19AQMM25Q0284 Retrofit QA.pdf

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

19AQMM25Q0284 Physical Security Retrofit and Mitigation Design

Please see below list of 26 questions in response to 19AQMM25Q0284 Physical Security Retrofit and Mitigation Designs. Please review and provide a response under each question to prepare an amendment to the solicitation.

1. Please confirm that the level of development that the A/E is to design to is not to exceed a level consistent with Construction Documents (LOD 300) and that the A/E is not developing drawings to a limit consistent with shop drawings, coordination drawings, or vendor specific drawings.

Yes, not to exceed construction documents (LOD 300) The drawing level of development needs to be the basis of design drawings that are full and complete, which include all the necessary details so follow on A/Es to incorporate them into site specific projects.

2. H-016 Key Personnel is listed as TBD. Please confirm the disciplines required for each retrofit/mitigation (as they are not specifically mentioned in the SOW. For example, with a perimeter wall, to what extent do we develop drawings for cataloging, are we to show only the structurally related wall assembly or are we to also include Electrical and TSS for perimeter all mounting of lights (top of wall), cameras (PTZ), conduit. Do we layer in civil, durability, and architectural perimeter wall requirements? Understanding which disciplines are required for each retrofit/mitigation will help to tighten our pricing.

We do not require electrical, TSS, etc. details, this project is focused only on providing structural basis of designs to resist physical attacks: blast loads, mob attack, vehicle ramming attack, etc.

3. In C-001 SOW, Table 1, Retrofit/Mitigation Sections 2.1, 3.3, 7.1 list a Planned Base / Option of “Base/Example”. Please elaborate on the “example” component and how many such examples should be planned for pricing “a – f” (columns D-M). Will need specific type, number and definitions of these retrofits / mitigations that are noted as examples (implying there are many more) to price accurately. Providing one “example” leaves open the risk to over or under price the specific number and type of retrofits sought.

The “example” drawings that have been shared in Annex A of this RFP are examples of the type of drawings/details that will be provided to the performer.

Type 1: The RDAM Wall Example shows o What basic building structural features are required o Practical construction considerations o Guidance for site-specific situations o And includes other design consideration for the design to adequately be applied to site specific layouts o It does not have allowable substitutions for materials to achieve equivalent protection.

The RDAM “example” package is an example of a very detailed design document package where not much work is needed for integration into the larger retrofit and mitigation catalog.

Some work is required to format it into the larger retrofit and mitigation catalog.

Type 2: The PADDS Example show o Background information o Needs more detail on what basic building structural features are required in order for the retrofit/mitigation to be applied o Needs more info on allowable substitutions for materials to achieve equivalent protection to the materials shown in the designs including all necessary material specifications o Supplies some practical construction considerations but may need more o Has wind load but may need guidance for site-specific situations: seismic, etc. or other site-specific guidance may be deemed not necessary for application o Needs other design consideration the performer deems necessary for a design to adequately apply the retrofit/mitigation to a building.

The PADDS “example” package is an example of a ~50% design document that needs a little more work before it can be integrated into to the larger retrofit and mitigation catalog.

Type 3: Rod & Clevis (SPAT8) o Only basic test article drawings are provided, this design needs

Background information describing what the retrofit/mitigation was designed to protect against and how was it tested/validated.

What basic building structural features are required in order for the retrofit/mitigation to be applied, and what building designs are not appropriate for the retrofit/mitigation to be applied.

• E.g. hollow masonry block is a poor substrate to attach to and may not even be capable of resisting loads required for a retrofit/mitigation design

Consider allowable substitutions for materials to achieve equivalent protection to the materials shown in the designs including all necessary material specifications.

• E.g. the government furnished drawings of the test article will have used specific materials: bolts, screws, proprietary chemical anchors etc. The performer would use this information to provide appropriate grade of steel, grade of bolts, screw types, required material properties of any chem anchor, etc.

Provide practical construction considerations such as: inside corners, outside corners, penetrations such as for plumbing and electrical utilities passage, air flow, heating/cooling, and emergency egress. Provide drawings and/or illustrations as needed.

Provide guidance for site-specific situations: seismic, etc.

Other design consideration the performer deems necessary for a design to adequately apply the retrofit/mitigation to a building.

The Type 3 example is a bare bones drawings needed to build a small-scale test article. More detailed work is required before it can be integrated into to the larger retrofit and mitigation catalog.

The table below shows what type level of information will be provided for each retrofit/mitigation:

4. In C-001 SOW, pg. 7, communicates “Deliverables” does not clearly match up with J1’s pricing columns D-I. Please confirm that C-001 SOW, pg. 7, communicates “Deliverables” are to be matched and correspond with J1’s columns D-I (headers a-f). Please confirm the following are the associations being described/sought:

• J1 (Column D) “a. Background Docs” is to correspond with C-001 SOW, pg. 7’s bullet 3 that begins, “A narrative that includes critical information…”

Retrofit/Mitigation Type of GFI

1. Composite steel stud wall (SPAT 2) Type 3

2. Terracotta chain-link fence (SPAT 2) Type 3

3. Chain link wall retrofit (SPAT 6) Type 3

4. Transparent wall retrofit (SPAT 7-8) Type 3

5. Sandwich panel Type 3

6. Sunshade Type 2

1. Multi-threat Wall (RDAM) Type 1

2. Dakar railing Type 3

1. SG hung on vertical steel rod (SPAT 4-5) Type 3

2. SG hung on tube steel columns with thru-bolted flat plate connections (SPAT 4-5)

Type 3

3. Rod & Clevis (SPAT 8) Type 3

4. SG hung on tube steel columns with thru-bolted angle plate connections (SPAT 4-5)

Type 3

5. SG hung on tube steel columns with hanging tabs thru flat plate (SPAT 4-5)

Type 3

6. Pedestal System (SPAT 8) Type 3

7. Slot-Hung System (SPAT 11) Type 3

8. Dry glaze FE/BR window with air gap (SPAT 9) Type 3

9. PVC Strip Commercial Window Catcher Retrofit System

Type 3

1. BBERGS Type 3

2. BBERGS-H Type 3

3. BBROWS Type 3

1. Overhead protection Type 2

2. Sandbags Type 3

1. Temporary Modular Protective System (TMPS) Type 1/2

2. Culvert with spall-liner (CAPS) Type 1/2

1. Passive Drone Defeat System (PADDS) Type 2

• J1 (Column E) “b. Application Structural Analysis” is to correspond with C-001 SOW, pg. 7’s bullets 1 and 3 that begins, “Conceptual Rendering…” and “A narrative that includes critical information…” respectively.

• J1 (Column F) “c. Retrofit/Mitigation Material Analysis” is to correspond with C- 001 SOW, pg. 7’s bullet 4 that begins, “A description of construction considerations needed to adapt…”

• J1 (Column G) “d. Application Detailing” is to correspond with C-001 SOW, pg.

7’s bullet 2 that begins, “Basis of Design Drawings…”

• J1 (Column H) “e. Environmental Considerations” is to correspond with C-001 SOW, pg. 7’s bullet 5 that begins, “Site Specific Considerations…”

• J1 (Column I) “f. Misc Considerations” is to correspond with C-001 SOW, pg. 7’s bullet 5 that begins, “Site Specific Considerations…”

Please provide an update that maximizes the clarity between C-001 SOW, pg. 7, “Deliverables” and the J1 such that they match.

Offerors should refer to Amendment 001 and the revised sections of the solicitation. The following sections of the RFQ were amended: J-001 (Removal of attachment J1 ‘Retro&Mitigations Pricelist’), L-001 (Instructions to Offerors), and M-002 (Evaluation of Cost/Price).

Offerors are to come up with their own price per retrofit/mitigation group: Base, Option 1, Option 2, Option 3.

Example:

• Base (10 retrofit/mitigation): $400K

• Option: (5 retrofit/mitigation): $200K

• Etc.

5. Please confirm that this is an A/E catalog and design only solicitation, that there is no direct or implied requirements for material or equipment testing, witnessing a test, videoing a test, or requirements that would require the A/E to travel to a 3rd party’s testing facility, or requirements that would require the A/E to have a testing lab of its own, or carry a sub that would perform said testing, witnessing, or videoing. Page 7 reads, “All final deliverables (reports, photos, full testing videos, etc.) shall be delivered shall be delivered at the completion of all samples’ testing on a DVD or hard drive mailed …” Please confirm that the scope is referring to videos of products already on hand, or videos that DS or a 3rd party will produce and provide to the A/E team awarded this solicitation for use in cataloging.

There is no testing required for this effort, all reports and videos will be from tests, designs, and computational analysis the RD group has already conducted with our research partners and testing laboratories

6. Please provide existing, on-hand, files associated with all retrofits / mitigations. Especially of those files referenced in Annex A on page 9 of the SOW, and mentioned / referenced as “Zip Files” associated with the J-001 ATTACHMENTS.

Information on each design to develop for the catalog shall be provided to the contract awardee and time of award. The three examples provided are to understand the level of detail that can be expected for each design to be developed.

Please email grayal@state.gov for the Annex A. In total there are 38 attachments (16 pdfs, 1 excel, and 21 .dwg)

Type 1: RDAM Wall: 35 attachments

Type 2: PADDS: 2 attachments

Type 3: Rod & Clevis: 1 attachment

7. Please confirm that these catalogs are to have the same look, be analogous to, the DS Red Book.

These catalogs will be more detailed than the Red Book, the Type 3 GGI drawings are already analogous to the Red Book, we want more details in the catalog including:

a) Background information describing what the retrofit/mitigation was designed to protect against and how was it tested/validated.

b) What basic building structural features are required in order for the retrofit/mitigation to be applied, and what building designs are not appropriate for the retrofit/mitigation to be applied.

a. E.g. hollow masonry block is a poor substrate to attach to and may not even be capable of resisting loads required for a retrofit/mitigation design

c) Consider allowable substitutions for materials to achieve equivalent protection to the materials shown in the designs including all necessary material specifications.

a. E.g. the government furnished drawings of the test article will have used specific materials: bolts, screws, proprietary chemical anchors etc. The performer would use this information to provide appropriate grade of steel, grade of bolts, screw types, required material properties of any chem anchor, etc.

d) Provide practical construction considerations such as: inside corners, outside corners, penetrations such as for plumbing and electrical utilities passage, air flow, heating/cooling , and emergency egress. Provide drawings and/or illustrations as needed.

mailto:grayal@state.gov

e) Provide guidance for site-specific situations: seismic, etc.

f) Other design considerations the performer deems necessary for a design to adequately apply the retrofit/mitigation to a building.

8. Does OBO/DS have an example of an already completed retrofit/mitigation that has met all deliverable requirements that we can use as a basis of design to emulate or improve upon?

No, Type 1 RDAM wall is the closest in terms of full basis of design details, but some work is still required to format it into the larger retrofit and mitigation catalog.

9. Please confirm in what column(s) of the J1 would you like to have the pricing associated with Appendix A’s Monthly Status Report?

Offerors should refer to Amendment 001 and the revised sections of the solicitation. The following sections of the RFQ were amended: J-001 (Removal of attachment J1 ‘Retro&Mitigations Pricelist’), L-001 (Instructions to Offerors), and M-002 (Evaluation of Cost/Price).

10. Please confirm J1 is the only pricing document sought, and that there is no request for labor rates / direct expenses associated with the A/E?

Offerors should refer to Amendment 001 and the revised sections of the solicitation. The following sections of the RFQ were amended: J-001 (Removal of attachment J1 ‘Retro&Mitigations Pricelist’), L-001 (Instructions to Offerors), and M-002 (Evaluation of Cost/Price).

11. The In C-001 SOW does not define any virtual, in person, formal meetings or workshops. Please confirm none are required, or please define how many should be anticipated, in what deliverable phases, and where (at DS, at OBO, virtual).

Offerors should include in their technical approach and price proposal any meetings (kick off, monthly check progress, etc.) that they feel are necessary to complete the work. The Government anticipates a monthly meeting at the beginning of each month, and quarterly meetings later in the project to complete this work.

12. What is the anticipated funding limit associated with this solicitation?

The Government cannot disclose the anticipated funding limit associated with this solicitation.

Offerors are encouraged to propose their own pricing and labor mix for this requirement.

13. The C-001 SOW, pg. 7 reads, “The performer will provide costs for adding additional designs to the catalog in groups of 5 for with a period of performance of 7 months from the time of award.” Please confirm that these groups of 5 are at the A/E’s determination? Note of the 15 optional/additional designs found in Table 1, do not neatly sort into groups of five (ex. a group of five for windows, a group of five for walls).

It appears the formatting on the “Catalog Designs” was altered during the .pdf conversion, please use the grouping in the table below:

14. Please confirm the following Option groups of 5 are satisfactory outside of the Base.

• Option 1 Group of 5:

i. Section 1.4 Blast-Resistant Walls, Transparent wall retrofit (SPAT 7-8)

ii. Section 1.5 Blast-Resistant Walls, Sandwich panel

Retrofit/Mitigation Planned Base/Option Type of GFI

1. Composite steel stud wall (SPAT 2) Base Type 3

2. Terracotta chain-link fence (SPAT 2) Base Type 3

3. Chain link wall retrofit (SPAT 6) Base Type 3

1. Multi-threat Wall (RDAM) Base/Example Type 1

1. SG hung on vertical steel rod (SPAT 4-5) Base Type 3

2. SG hung on tube steel columns with thru-bolted flat plate connections (SPAT 4-5)

Base Type 3

3. Rod & Clevis (SPAT 8) Base/Example Type 3

4. SG hung on tube steel columns with thru-bolted angle plate connections (SPAT 4-5)

Base Type 3

1. Temporary Modular Protective System (TMPS) Base Type 1/2

1. Passive Drone Defeat System (PADDS) Base/Example Type 2

4. Transparent wall retrofit (SPAT 7-8) Option 1 Type 3

5. Sandwich panel Option 1 Type 3

6. Sunshade Option 1 Type 2

5. SG hung on tube steel columns with hanging tabs thru flat plate (SPAT 4-5)

Option 1 Type 3

3. BBROWS Option 1 Type 3

2. Dakar railing Option 2 Type 3

6. Pedestal System (SPAT 8) Option 2 Type 3

7. Slot-Hung System (SPAT 11) Option 2 Type 3

1. BBERGS Option 2 Type 3

2. BBERGS-H Option 2 Type 3

8. Dry glaze FE/BR window with air gap (SPAT 9) Option 3 Type 3

9. PVC Strip Commercial Window Catcher Retrofit System

Option 3 Type 3

1. Overhead protection Option 3 Type 2

2. Sandbags Option 3 Type 3

2. Culvert with spall-liner (CAPS) Option 3 Type 1/2

iii. Section 1.6 Blast-Resistant Walls, Sunshade

iv. Section 2.2 Perimeter Features, Dakar railing

v. Section 6.2 Small Blast-Resistant Buildings, Culvert with spall liner

(CAPS)

• Option 2 Group of 5:

i. Section 3.5-7 under Window Catch Retrofit Systems (SPAT 4-5, SPAT 8, SPAT 11, SPAT 9, PVC Strip Commercial Window Catcher Retrofit System)

• Option 3 Group of 5:

i. Section 4.1-3: Blast-Resistant Windows

ii. Section 5: Rocket and Mortar Protection

Please use this grouping for planning purposes:

15. Please confirm that OBO ODRs or OBO Design Standards do not apply to this solicitation.

Only the references and work described in the SOW apply.

16. Please confirm that 12-FAH-5 and 12-FAH-6 do not apply to this solicitation.

12-FAH-5 and 12-FAH-6 are not applicable to this work

17. Please confirm the relevant milestones planned in accordance with the deliverables described (with NTP + X Calendar Days for each within the 12-month POP).

It is up to the Performer to provide their planned schedule for the project based off their estimate of what it will take to perform the work described in the SOW

Retrofit/Mitigation Planned Base/Option Type of GFI

1. Composite steel stud wall (SPAT 2) Base Type 3

2. Terracotta chain-link fence (SPAT 2) Base Type 3

3. Chain link wall retrofit (SPAT 6) Base Type 3

1. Multi-threat Wall (RDAM) Base/Example Type 1

1. SG hung on vertical steel rod (SPAT 4-5) Base Type 3

2. SG hung on tube steel columns with thru-bolted flat plate connections (SPAT 4-5)

Base Type 3

3. Rod & Clevis (SPAT 8) Base/Example Type 3

4. SG hung on tube steel columns with thru-bolted angle plate connections (SPAT 4-5)

Base Type 3

1. Temporary Modular Protective System (TMPS) Base Type 1/2

1. Passive Drone Defeat System (PADDS) Base/Example Type 2

4. Transparent wall retrofit (SPAT 7-8) Option 1 Type 3

5. Sandwich panel Option 1 Type 3

6. Sunshade Option 1 Type 2

5. SG hung on tube steel columns with hanging tabs thru flat plate (SPAT 4-5)

Option 1 Type 3

3. BBROWS Option 1 Type 3

2. Dakar railing Option 2 Type 3

6. Pedestal System (SPAT 8) Option 2 Type 3

7. Slot-Hung System (SPAT 11) Option 2 Type 3

1. BBERGS Option 2 Type 3

2. BBERGS-H Option 2 Type 3

8. Dry glaze FE/BR window with air gap (SPAT 9) Option 3 Type 3

9. PVC Strip Commercial Window Catcher Retrofit System

Option 3 Type 3

1. Overhead protection Option 3 Type 2

2. Sandbags Option 3 Type 3

2. Culvert with spall-liner (CAPS) Option 3 Type 1/2

18. Please provide the Department’s Fast, Lean, Efficient, and Expedient (FLEX) mission requirements (referenced on page 7) so that we can align it with the work of this solicitation.

This effort is being conducted in support of the FLEX mission by providing options to retrofit and occupy existing facilities. There are no FLEX specific requirements regarding this effort the performer needs to consider.

19. Page 8, please confirm that milestones listed are all relevant and specify them exactly (w/o “Etc.”). Are O&M Manual, Test Plan, Test Reports all really needed for the catalog/design?

The MSR provided in Appendix A is a generic example template, the performer may modify as needed for the project.

20. Please confirm that the blast software used for US Embassy Design is satisfactory for analyzing that which is found within this solicitation.

There is no set software or limit/restriction on software that may be used. It is up to the performer to describe in their technical approach what software, design methodology and level of analysis they think are required to perform the work described in the SOW.

With that said software that is used for embassy design, such as SDOF or finite element modeling, would be appropriate for any design development of the catalog designs as necessary. However, the information that shall be provided includes test results, so design modeling should not be the primary basis of design development, the blast tested design shall be the primary driver of system design.

21. Please clarify at what stage of DS Accreditation these retrofits / mitigations are at.

DS Accreditation is not applicable to this project.

22. We have received Annex A (Part 1) but Annex A (Part 2) to this point. Please provide drawings for the “Example” retrofits / mitigations in the Table 1 of the SOW.

Please email grayal@state.gov for the Annex A. In total there are 38 attachments (16 pdfs, 1 excel, and 21 .dwg)

Type 1: RDAM Wall: 35 attachments

Type 2: PADDS: 2 attachments

Type 3: Rod* Clevis: 1 attachment mailto:grayal@state.gov

23. These retrofits may be installed anywhere in the world, which means the material specifications involved could be numerous. Is it acceptable to utilize US material qualification standards in the basis of design?

Yes

24. Can further description concerning what accounting for practical considerations (inside corners, outside corners, penetrations such as for plumbing and electrical utilities passage, air flow, heating/cooling, and emergency egress) entails? These descriptions are very general and the iterations could be infinite.

The design catalog shall develop design details for common interior and exterior conditions, addressing how the retrofit or mitigation handles features such as corners, roofs, floors, windows, penetrations, columns, and other necessary conditions. While exact details for all possible column, penetration, etc. sizes are not required, the catalog should provide adaptable solutions for typical scenarios.

For interior retrofits or mitigations, the performer should include design details that address common features such as corners, columns, and penetrations typically found along the perimeter walls of interior spaces.

For exterior retrofits or mitigations, the performer should provide design details to accommodate features such as corners, exhaust or pipe penetrations, and other elements typically encountered on exterior walls or roofs.

25. Please confirm the portion of scope required to be performed by the small business prime.

The small business prime must perform at least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel with its own employees.

26. Please confirm if the scope of work will require handling or storage of classified materials and at what classification level.

The highest classification will be Sensitive but Unclassified for this project.

27. Would the Government consider changing or adding 541519 to the NAICS assignment for this solicitation?

No.

28. Can a large firm still participate in this solicitation as a subconsultant?

Yes, a large firm may serve as a subconsultant. Offerors must comply with FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting requirements.

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=46b1aed2006d96008c9c17a8ff043467d45ffaf1845ad8f52da8a92d76384532JmltdHM9MTc1NjMzOTIwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=23eda51b-4c1c-6929-3f14-b34d4dce6836&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYWNxdWlzaXRpb24uZ292L2Zhci81Mi4yMTktMTQ&ntb=1 https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=46b1aed2006d96008c9c17a8ff043467d45ffaf1845ad8f52da8a92d76384532JmltdHM9MTc1NjMzOTIwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=23eda51b-4c1c-6929-3f14-b34d4dce6836&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYWNxdWlzaXRpb24uZ292L2Zhci81Mi4yMTktMTQ&ntb=1