Copy of sUAS QAs 0902025.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 70US0925R70093073
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) spreadsheet for a U.S. Secret Service solicitation to construct an Indoor Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) Multi-Use Training Facility. The project involves building a climate-controlled structure with a minimum of 9,000 usable square feet, featuring a tensioned fabric structure with heating and ventilation capabilities. Key specifications include a 3-phase HVAC system maintaining temperatures up to 74 degrees F, a concrete slab foundation, and specific requirements for fabric panels and structural design.
The solicitation (Number 70US0925R70093073) is scheduled for award around September 30, 2025, with a 260-calendar day performance period. The bid response is due on September 12, 2025, at 10:00 am, with an added $120,000 allowance for transformer upgrades. Design submissions will require 60%, 90%, 100%, and Issued for Construction (IFC) stages, with a 14-day government review period. Notable requirements include Berry Amendment architectural fabric, specific tensile structure design parameters, and compliance with UFC 3-201-01 standards. Site access is restricted, with all personnel requiring pre-approval, and no external site utilities like natural gas or water supply are provided.
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
Sheet1
| sUAS Multi-use Training Facility | |
| Solicitation Number: 70US0925R70093073 | |
| Solicitation Due Date: September 12, 2025 @ 10:00am | |
| Vendor Questions | USSS Responses |
| The requirements for the Project Manager and Designer of Record both state that these individuals must have “20 years of experience in the museum industry” and “experience designing museum exhibits and displays.” However, the project scope is described as a climate-controlled structure to support year-round training and certification of sUAS pilots. Can you please confirm whether the reference to "museum" experience is accurate and intended for this project? Or was this language possibly carried over from a previous scope and may be substituted with relevant federal construction or training facility experience? | Please see the updated SOW |
| Existing Site Conditions: Are there any As-Built drawings or topographic drawings of the site? Could a site visit be accommodated? Essential to understand the site clearing requirements and soils conditions. | There are no existing as builts or topographic drawings of the site. |
Site Visit is scheduled for 10:00am, August 22, 2025. All attendee must complete the Access Form and return by 10:00am, August 19, 2025.
| Electrical Source and Distance: The primary obstacle to provide a qualified proposal is associated with the electrical requirements. Do you have any As-Builts, approximate location of the site, and/or where the power would be sourced from? | There are no electrical as builts for the location. Please find attached the Electrical source and also the Fiber run source Not to Scale. |
| Referencing Section 3 "Scope / Purpose & Objectives" of the Revised SOW, item (b) is listed as a specific inclusion, but is no longer categorized under “Option 1” or “Option 2.” Could you please confirm that this scope should now be included in the base price? | Section 3 Item (b) is to be in the base price. |
| Referencing Section 3 "Scope / Purpose & Objectives" of the Revised SOW, Item (c) of the same section refers to contract options for both local and BAS controls. Can you confirm that this is the only scope intended to be priced as a bid option? | Section 3 Item (c) is the only option item of the SOW. |
| Could you provide a Google Map view or a site plan indicating where the building is to be located on the JJRTC Campus? | Refer to Site drawing attached. |
| Was a site visit held for this project? If so, could you kindly share the sign-in sheet? | No site visit was held for this project. |
Refer to Q#7 for site visit information.
| Would it be possible to schedule a site visit for this project? | Please reference Q#7 |
| Are any geotechnical investigation reports available for the project site? | There are no reports available. |
| Regarding the reforestation requirement: does the owner have a designated location with adequate space for this effort? | Reforestation will not be part of the project. |
| Can you provide specific reforestation replacement requirements applicable to this campus or jurisdiction? | Refer to Q#15 |
| Are there any existing tree surveys or site photos available to help in estimating the scope of the reforestation? | No, there are no existing tree surveys. |
Refer to Q#11 for site photo
| Is an MDE permit anticipated for this project? | MDE permit is not anticipated for this project. |
| If MDE permitting is required, please confirm if the 260-day design and construction schedule can be adjusted, as the MDE process often requires 4–6 months. | Refer to Q#18 |
| Could you indicate the nearest power source to the proposed building location? | Refer the Site Location attached. |
| Could you advise the location of the nearest fiber manhole relative to the building site? | Refer Q#20 |
| Is there an existing conditions civil site plan available, or will the selected team be responsible for conducting a new survey? | No, there are no existing conditions civil site plan. However, the vendor is responsible for establishing foundation for the building. |
| Please confirm whether any wetlands are present on the project site. Wetland mitigation would necessitate additional planning and permitting. | No wetlands are on this project site. |
| Will restrooms be required inside the structure? | Restrooms are not required. |
| Could you clarify the required design deliverables? Are 60%, 90%, and IFC submissions sufficient? | 60%, 90% 100% and IFC submissions are required. |
| Please specify the minimum required dimensions for the garage door. | Refer to Section 3(a) in the SOW. |
| Can you confirm whether fire suppression or life safety systems will be required in this facility? | Not required. |
| Could the bid form be revised to include line items for the identified optional bid components? | Bid options are specified in Section 3 Item (c) |
| Please confirm whether the roles of SSHO, QCM, and Superintendent are required to be performed by separate individuals on site (i.e., not dual-hatted). | They can be dual hatted as long as the individual qualitfies for all parties they are performing as. |
| To bid this project accurately, we request a site visit. | Refer to Q#7 |
| To ensure the government obtains the most accurate and competitive pricing, we respectfully request a three-week bid extension. | A three-week extension is not granted; however, the solicitation due date will be extended to 10:00am, September 5, 2025. Any RFI must be submitted by 10:00am, August 27, 2025. |
| Is the government able to provide an overall site layout/location map for this project? | Refer to Q#11 |
| The RFP indicates a period of performance of 260 calendar days after NTP. The question and answers require 4 design submissions being at the 60,90, 100 and IFC stage of design development. No review period by the government of each submission is identified. Please confirm whether the stated period of performance includes the time for the design development or whether there will be a design NTP then followed by a construction NTP upon approval of the IFC drawings. | The 260 days does include design phase as well. USSS is provided 14 calendar days to complete a submittal review. |
| MDE permits are required when more than 5,000 sq ft of surface is disturbed and more than 100 cubic yards of earth moved, both of which will be required for this project. Yet in the question and answers you state that a MDE permit is not anticipated for the project. Please provide the MDE waiver indicating no MDE permit application is required for the project. | It is not required |
| The SOW calls for a minimum of 9,000 usable square feet. Does the government have a footprint preference in terms of length versus width? | Minimum usable width specified in SOW update |
| At the site visit there was mention of needing 4 “lanes” for flying drones. Is there a layout with minimum length width requirements that can be provided? | Per reference the SOW for usable space for this project. |
| What are the specific warrantee requirements for the membrane a 22 mil. | 15 Year free from manufacturing defects and tearing |
| The SOW states "the taper to the building is not to exceed the current YURT scope/gradual drop". Can you clarify what the current YURT scope/drop is? | This information is anot vailable at this time. This was reviewed during the site walkthrough. |
| The SOW calls out fabric panels that do not exceed 12'6" in width. This is not industry standard and would appear to be proprietary. Can this requirement be removed and instead have the tensile structures be engineered to meet local code requirements? This method will allow us to provide better value to the government. | An alternative support system will be reviewed but it must meet or exceed the requirements specified in the SOW. Contractor to provide this proof. |
| Is installation performed with non-union crews paid at prevailing wage rates acceptable? Please provide the applicable wage rate. | Wage Determination will be provided |
| Is certified payroll required? | No |
| Please confirm that the design scope shall include an initial site survey to establish existing conditions. | Existing conditions are not required building requirments are specifed in the SOW |
| Please confirm that no tree survey should be included. | confirmed |
| Please confirm that we will not be required to submit to MDE for a review. | confirmed |
| Please confirm that we should include a geotechnical investigation to validate the existing site soils | Contractor is to be able to confirm all necessary density tests specified in SOW. |
| The scope/purpose in 3.a. describes that the building, “…is to be climatized by 3 phase HVAC system for heating purposes to ensure that a sustainable temperature range of up to 74 degrees F is achievable in any season.” Is the building only required to be heated, or is the 74 degrees F required to be maintained by heating and cooling year round? | This building does not have cooling capabilities only heating and ventilation |
| Please provide the site visit sign-in sheet. | See attached document |
| Is this project tax exempt? | Yes |
| Identify which UFCs apply to the design and construction of this project. | UFC 3-201-01 |
| The team believes the project must meet specific energy code and performance requirements. During the site visit, it sounded like the USSS believes this project is exempt from such requirements. Please provide and cite any exceptions. | The project is exempt |
| What are the governing design codes for the building and site? UFC 1-200-01 and 3-201-01? | UFC 3-201-01 |
| Please confirm the desired quantity & designation of drawing submissions required for review and approval for the design phase. | 60%, 90% 100% and IFC submissions are required. |
| Scope 3a – Please confirm that the climate control is for heating only. | Heating and ventilation |
| Please confirm if there is natural gas service available to the site for heating or if all electric system served from a new 3-phase electrical service is required. If both are acceptable, which is preferred or should be considered for the proposal? | Electric is required |
| Please confirm the estimated peak occupancy that should be considered for ventilation systems serving the building. | 75 peak occupancy |
| Please confirm the capability/criteria for design of the Heating only conditioning system(s) will be considered with the garage door closed. | Garage door will be closed for the heating requirements |
| Please confirm coordination with BGE for a new electrical service should be included. If yes, please provide point of contact information. | No electric in this site, the transformer is on the south side of Tower Road. The Contractor must coordinate with BGE to ensure that it is enough power to the site. Service does not have POC for BGE. |
| Please clarify who should carry the costs for BGE. If contractor, please provide an allowance for fair and equitable bidding. | An option has been added to the SOW for an allowance of $120,000.00 for Transformer upgrades |
| Please confirm the building envelope shall meet the requirements of IECC Section C402 Building Thermal Envelope. | Refernce section 3 (a) for tension covered system requirements |
| Please confirm the overhead door should be a metal coiling overhead door. | Reference SOW for door requirements |
| Please confirm ventilation should be included. | Confirmed |
| Please clarify if floor matting, Mega-deck, to cover the concrete slab on grade is required. | SOW speifies concrete floor no Mega Deck is required |
| Please confirm there should be a slab on grade under fabric structure. | Reference SOW section 3 (a) |
| Please clarify if there should be a concrete curb at the perimeter of the fabric structure to minimize rain water infiltration. | Not required. |
| Please clarify if bollards should be installed at overhead door and if they should be interior and exterior? | Not required. |
| Please confirm the contractor is not responsible for stormwater or erosion/sediment control design or permitting as part of this project. | confirmed |
| Please confirm that the contractor is not responsible for Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Conversation regulations. | confirmed |
| Should the design comply with International Building Codes or Unified Facilities Criteria? Please clarify. | Please reference Section 3 (a) |
| Please confirm if natural gas is available to serve the proposed building. If so, please provide a sketch showing the location of the main that could be tapped to serve the building. | Natural gas is not available |
| Is any exterior lighting desired to illuminate the parking area or new access road serving the building? | Not required. |
| Since no geotechnical report is available, what bearing capacity should be assumed for the foundation design? How many borings will be required for the design of the parking areas, road, and building? | Building designer to specify these requirements. |
| Is any signage needed for the project? If so, please define what is needed. | Not required. |
| Please confirm contractor is not responsible for fire alarm or fire protection. | confirmed |
| Please confirm the intent is not to have any water supply to the facility. | confirmed |
| Please extend bid date for contractors to incorporate RFI response. | The solicitation is being extended to 10:00am, September 12, 2025. |
| What is the typical dimension of the drone course, length, and width? Please confirm the intent is have four courses in parallel. | Per reference the SOW for usable space for this project. |
| After award, the Contracting Officer will provide a NTP to the awardee. What is the approximant duration between issuing the award and issuing the NTP? | Both will be provided at the same time |
| For planning the preliminary project schedule, what is the anticipated award date? | The award will be o/a September 30, 2025. |
| Please confirm nearby hydrant can be used as water supply for the project. | Water usage is evaluated per request on site. |
| Are there any requirements for access control or security? | Yes, All personnel and drivers are required to be submitted and approved prior to coming on site. |
| Will Tower Road be allowed to be used for construction trailer, parking, staging etc.? | No |
| Per Section H.11, dual roles are authorized. Can offerors triple hat the QCM, SSHO, and Superintendent positions, provided the individual can meet the requirements for each position, as indicated in H.11? | Yes they must be qualified |
| What are the required Width and Length values of the TFS (i.e., what is the required shape of the shelter footprint)? Providing square footage required does not answer this question. There are infinite W x L combinations that yield 9,000 square feet. Contractor recommends that the Customer consider how the space is to be used; that evaluation should inform the resulting shelter dimensions. Truss widths commonly available are 60, 70, …, 110, in increments of 10’. Any length is possible, to achieve the required area. This Contractor can make trusses up to 220W, so any custom shelter W x L is possible. | Reference SOW |
| During site visit, End Users conveyed concerns about overall budget. A TFS with the HVAC system described and the visit to the existing TFS on site leads one to the conclusion that the End Users desire a double walled, insulated TFS. This is a costly option for a temperate location. For much of the year the temperatures will not require insulation or heat/air conditioning to maintain comfortable temperatures so it will require many years to “payback” this cost. Is the Government committed to the double wall/insulated TFS system? | No, this is not specified in the SOW |
| Including requirements for a HVAC system implies that the End User wants the TFS to be insulated but this is not explicitly stated. It is possible to include only an inner fabric liner without insulating it. In temperate climates like Laurel, MD, the cost savings of not installing batt insulation would be significant. Is insulation required? Can proposal omit batt insulation in favor of inner fabric liner and air space only? | This is not specified in the SOW |
| The TFS visited during the site visit had intake louvers and exhaust fan(s). These components are effective at minimizing interior condensation in TFS. Contractor recommends that louvers/fan(s) to enable 2X air changes per hour be included in the specification for this solicitation. Since a heating requirement was listed as a requirement for the TFS, the louvers should be motor-operated (able to open/close). Exhaust fans typically include gravity dampers so only the fan(s) needs be powered. | Reference SOW Section 3 (a) |
| The specifications related to TENSIONED COVER SYSTEM in 3.a., appear to be copied from promotional material for another OEM (laminated 22 oz fabric, type of fabric weld, use of keder extrusion, and cover panel width). These details do not quantify metrics related to quality, suitability or durability of a TFS. They are specific details related to the offering of a particular OEM and should not be part of a TFS specification unless there is an articulable reason for requiring one specific manufacturer’s model of TFS. The site visit included a tour of an existing TFS for which the Customer expressed satisfaction (excepting the insufficient size). That TFS does not comply with any of the specifications above. This contractor is a professional TFS OEM with the capability to design/engineer/fabricate/install any shelter required for the purposes of this solicitation. The Contractor proposes to offer a high quality, durable, long lasting TFS with metrics like cost efficient truss and fabric retention designs, architectural fabric with superior tensile strength, tear resistance and a durable PVDF top finish. Contractor can make a keder shelter but does not see any advantage to the Government to do so. Question-can the parenthetical metrics annunciated above be ignored? | An alternative support system will be reviewed but it must meet or exceed the requirements specified in the SOW. Contractor to provide this proof. |
| The Customer reported that they liked the truss profile of the existing shelter that was visited during the site visit. What is the exterior width and height of that TFS? | Reference SOW for this stuructures requirements |
| The fabric and fabric attachment details of the TFS in 3.a. appear to be copy/pasted from a specific manufacturer’s offerings. These details are not related to quality, durability, or cost efficiency. There appears to be any performance based reason that these features should be part of the specification. For example, laminated architectural fabric is not particularly high quality. Laminated fabric requires openings in the scrim so the adhesive laminate films (top and bottom) can be heat/pressure joined. This usually results in scrims with lower tear properties than coated architectural fabric. The mandated use of a keder system with narrow width fabric panels is typical of installers with minimal capability and requires more trusses. A professional tension fabric structures installer can handle large panels with no problem. The shelter that was toured during the site visit is not a keder shelter, but was highly regarded by the Customer. The requirement for keder does not seem to have any rationale behind it. The original keder style “LAMS” producer is no longer in business. Many OEMs use the term Large Area Maintenance Shelter and offer their product under this category because the term has found its way into US Government contract solicitations, much like “Kleenex” is used to describe any facial tissue. Beyond using Berry Amendment architectural fabric, do the requirements to use laminated fabric and keder design remain as part of this solicitation? | An alternative system will be reviewed but it must meet or exceed the requirements specified in the SOW. Contractor to provide this proof. |
| Please confirm that the architectural fabric must be Flame Retardant (NFPA 701 / CA Fire Marshall)? | Confirmed |
| The end users reported that they wanted a truss profile like the existing shelter that was visited during the site visit. This is not the optimum truss profile for Laurel MD. The Ground Snow Load is 25 psf. A gable profile truss can be lighter and designed to shed snow without the large nearly flat peak area of a Modified Quonset style shelter. Confirm that a gable truss profile that delivers the same interior volume is acceptable. | As stated on site, the profile you are discussing is possible as long as the usable space height throught the arc of the existing tent is not interfered with. |
| The specification calls for a 22 oz. face weight laminated fabric without identifying a specific fabric. Different mills produce a variety of architectural fabrics in a variety of face weights. Experience informs this Contractor what that product is. It is not a high-quality fabric. Key metrics that are not included in the specification are tensile strength, tear strength and top finish. A good 22 oz/yd2 fabric is 44% stronger than the fabric alluded to in the specification and a good architectural fabric has a top finish (PVDF) to allow a long service life. Face weight alone is not a perfect metric to determine fabric durability. Thicker coating increases face weight but does nothing for strength or durability. A good 20 oz PVC coated fabric with a polyester scrim and PVDF top finish is stronger and more durable than the product alluded to in the specification. This contractor would not offer a TFS using the specified fabric unless directed to do so by a Customer. Contractor question: Can we offer the most cost efficient product for the project? | An alternative system will be reviewed but it must meet or exceed the requirements specified in the SOW. Contractor to provide this proof. |
| Please confirm if there is a Davis-Bacon Wage Determination associated with this project. Does it apply to assembling the pre-fabricated Tension Fabric Structure? | Yes and yes. |
| Management and disposal of solid waste is by Contractor. TFS installation does generate typical construction waste. A 40-yd roll off (dumpster) is typically adequate to handle a project of this magnitude. May the contractor have such a dumpster delivered to the project site for its duration (within 250’, unobstructed path of travel) to address this requirement? | A dumpster will be allowed on site. Location will be deteremined during construction based on training necessities. |
| Factor 2: Can the Government confirm its definitions for “recent” and “relevant”? | Recent is define as current project. Relevant is define as past projects within 3-years. |
| Factor 2: For the three pages per reference requirement, can the Government confirm if it is looking for project experience descriptive narratives or project past performance evaluations/evidence of successful performance (for recent and relevant projects)? | Both |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .