6991PE25Q000007 Amendment 2 Bidder questions.pdf
PDF 132 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 6991PE25Q000007
About this file
This document is an Amendment 2 Questions and Answers document for solicitation 6991PE25Q000007 for an SBRF Landing Platform. The document addresses seven specific technical questions from potential contractors regarding design specifications. Key details include: the government will not consider alternative materials for the platform, insisting on stainless steel construction with Trex decking. Specifically, the agency rejected proposals for fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP), galvanized steel, aluminum, or alternative decking materials. The platform requires flexibility to accommodate multiple vessel types, and the stainless steel finish will only require scotch brightening and polishing of weld-affected zones. The agency also confirmed a 12" stainless steel cleat is required, noting that galvanized steel is unacceptable due to potential environmental leaching of zinc and nickel. The document provides detailed technical guidance to potential bidders about precise material and design requirements for the landing platform.
View the file
Other files
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
6991PE25Q000007, SBRF Landing Platform Amendment 2, Questions and Answers
Q1. The current design specifies stainless steel construction. Would the Government consider an alternate design fabricated entirely from FRP (fiber-reinforced plastic) instead of stainless steel?
A1. No. The Government will not consider an alternate.
Q2. Could a hybrid approach be acceptable, such as using galvanized steel or aluminum in place of stainless steel, provided all strength and durability requirements are met?
A2. No. The platforms stay in the water and weather. They will deteriorate much faster that stainless.
Galvanized steel causes issues with environmental.
Q3. The design drawings show an all-steel structure with Trex decking. Would the Government be open to alternative decking or panel systems, such as a foam sandwich horizontal panel that could reduce mechanical stresses?
A3. No. Trex decking is preferred.
Q4. If a foam sandwich horizontal panel system were considered, would its use be acceptable only if the platforms were intended for one fixed boat position, or is flexibility for multiple vessel types required?
A4. Flexibility for multiple vessels is required.
Q5. Is it possible to get the DXF file for the UHMWPE pads to assist us with quoting?
A5. The PDF file, LANDING PLATFORM ASSEMBLY DESIGN, previously provided is the only file available. DXF file for the UHMWPE pads will not be provided.
Q6. Is it MARAD’s intention for the stainless steel finish to just be mill finish? Notes in the drawings just say to scotch bright and polish weld affected zones and not the entire structure.
A6. The structure being stainless, we feel that to scotch bright and polish weld affected zones and not the entire structure will be acceptable.
Q7. Please confirm which cleat is closest to MARAD’s desired part:
The part number provided in the drawing is not coming up anywhere, but the picture they have in drawing looks like this 12” SS Cleat below.
However, for a landing platform, we typically these 12” Galvanized Cleat which are more cost effective.
6991PE25Q000007, SBRF Landing Platform Amendment 2, Questions and Answers
A7. It is a 12” SS Cleat. Galvanized steel leaches zinc and nickel. Environmental issues can occur.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .