243207_RFQ Q and As_20250509.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE

SPACE LAUNCH DELTA 30

FROM: 30 CONS/PKA

1515 Iceland Ave Bldg. 8500, Rm 150 Vandenberg SFB, CA 93437-5212

SUBJECT: Request for Qualification (RFQ) Questions and Answers (Q&A), Project Number XUMU

243207, Study Launch Facilities (LFs) 9 and 10, at Vandenberg Space Force Base (SFB), CA

Government responses to RFI questions received in response to RFQ are shown in RED below.

1. Are any photos of the Launch Facilities and the damage described in the SOW available? These would be helpful in validating our approach for the investigation.

A1. Photos of the launch facilities are unavailable at this time but anticipated to be available during the Request for Proposal (RFP) stage. Amendment 02 will include “Atch 3 243207_Supplemental Information”, which includes exterior photos of LF 9 and LF 10.

2. Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the SOW appear to indicate the need for monitoring on site while conducting our work. Can the government confirm what monitoring may be necessary? Would these also be key personnel the government would wish to see qualifications?

A2. Biological/cultural monitoring is not required for this project, however, the A-E firm is required to coordinate any and all investigative and research activities/ site visits with the 30 CES Environmental Squadron prior to an event.

3. Section 3.1.3 indicates that Hazardous Materials survey may be required. Can the government confirm if this will be required or not?

A3. No hazardous materials survey is required for this project. However, the A-E firm will need to document the existence of any hazardous materials during the charrette process within the Engineering Study.

4. Section 4.0 of the SOW indicates the development of plans and specifications. Elsewhere in the

SOW it appears the main deliverable is an investigative report supported by concept drawings only. Please clarify. The development of full plans and specifications following a study can be difficult to properly budget.

A4. Amendment 02 will incorporate a revised SOW removing the requirement for plans and specifications. The intent is to capture the state of the existing site and to get a rough outline/cost for the repair alternatives. This can be captured with the investigation narrative and concept drawings.

Please see the revised SOW for clarity.

5. The solicitation appears to indicate that the launch facilities contain airfield pavements and silos.

Can the government verify if both are present at each launch facility?

A5. There are no airfield pavements included in this project.

6. Will the government consider additional non-destructive testing methods of the concrete in lieu of the visual inspections referred to in ACE 201.1R and ASTM D5340?

A6. The reason for specifying these standards for inspection is to maintain continuity in our data tracking amongst all of our launch site visual inspections. Additional methods of testing are encouraged, but this is not to be done in lieu of the listed requirements.

7. Are there any As-Builts available for Launch Pads 9 & 10?

A7. Yes, some as-builts associated with these launch sites are available and can be provided to the A-E firm post-award following a signed NDA Refer to SOW Section 3.1.1 and Section 3.1.2 for further information.

8. Is there any record of how long the existing sump pump has been out of service for?

A8. Pre-dates 1992

9. Are there any photos of the burrow(s) surrounding the launch pads 9 & 10?

A9. No photos are available of the burrows surrounding LF 9 and LF 10.

10. What wildlife is creating burrows?

A10. Predominantly ground squirrels.

11. Are there any existing Geotechnical Reports/Studies for or near the Launch Pad areas?

A11. There are no Geotechnical Reports, but we do have some boring logs for the LF10 site that can be shared post-award.

12. Will a topographic survey be required?

A12. This should not be necessary, we have topographical GIS data we can provide if necessary.

13. Is there a water source near the project site where we can connect to for clearing the existing drainpipes?

A13. LF10: The nearest water source is about 900 ft away following the roads, and 700 ft from point to point.

LF9: There is no water source near this site. It is suggested that the contractor bring a water truck to clear out the drainage pipes for the study.

14. Is the request for experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of recovered materials the intended areas of experience for this contract?

The RFQ states under ""Evaluation Factors", Section 2 “(2) Specialized experience and technical competence, within the past six (6) years, in the type of work required, including, where appropriate, experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of recovered materials." The SOW asks for "the evaluation of the condition of the concrete structures that make up the launch tube and surrounding area to include the identification of underground utilities supporting Launch Facilities 9 and 10 (LF 9 & LF 10). The Study should also capture information on groundwater levels and how water is penetrating the silos."

A14. No, these areas of experience are not pertinent to this contract.

a. (Pg. 1) Are the silos steel-lined?

A14a. This question falls within the parameters of information that will be provided in the Request for Proposal phase of the award process. A response will not be provided at this time in accordance with directions given in the RFQ.

b. (Pg.1) Approx. depth of the silos?

A14b. This question falls within the parameters of information that will be provided in the Request for Proposal phase of the award process. A response will not be provided at this time in accordance with directions given in the RFQ.

c. (Pg.2) Approx. depth extent of underground utilities and desired lateral extent of identification?

A14c. This question falls within the parameters of information that will be provided in the Request for Proposal phase of the award process. A response will not be provided at this time in accordance with directions given in the RFQ.

d. (Pg.2) What is the extent of underground structures?

A14d. There are multiple underground structures that exist at these sites. Further information regarding underground structures will be provided to the most highly qualified A-E firm during the Request for Proposal phase.

e. (Pg. 5) Do the sites require UXO monitoring (usually by base)/training? Any additional training?

A14e. No.

f. (Pg. 7) What CAD/GIS formats are required for plots?

A14f. The government needs more clarification on what “plots” this questions is asking about. Is this question geared toward the reference datum for GIS, templates for physical drawings, or something else?

g. (Pg. 8) Will client obtain all sign offs for AF Form 103 (physically carry)?

A14g. The A-E firm is responsible for obtaining all signatures (in-person) on the AF 103. This would be completed post-award, prior to the site investigation.

h. (Pg. 16) Will we be working in secured areas (i.e., require an escort)?

A14h. Yes, LF 9 and LF 10 are secured areas. Security escorts will be required and will be provided by the installation. Escort availability from the customer Unit will require advanced coordination when planning the site visit/investigation.

i. (Pg. 19) Will we receive payment when paid?

A14i. The A-E firm will receive progress payments based on the percentage or stage of work completed.

Payment requests must be submitted IAW DFARS Clause 252.232-7006 Wide Area Work Flow.