7333917 AMENDMENT 0001.pdf

NAVFAC

SPECIFICATION

7333917 Replace Vehicle Arrest

System for 3 Gates

MCAS Cherry Point, NC

AMENDMENT 0001

IMPORTANT

This amendment should be acknowledged when your proposal is submitted. Failure to acknowledge the amendment may constitute grounds for rejection of the proposal.

If your proposal has been submitted prior to the receipt of this amendment, acknowledgement should be made by telegram, which should state whether the price contained in your proposal is to remain unchanged, is to be decreased by an amount, or is to be increased by an amount. The acknowledgement must be received prior to proposal opening time.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES 1 2

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

0001 08/27/2025 7333917

6. ISSUED BY Code N40085 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6.) Code

FEAD CHERRY POINT

PSC BOX 8006

CHERRY POINT, NC 28533

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION Project Number 7333917 Replace Vehicle Arrest System for 3 Gates

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods: (a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copy of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (if required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14. ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATION CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103 (b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER: (specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return original to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

AMENDMENT MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED WITH YOUR PROPOSAL

Project Number 7333917 Replace Vehicle Arrest System for 3 Gates, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC

The date and the hour for the receipt of proposals remains 29 August 2025 no later than 12:00 pm (EDT).

See continuation pages.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR (Same as Item 8) 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV.1-83) 0224-3(10-90)

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Prescribed by GSA

16C. DATE SIGNED

Block 14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT (cont.)

A. The purpose of this amendment is to respond to the following RFIs:

1. Are there any existing utilities conflicting with the demolition of the existing systems & barrier/s?

Response: Reference Note 1 on Drawing 12908492. The approximate locations of the existing utilities are shown on the Existing Conditions Drawings.

2. Are there any existing utilities requiring relocation to install the new barriers as shown in the design documents?

3. Are all underground utilities outlined or denoted in the bid design documents? If not, please identify them and note their proximity to the respective construction activities.

4. If overspeed and wrongway detection are required, can the Government provide a layout?

Response: Overspeed and wrong way detection shall be placed at the guard shacks for

Cunningham and Slocum gates only. Drawing 12908492 has been revised to state that.

5. In the spec it mentions overspeed and wrongway detection, will this be required at all gates?

Response: Overspeed and wrong way detection shall be placed at the guard shacks for

Cunningham and Slocum gates only. Drawing 12908492 has been revised to state that.

6. If this is hybrid beacon, are we to upgrade all signs and signals to include mast arms, HAWK style signals, and black out signs?

Response: Yes this is a hybrid beacon, all signs and signals shall be upgraded. Drawing

12908492 has been revised to reflect this change.

7. To encourage competition and innovation, will the Government accept any net barrier from the DoD Anti-Ram Vehicle Barrier List that meets or exceeds the required M-ratings and

ASTM crash test standards?

Response: Yes any system that meets the project specifications and drawings will be considered.

8. Since some net barriers can pose risks when lids or components protrude or fail under traffic, with the Government except solutions with proven designs that eliminate road-surface obstructions?

Response: Yes, any system that meets the project specifications and drawings will be

9. Will the Government evaluate net barrier solutions not only on crash certification, but also on lifecycle performance factors such as frequency of maintenance, downtime, and total cost of ownership?

considered. Lifecycle performance and maintenance are important considerations.

10. Will heat be required for the net trench?

Response: No.

11. Would heat be required for the Net Barrier?

Response: No.

12. Would the Government prefer a P2 Penetration Rating for the Net Barrier?

Response: Yes, that meets specification requirements.

13. Would an Active Vehicle Net Barrier that is ASTM M50 Crash Certified, DoD Crash-Rated, and U.S. Department of Homeland Security SAFETY Act Certified preferred?

14. Are spring-based Active Vehicle Net Barrier systems allowed which may be susceptible to

“spring-back” of vehicle impacting the net allowed?

15. Active Vehicle Net Barrier systems that require in-ground vaults to house/store their net are susceptible to dirt and debris build-up within the net vault requiring more maintenance oversight. Would there be a preference for systems that do not have in-ground vaults that house/store their net?

Response: No, an above ground system would not meet drawing and specification requirements.

16. Would it be advantageous for the proposed Active Vehicle Net Barrier system to have

“energy absorbing” pistons that will provide a reduced “ride down” or controlled deceleration resulting in low occupant G-force?

17. Will the government consider a net barrier that is flush with the ground and does not utilize an underground vault?

Response: No, an above ground system would not meet drawing and specification requirements.

18. On drawing G002, item 6 states that the basis of design is for the vehicle arrestor provided by

Barrier 1 systems, will the Government consider any net barrier on the DoD Anti-Ram

Vehicle Barrier List?

19. On drawing G002, item 8 states that any design modifications required to utilize another barrier system will be at no additional cost to the government. Will the government allow the awarded contractor to provide an independent or 3rd party design to make the modification?

20. On drawing G002, item 5 specifies that the net barrier shall include a covered steel lid that is flush with the road surface. Based on field performance data at multiple installations, this design element can present maintenance and reliability challenges under high-traffic, real-world conditions. Will the government consider any alternative net barrier solutions currently listed on the DoD Anti-Ram Vehicle Barrier List that achieve equal or higher certified performance while minimizing maintenance and failure risks?

21. Section 01 35 26, 1.8.3 of the spec states "The Level Two SSHO may also serve as the QC

Manager. The Two SSHO must not serve as the Superintendent." Section 01 45 00, 1.6.1.1 of the spec states "Provide a QC Manager at the work site to implement and manage the QC program, and to serve as the SSHO as detailed in Section 01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL

SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. In addition to implementing and managing the QC program, the QC Manager may perform the duties of Project Superintendent."

Please confirm one individual can serve as the QC manager, SSHO, and project superintendent.

Response: One individual can serve as the QC manager, SSHO, and project superintendent.

22. Subcontract review, submittals/revisions, government approvals, 10-12-week fabrications, and 8-12-week installation for base bid Roosevelt, the 34-weeks performance window from

Project Award is not achievable, plus there are potentially installation windows of the other gates. Will the performance window be negotiated and extended as needed for weekday installation during normal hours, one gate at a time?

Response: We believe a 34-week performance window is achievable.

23. Being hydraulic systems, is a 1-yr monthly maintenance program required? If so, would this allowed during normal hours or after hours? Temporary complete shutdown outside required to test (net crosses all lanes, so it’s physically impossible to keep all lanes open).

Response: Temporary complete shutdown outside required to test would be completed after normal work hours to avoid rush hour at the gates.

24. Since the barrier manufacturer has closely worked with the base to develop this project over the last couple years, can we assume the barrier manufacture is providing appropriate barrier, control, and wrongway-overspeed equipment packages?

Response: We want the complete design as outlined in the project specifications and drawings.

25. Are 8’x8’ barrier stanchion foundations shown on plan drawings acceptable to base?

Response: Yes.

26. Is the barrier manufacturer’s oil containment system acceptable to base?

Response: The design basis system provides a double containments system using bio degradable oil. Alternate systems need to provide this as well. Drawing 12908492 has been revised to state that.

27. Does the demo of existing bollard equipment require full removal of all metal/concrete from the bollard foundation, or can the pipes be removed and demo downed to 2ft and filled with dirt, then place the new trough on top?

Response: Yes, full removal of the bollards is required, please review the demolition drawings for each gate.

28. For Cunningham construction, the gate will be shut down during this period and traffic will be diverted to other gates. The manufacturer states the barrier must be installed across all lanes at one time. Is this acceptable?

Response: Yes, that is acceptable.

29. For Roosevelt construction, either entry or exit lanes will be shut down during the phase period and entry or exit traffic will be diverted to other gates. The manufacturer states the barrier must be installed across all lanes at one time. Is this acceptable or will an alternate phase plan be provided by base?

Response: At Roosevelt, either the incoming or outgoing lane can be shut down. Both cannot be shut down at the same time.

30. For work at the checkpoints (overspeed, wrongway, cutting loops, installing displays, etc.)

localized shutdown of 1 or 2 lanes may be required, is this acceptable?

Response: Yes, the goal would be to minimize lane shut downs for installation of the equipment.

31. For testing and commissioning, full gate shutdown will be required since the barriers span all lanes or control separate entry and exist spans. Will this be allowed during normal hours or will it be afterhours?

Response: Yes, the goal would be to minimize lane shut downs for installation of the equipment. Testing and commissioning would need to occur in the evenings when traffic is less.

32. For Roosevelt, both sets of existing barrier will be taken offline (since new control system will be installed in its place). It will be brought online after both entry and exist systems are installed. Is this acceptable?

Response: Each system should be brought online after installation. The inbound and outbound lanes for Roosevelt are separate systems.

33. Due to manufacturer’s requirement, will progress payments be allowed when Purchase

Orders are issued to the manufacturers?

Response: Monthly applications for payment should include equipment, material and labor installed for that period.

34. Due to manufacturer’s requirement, will progress payments be allowed when equipment is ready to ship from the manufacturers?

Response: Monthly applications for payment should include equipment, material and labor installed for that period.

35. Are concrete ductbanks required for any new conduit runs?

Response: The Contractor may use existing duct banks for conduit runs. Where existing duct banks are not available, new ones would need to be installed in concrete.

36. For Slocum construction, the gate will be shut down during this period and traffic will be diverted to other gates. The manufacturer states the barrier must be installed across all lanes at one time. Is this acceptable?

Response: Yes this would be required. For the Slocum Gate, this would need to be done on a long weekend and nights.

B. All other contract terms and conditions remain unchanged.

7333917 RFI Responses.pdf