00082 Guam Antenna Inspection Q A V2.pdf

Question Answer The facility has reportedly not operated on 518 kHz since July 2018, one year after the inspection report included with the RFQ. What is the condition of the transmitting equipment? Has it been tested recently?

The site was visited 17-19Jun24. Both transmitters were tested into a dummy load with 0 reflective power and nearly 2.5kw output while operating in CW mode.

Was the interruption of 518 kHz operation caused only by the apparent transmission line fault, or were there other operational problems? Transmission line exiting the transmit building is known to be damaged. The antenna system must be inspected for damage as well due to significant past storm activity that has left noticeable physical damage to the antenna system. All damaged items must be listed in the detailed inspection report.

Is the location of the transmission line splice known? Is it in the 3 1/8 or the 1 5/8 section of line? Is the location of the junction of the two types of line accessible without excavation? There is evidently one vault for the splice but are there other known splices?

The transmission line is approximately 3050' long with 2600' being 3-1/8" air dielectric and the last 450' being 1-5/8" foam filled cable. That joining splice should be located 450' back from the ATU. The exact location of this splice is not marked. Line testing in 2018 with TDR and a Site Master analyzer indicated a short at 1500'

Has pressurization been maintained in the air dielectric 3 1/8 inch line? Pressure is running open on the line at this time.

Is there any available documentation on the actual or presumed location of access vaults, conduits, splice points, etc? Cable path depictions are available that show an approximate route from the transmit building to the ATU. Vaults, building penetration location and ATU is indicated on the depiction.

Are the known splices with EIA fittings or merely with splice kits without EIA flange connection capability? Do not have information on this

What is the installation date (age) of the 3 inch air dielectric line? According to the Navy the 3-1/8" cable is approximately 45 years old.

Is the contractor expected to excavate any or all locations identified as cable faults or connector locations where TDR measurement discloses anomalies or helium sensing discloses leaks in the 3 1/8 line section? (The helium detection is not possible on the 1 5/8 foam dielectric line section.)

The primary purpose of the inspection is to determine if the cable could be reused or if it should be replaced in whole. Excavation may not be possible due to a potential requirement for an explosive ordnance survey which would could be cost prohibitive.

Is there any history of rodent damage to the outer jacket of the transmission line? None noted

What recommendations for repair/replacement of mechanical components on the antenna mast identified in the 2017 report have been performed? The antenna needs to be inspected to document all existing defects, materials and labor requirements for repair.

Is evaluation of submittals to be entirely on price, or will qualifications be taken into account, particularly for low bidders? This will be awarded to the Lowest price vendor that meets all the requirements as specified in the Statement of work.

With regard to the antenna inspection report that was submitted by Lawrence Behr Associates on Jan 6th, 2017 pertaining to deficiencies on the antenna, were any of the items listed by them repaired or addressed after that report was submitted?

Do not have information on this

If Lawrence Behr Associates engineered and built the antenna and tower, why aren't you having them do the analysis and/ or repairs if necessary that need to be done? A sole source justification would seem to be warranted.

The USCG has determined a SAM.gov notice to be in the best interest of the Government.

Confirming you only want an analysis and documentation of the RF transmission line and antenna, and do not want any repair work to be done to either one?

The deliverable is a document that provides what is needed to restore this transmit system to normal operation including: list of material with costs, estimated delivery charges, labor hours, inspection that may be required and costs, mobilization costs and other costs as might be determined.

Do personnel require escorts at all times? No but they will need to check in with Navy government civilian staff upon arrival. This is a non-secure facility.

Are there any gas or heavy equipment permits or clearances needed for base access? Prior coordination with the Navy likely be required for gas and heavy equipment. Clearances are not required for base access.

Are site conditions acceptable for on-site equipment (specifically, manlift)? Yes

If the system is still active or needs to remain active while the survey and repairs are being performed, are there are restrictions of the system being down for testing?

The system is not active this time.

If the system is still active or needs to remain active while the survey and repairs are being performed, is there a safe distance from primary and surrounding transmitting structures while active?

The system is not active this time.

They will likely need to conform to government work hours unless other arrangements are made with Navy support personnel.

Would the Government please provide additional details/specifics on deliverable expectations for the SOW requirement for "determination of all required studies for this work effort" ?

We are looking for specific dig requirements should a new cable be run be required. There may be a need for an explosive ordnance survey however this has not been clearly defined. Some research may be required to determine if there are ways to avoid this requirement. The goal is to have a good understanding of what studies may be required and the approximate costs for project budgeting purposes.

Are cable paths and general locations available (e.g., maps, photos)? There are some general cable path depictions and photos.

Does the tunnel have any known confind space safety precautions? There is a sub-basement to the main transmit facility not a tunnel. A portion of the cable run is in a cement cable tray with the majority of the run direct buried to the antenna.

Is the tunnel large enough for a person to walk in? The sub-basement can be walked however the cable running through this location is thought to be in good condition.

Will the Contractor need to remove any covers for the cable tray for access and, if so, will the Contractor be responsible for removal? If it is deemed necessary during the inspection it will be the contractors responsibility.

Will base handle lock-out tag-out procedure for taking equipment down, if not down already? Yes coordinate with local technical staff when working within the antenna field.

Do intersecting cables need to be traced to destination or just notated at intersecting points? They will only need to be noted where identified. Need to determine if the existing route should be used or if a new route would be a better choice. Example: If using the same route would avoid an explosive ordnance study that might be a the most cost advantaged option. However, if the explosive ordnance study would still be required even when using the existing cable route a new route might be a better option to avoid damaging any co-mingled cabling.

Are there any additional known cables also running in the cable route? We do not know but there is always a potential

Are helium pictures/documents avaialble to show size of canisters, connector types, single or mult-port plenum, existing line terminations points & facility configuration?

None available. If it is determined early on that the cable should be replaced in whole based on other compelling reasoning this study would not be required.

Will helium gas be provided or be sourced and, if sourced, will existing staff manage? This will not be provided.

Is it exothermic or mechanical bond? Information not available

What is the ground cable diameter and type -- solid or twisted pair? Information not available

Is there any documentation from the original design/build? Yes

Is there any predetermined testing methodology requirements, e.g., isolation? No predetermined testing method is required however all material defects effecting proper operation of the transmit system must be identified and listed within the final report along with all other required reportable items.

The RFQ states, "UEI Number, Federal TIN, CAGE Code, and any valid Government contract number must be included in response." Please specify which "valid Government contract number(s)" Offerors are required to provide (e.g., examples of relevant Past Performance? Other?)

An example of a valid Government contract number may be a GSA STARS 3 or GSA Schedule Contract number.

How deep is the cable buried going to the antenna? The exact cable depth is unknown but suspected to be between 2-3 feet.

Who is the manufacturer of the transmitter and model number? and what are its physical dimensions? Has anyone proposed locating the transmitter at the tower location and powering it with a standard shallow buried power run? This would eliminate the long RF cable run. (Very expensive) A microwave link from the transmitter facility to the tower could be used to facilitate the carrying of transmitter functions, such as audio for broadcast and return telemetry indicating various transmitter functions. This would alleviate any RF cable loss (however slight at 518 KHz ) A small concrete block shelter for the equipment would protect it from future weather events and the elements. The antenna tuning unit at the tower could also be located in the shelter as well. This would be less expensive than trenching and laying Heliax cable in the ground and having its physical integrity compromised somewhere down the road. The radio link (microwave) could also carry return security video and any alarms for the building. All of this could be accomplished in a timely manner to get your transmitter back up and running.

There are two Nautel ND2500 Transmitters and the antenna has an installed ATU. The transmitters are both rack mounted each within a their own 19" by 6' equipment racks. The USCG has evaluated this option in the past and we do have sites that employ this concept. The main challenge is the cost of trenching to get power to the shelter due to a stated requirement to do an explosive ordnance survey which was estimated to be on or about $600k. If the original cable path is reused an explosive ordnance survey may not be required. Determining if an explosive ordnance survey is required or not is a deliverable with this effort. A secondary issue is maintaining a stable environmentally controlled location for the transmitters. After full evaluation we determined this is not a viable option. We are not relocating the transmitters and do not require a microwave link. Trenching would still be required and a transformer at the hut would also be required to deliver the electrical to the hut. The transmitters will remain within the secure environmentally controlled transmitter building where they are currently being maintained. Building a new structure and relocating the transmitters is not desired.

If a vendor is an FAA certified small UAS drone pilot. Would there be any restrictions on inspecting the tower and structure with a small drone to record HD video and stills to document any damage? It would alleviate having to climb the tower or locate a man-lift for the inspection.

Yes, however one of the deliverables is a detailed listing of all items that require maintenance or repair. We expect a full accounting of all items that must be addressed to restore the system to normal operations.