporary bookstore communication needs. | ||||
| This information will be included in a future addendum | 6 | ||||
| 46 | Please provide temporary bookstore power requirements. | ||||
| This information will be included in a future addendum | 6 | ||||
| 47 | Please provide temporary bookstore communication requirements. | ||||
| This information will be included in a future addendum | 6 | ||||
| 48 | Section 03 25 00 Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcing paragraph 1.3 C item 2.a calls for the FRP to be designed for the demand of 1,000 pounds per linear inch. Is this note a typo, should the FRP strengthening say 1,000 pounds per linear foot? Please confirm the spec should say 1,000 pounds per linear foot. | ||||
| The FRP system shall be designed to meet the minimum capacity provided in Specification 03 25 00 Para 1.3.C.2. | 7 | ||||
| 49 | Provide Final Construction Drawings. | Find the corrected set of Construction Drawings for use. This set of Construction Drawings shall be used. Files "B08_Attach_02a_GOGA_311373_Complete_CD_Drawings_Part1.pdf", "B08_Attach_02a_GOGA_311373_Complete_CD_Drawings_Part2.pdf", and "B08_Attach_02a_GOGA_311373_Complete_CD_Drawings_Part3.pdf" shown in the solicitation shall be disregarded and not used. | 5 | ||
| 50 | Replacement link for matterport in Section 01 11 00 paragraph 1.14. | An updated Matterport model includes the Hospital Wing and the Admin Wing is included here: | |||
| https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=DFZEL8XBJ4Y | 6 | ||||
| 51 | Solicitation Section E. | VOLUME I, TECHNICAL PROPOSAL – FACTOR 4 SCHEDULE States to "...assume a Notice to Proceed date of 2/15/2024 ". However, 2/15/2024 will be prior to the proposal submission date. Please provide a realistic future date to assume for Partial NTP, which is relevant when building a proposal schedule around the various seasonal constraints. | Assume a Notice to Proceed date of 7/29/2024. | 7 | |
| 52 | Specification section 08 03 51.23 Historic Treatment of Windows, Section 3.5 C.2/C.3 calls for the preparation of substrates to SSPC SP-5, requiring a “white metal” surface and the removal of all existing corrosion. It also later in 3.7 A refers to the Painting specification for surface preparation requirements. In specification section 09 90 00 – Painting, under 2.4 C.2, existing steel and iron substrates are to be prepared to SSPC-SP 3 “Power Tool Cleaning” followed by solvent cleaning. This allows for prepared rusty steel and tightly adhered paint to remain followed by an epoxy primer. Do all existing steel windows need to be brought to a white metal condition (SSPC SP-5), or can we follow the power tool cleaning level (SSPC SP-3)? | See response to question 32. | 7 | ||
| 53 | In Specification 03 30 00 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Section 2.3 B.1, the only cement material standards referenced are for ASTM C150 – Portland Cement. Most suppliers (both ready mix and bagged materials) do not have straight Portland Cement which conforms to ASTM C150 in stock. Blended cements are mentioned in various points of the document, but we wanted to confirm that ASTM C595 Blended Cements (particularly Type 1L or PLC) would be allowed in the concrete mix designs. | See response to question 33. | 7 | ||
| 54 | Reference Amendment 005, specification section 01 11 00 Summary of Work. Paragraph 1.3, Work Phases, requires the work to be conducted in six (6) phases, with each phase substantially complete before beginning the next phase. |
The following six (6) phases and durations are provided:
| 1. | Phase 3A – 120 calendar days after Partial NTP |
| 2. | Phase 3B – 15 calendar days after completion of Phase 3A |
| - NTP issued after completion of Phase 3A | |
| 3. | Phase 3C – 400 calendar days after NTP |
| 4. | Phase 3D – 15 calendar days after completion of Phase 3C |
| 5. | Phase 3E – 20 calendar days after completion of Phase 3D |
| 6. | Phase 3F - 900 calendar days after NTP. |
| - Phase 3F cannot be started until after completion of Phase 3E. Therefore, based on the above durations, |
Phase 3F cannot start until 570 calendar days after NTP. This leaves 465 calendar days for performance of Phase 3F.
Based on the above information the performance period for the base bid scope of work (Phase 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, and 3F) appears to be 570 calendar days after Partial NTP. Option scope (Phase 3F) may add an additional 465 calendar days, for a total performance period of 1035 calendar days. However, the performance period identified in Amendment 005 Solicitation Section F – Deliveries or Performance (page 10 of 55) indicates a performance period of 1140 calendar days after NTP. This is difference of 105 calendar days.
Based on our preliminary assessment of the work included in each Phase and the corresponding performance periods, we recommend adding the 105 calendar days to Phase 3C, which would increase the Phase 3C performance period to a total of 505 calendar days after NTP.
| Please provide your concurrence with this approach. | NPS agrees - specification section 01 11 00 Summary of Work has been revised to increase the Phase 3C performance period to a total of 505 calendar days after NTP as described in paragraph 1.3.C.3. | 7 |
| 55 | Reference Amendment 004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan which lists the NPS FY 24 subcontracting goals. Additionally, reference Amendment 004 , SF 30 box 14, Description of Amendment, which also includes NPS FY 24 subcontracting goals. |
Review of the two listings has identified the following conflicts:
- Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Concerns + Small Business Plan lists 5%, where as the Amendment SF 30 lists 3%
| Please confirm that the requirement for SDVOSB is 3% per the SF30 | The Service Disabled Veteran Owned subcontracting goal for the Department of Interior and the National Park Service is 5% and not 3% as listed on the SF30 which is in error. | 7 |
| 56 | Reference Amendment 004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan which lists the NPS FY 24 subcontracting goals. Additionally, reference Amendment 004 , SF 30 box 14, Description of Amendment, which also includes NPS FY 24 subcontracting goals. |
Review of the two listings has identified the following conflicts:
- Indian Small Business Economic Enterprise + The Amendment SF 30 includes a requirement for Indian Small Business Economic Enterprise at 3%, where as the Small Business Plan does not list this category
| Please clarify the requirement for Indian Small Business Economic Enterprise | The subcontracting goals for the National Park Service were recently updated to include the Indian Small Business Economic Enterprise (ISBEE) with a subcontracting goal of 3%. The subcontracting plan lists the previous DOI subcontracting goals which excludes the ISBEE goals. Please include ISBEE goals of 3% in the subcontracting plan | 7 | ||
| 57 | Factor 1 allows key subcontractors to submit up to three relevant projects completed in the last ten years. Please confirm this is three projects for each identified key subcontractor. | Confirmed this is three projects for each identified key subcontractor. | 7 | |
| 58 | Factor 3, If the On-Site Quality Control Supervisor is not currently employed by the prime contractor, please confirm a Letter of Commitment from the committed employee will qualify the QC Supervisor's credentials for evaluation under Factor 3 Key Personnel. | The On-Site Quality Control Supervisor shall be employed by the Prime Contractor as described in the solicitation. An employment letter of intent to commit the employee to employment with the Prime Contractor is acceptable. All other requirements remain unchanged. | 7 | |
| 59 | Factor 3, Please confirm that the On-Site Quality Control Supervisor may be employed as a consultant or as a subcontracted position, and does not have to be a direct hired employee of the prime contractor | The On-Site Quality Control Supervisor shall be employed by the Prime Contractor as described in the solicitation. An employment letter of intent to commit the employee to employment with the Prime Contractor is acceptable. All other requirements remain unchanged. Employment as a consultant or subcontractor is not acceptable. | 7 | |
| 60 | Factor 3, Amendment 6 Q&A response #28 did not allow the On-Site California Professional Engineer Quality Control Supervisor to be employed as a consultant or as a subcontracted position overseen by the Prime contractor's QCM. Multiple past similar projects on Alcatraz did not have the California Professional Engineer requirement. Please reconsider as this will be a difficult position to fill, which will add cost to the project, with no measurable impact on quality. | The requirement shall remain as stated in the Contract Documents. | 7 | |
| 61 | 01 40 00 para. 1.5.B.1, Referenced specification requires the Quality Control Supervisor to be a California Professional Engineer with a minimum of 5 years construction experience on construction similar to this contract. Please consider allowing additional years of construction experience in lieu of the California PE requirement. | The requirement shall remain as stated in the Contract Documents. | 7 |
Proposed Alternate Anchor Location image1.png image2.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .