QA iHouse Apartment Construction Answers 14Oct2026.pdf

Questions and Answers 10/14/2026

Project Title: iHouse Apartment Construction, NA23KA190Q7 Solicitation #: 75H70126R00026

Below are the questions received in response to this solicitation and their respective answers:

1. Arizona Contractor License: Can you please clarify the licensing requirement for this project? Specifically, is an Arizona commercial contractor license required at the time of bid submission, prior to contract award, or prior to the commencement of construction?

- Answer: IHS does not provide legal opinions on state, local, or tribal licensing requirements. However, pursuant to FAR 52.236-7 (Permits and Responsibilities), the successful offeror is solely responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses and permits, and for complying with any Federal, State, and municipal laws applicable to the performance of this contract.

- Please be advised that this project is located within the sovereign boundaries of the Navajo Nation (Tonalea, AZ). Offerors are strongly encouraged to contact the Navajo Nation Division of Economic Development regarding tribal business licensing, and the Navajo Nation Tribal Employment Rights Office (TERO) regarding local employment and fee requirements.

- Furthermore, please review Section L & M [or specify the exact evaluation section] of the solicitation to ensure your proposal meets all mandatory requirements for licensing, which will be utilized to determine technical acceptability and responsibility.

2. Earthwork & Asphalt Quantities: Is there an engineer's estimate, quantity takeoff, or bid schedule available that includes approximate quantities for major site work items such as:

Cut and fill Aggregate base Asphalt paving Concrete paving/curb & gutter (if applicable) Utility trenching Other major civil quantities

- Answer: The offeror should be able to determine the necessary quantities for this project. It is standard practice for a contractor to perform their own quantity takeoff from the provided drawings and specifications, especially in a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) solicitation like this one. The government has provided a complete set of documents from which a qualified contractor can and should derive their own quantities to develop a lump-sum bid. This is a standard and expected practice in the construction industry for this type of solicitation.

- The solicitation documents do not include a "bid schedule" or "bill of quantities" for the contractor to price out. Instead, they refer to a "schedule of values" which is a detailed breakdown of the contract sum that the contractor submits after the contract is awarded to be used for progress payments.

3. Geotechnical Information: Is a geotechnical report, soils investigation, or existing earthwork report available for this project beyond what is included in the solicitation documents?

If no quantity schedule is available, can you confirm that bidders are expected to develop their own quantity takeoffs from the contract drawings?

- Answer: Yes, the Geotech report is available. See attachment. The offeror should be able to determine the necessary quantities for this project. It is standard practice for a contractor to perform their own quantity takeoff from the provided drawings and specifications, especially in a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) solicitation like this one.

4. Can we submit an alternate solution to the one requested in the RFP?

- Answer: You may propose this alternative system as part of your offer and the Government may then decide to do a deeper assessment if yours is the lowest offer being evaluated; remember that this is a LPTA solicitation.

- Answer: The modular approach appears to be a significant change from the required specifications. You may propose this alternative system as part of your offer, and the Government may then decide to do a deeper assessment if yours is the lowest offer being evaluated; remember that this is a LPTA solicitation.

Among other specifications, page 7 of “J02 iHouse Apt 01 Phase 4 BOD” states “The quality of materials and finishes specified for this project also achieves and exceeds the high-middle standard of construction.” IHS would consider modular construction as long as the Contractor is able to meet or exceed the design and specifications as intended.

The proposal will need to demonstrate technical acceptability. Your proposed alternative approach may prove technically acceptable if it meets or exceeds the technical quality and does not increase risk.

5. Are there specs/ plans for the parking lot cover/canopy?

- Answer: The specs for the parking canopy are in "SECTION 107323 ALUMINUM CAR SHELTERS" page 287 of the specifications.

6. Reference: Attachment J02 – Basis of Design, Appendix A2 – Geotechnical Report; ATEK Project No. 240012, dated June 5, 2024 The geotechnical report included within the solicitation documents is prominently identified and watermarked as “DRAFT Geotechnical Exploration Report.” The report contains recommendations affecting site preparation, earthwork, foundations, pavement subgrade, utility trench backfill, compaction, and other construction requirements.

Please confirm whether ATEK Project No. 240012, dated June 5, 2024, is intended to be relied upon by Offerors for preparation of their proposals and will become a Contract Document upon award.

If a final signed/sealed geotechnical report has been issued, please provide the final report by amendment. If no final report is available, please confirm that the recommendations contained in the Draft report are to be used for bidding and construction unless subsequently revised by the Government.

- Answer: The draft was inadvertently included with the final submission. The final Geotech report dated 9/10/24 is attached to this response.

7. RFI-002 – Conflicting Geotechnical Reports Referenced by Structural Design Reference: J02 Basis of Design – Structural Narrative; Appendix A2 Geotechnical Report The Structural Narrative states that the foundation design is based upon a Geotechnical Evaluation Report by Western Technologies, Project No. 2527JW116. However, the geotechnical report included in Appendix A2 of the solicitation is ATEK Engineering Consultants Project No. 240012.

Please identify the geotechnical report that governs the final structural and foundation design.

If the Western Technologies report was used for the structural design, please provide that report. If ATEK Project No. 240012 supersedes the Western Technologies report, please confirm that the structural foundation design has been reviewed and coordinated with the ATEK recommendations.

- Answer: The incorrect company is identified in the structural general notes. The design is based on the final Geotech Report dated 9/10/24 by Atek.

8. RFI-003 – Building Pad Overexcavation Limits Reference: ATEK Geotechnical Report §5 – Engineering Analyses and Recommendations / Earthwork; §4.4.3 – Expansive Soils The geotechnical report identifies expansive-susceptible soils within the upper approximately five feet and provides earthwork recommendations for structural areas.

Please confirm the required vertical depth and horizontal limits of overexcavation beneath the proposed building, including the required extension beyond exterior footing/foundation lines.

Please also confirm whether the required excavation depth is measured from existing grade, finished subgrade, bottom of slab, or bottom of footing.

- Answer: Refer to Section 5.1.2 for recommendations

9. RFI-004 – Reuse of Excavated On-Site Soil Reference: ATEK Geotechnical Report §5.1.6 – Engineered Fill Please confirm whether soils excavated from the required building-pad overexcavation may be processed, moisture-conditioned, and reused as engineered fill beneath the building, provided they meet the geotechnical requirements.

Please identify any soils that are specifically prohibited from reuse beneath structural areas and confirm the required testing/approval procedure for reuse of native material.

- Answer: Per seciton 5.1.2 the Excavated soils may be used if chemically treated per section 5.1.7 of the Geotechnical Report.

10. RFI-005 – Imported Engineered Fill Requirements Reference: ATEK Geotechnical Report §5.1.6 – Engineered Fill Please confirm the required material properties for imported engineered fill beneath the building, pavements, exterior slabs, and other structural improvements, including gradation, maximum particle size, plasticity, expansion characteristics, and any other acceptance criteria.

Also confirm whether proposed import sources/materials require approval by the Government's Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement.

The geotechnical report recommends that imported material be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement.

- Answer: "Section 5.1.6 Engineered Fill" bullet number 3 and 4 indicates the requirements for imported soil. Import sources should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer.

11. RFI-006 – Geotechnical Testing and Observation Responsibility Reference: ATEK Geotechnical Report – Recommended Additional Services The report recommends construction-phase observation and testing by the Geotechnical Engineer's representative, including observation of site preparation, approval of imported fill, monitoring of backfill, field density testing, and observation of footing excavations prior to reinforcing and concrete placement.

Please confirm whether the Government will retain and pay the Geotechnical Engineer/materials testing agency for these services, or whether the Contractor is required to include these services in its proposal.

If Contractor-provided, please provide the required scope and frequency of testing.

- Answer: Contractor shall include all material testing by third party. Approval of the testing agency will be part of the contract award

- If awarded, the contractor may perform it and IHS can make a decision whether a mod due to a change in site conditions is needed.

12. RFI-007 – Foundation System vs. Geotechnical Recommendation Reference: ATEK Geotechnical Report §5.3.1 – Shallow Spread Footings; Structural Drawings S121–S124 and S521 The geotechnical report provides recommendations for shallow spread footings, while the structural documents indicate a post-tensioned slab/foundation system.

Please confirm that the foundation system shown on the structural Contract Drawings represents the final engineered foundation design and takes precedence over conceptual or generalized foundation recommendations contained in the geotechnical report.

Also confirm that no Contractor redesign of the foundation system is required.

- Answer: Geotech report section has been updated to reflect post-tension slab-on-grade foundations as shown on Structural Drawings.

13. RFI-008 – Unsuitable Soil Encountered Below Required Excavation Reference: ATEK Geotechnical Report – Earthwork / Expansive Soils Please clarify the contractual treatment of unsuitable, loose, expansive, or otherwise unacceptable soils encountered below the specified/design overexcavation limits.

Please confirm whether additional excavation and replacement directed by the Geotechnical Engineer beyond the established Contract Document limits will be treated as a differing site condition/change to the Contract rather than included in the Contractor's lump-sum base proposal.

- Answer: Over Excavation based on site discovery and testing results will be considers an unforeseen condition and would warrant a modification to the contract.

14. RFI-009 – Utility Trench Backfill Requirements Reference: ATEK Geotechnical Report §5.2.1 – Trench Backfill The geotechnical report permits site soils having particle sizes less than 3 inches for trench backfill and requires 90% ASTM D698 compaction in nonstructural areas and 95% in structural areas, while also noting that governing agency requirements may be more stringent.

Please identify the governing trench backfill and compaction requirements for each utility system, including water, fire water, sanitary sewer, electrical, and communications, and confirm whether NTUA or other utility-provider standards supersede the geotechnical recommendations.

- Answer: Trench backfill and compaction shall be performed in accordance with the applicable utility-provider standards and the Project Specifications. The Geotechnical Report provides minimum recommendations; however, where utility-provider standards or Project Specifications establish more stringent requirements, the more stringent requirements shall govern. For utility systems owned or accepted by NTUA, applicable NTUA standards and specs shall govern utility trench backfill, embedment, and compation requirements. For utility systems owned by other agencies/providers, the requirements of the respective utility owner shall govern. In the event of a conflict between the Geotechnical Report, Project Specifications, and utility-provider requirements, the most stringent requirement shall apply.

15. RFI-010 – Definition of Structural Areas for Earthwork/Compaction Reference: ATEK Geotechnical Report §5.2.1 – Trench Backfill Please define the limits considered “structural areas” for purposes of the geotechnical compaction requirements.

Please confirm whether structural areas include the building footprint, foundation influence zones, sidewalks, concrete flatwork, paved parking areas, access roads, utility crossings beneath pavement, and other improvements.

- Answer: For purposes of applying the geotechnical compaction recommendations, "Structural Areas" shall be interpreted as areas beneath or supporting buildings, foundations, slabs-on-grade, sidewalks, concrete flatwork, curbs, pavements, parking areas, access roads, retaining strucutres, and other load-bearing improvements, including influence zones. Areas outside these limits, such as landscaped, open-space, and drainage areas, shall be considered non-structural areas.

16. RFI-011 – Retention Basin Subgrade Treatment Reference: ATEK Geotechnical Report – Percolation Testing The geotechnical report directs that retention basin excavation be performed using lightweight equipment, that traffic not be permitted within the completed basin, and that any compacted basin floor be scarified a minimum of 8 inches and left uncompacted.

Please confirm that these requirements apply to the final retention facilities shown on the Civil Drawings and identify any required post-excavation infiltration/percolation verification testing.

- Answer: The retention basin recommendations contained in the Geotech Report shall apply to the permanent retention facilities depicted on the Civil Drawings. The contract documents do not require post-excavation infiltration or percolation verification testing.

17. RFI-012 – Geotechnical Report Reliance and Changed Conditions The geotechnical report states that it may be used only by the Client for the stated purposes and that other parties wishing to use the report are to notify ATEK.

Because the report has been furnished by the Government to Offerors as part of the solicitation documents, please confirm that Offerors and the successful Contractor are authorized to rely upon the report and its subsurface information for bidding and construction purposes.

- Answer: The geotechnical report may be used at the direction of Government. If there are different site conditions, we will then negotiate a contract mod.

18. RFI-CIV-001 – Final Water Main Design and Utility Approval Reference: J02 BOD – Civil Narrative; Drawing C301 – Utility Plan and Profile; Drawings C302/C303 – Road Extension Plans and Profiles; Specification 33 05 00 – Common Work Results for Utilities The BOD states that NTUA and NNFD had been contacted for design information, that further information was still required before the water design could be finalized, and that the design was proceeding based on an assumption of an 8-inch water-main extension serving two new fire hydrants and the building fire service. The BOD further states that the assumed design could be revised as additional information was received.

The issued civil drawings now depict a combination of 8-inch and 6-inch water mains, domestic-water service, hydrants, valves, air-release assemblies, and connection work to the existing system. For example, C301 identifies both 8-inch and 6-inch water mains and includes a 6-inch tapping connection/reducer arrangement.

The BOD expressly identifies the water design as based on assumptions pending additional utility information, while the bid drawings depict a defined system. Final utility configuration and available capacity materially affect pipe, fittings, taps, testing, utility coordination, and potential system upgrades.

Please confirm that the water system shown on the issued civil drawings represents the final approved water-system design and has been reviewed/accepted by NTUA and the applicable fire authority.

Please also confirm that the existing water system has been verified as having adequate flow and residual pressure to support the proposed domestic demand, fire sprinkler demand, and required fire-hydrant flow.

- Answer: The water system shown on the Civil Drawings has not been reviewed or accepted by NTUA and applicable fire authority. DOWL performed a hydrant flow test on 08/06/2024 of the existing system. The results from the test meet the NFPA 13 requirement per table B105.2 of 1000 gpm. Additionally, the pressure and flows from the testing data confirm adequate flow and residual pressure for supporting the proposed domestic demand, fire sprinkler protection system, andrequired fire-hydrant flow.

19. RFI-CIV-002 – Existing Water Connection Size and Point of Connection

Reference: Drawings C301, C302 and C303 – Water Utility Keynotes Civil drawing information appears to show multiple descriptions for connection to the existing water system, including:

Connection to an existing stub;

Existing 8-inch water-main references;

A 6-inch size-on-size tapping sleeve;

6-inch-to-8-inch reducers/adapters; and

6-inch and 8-inch proposed water-main segments.

Please confirm the actual size, material, location, and condition of the existing water main or stub at the proposed point of connection, and identify the exact required connection assembly that Offerors are to include.

If the existing size or configuration has not been field verified, please provide the latest NTUA record information or establish a bid assumption for all Offerors.

- Answer: The existing water main at the proposed point of connection has not been field verified by the Engineer. Available record information, from the IHHC Staff Quarters as-built drawings, indicate the existing facility is a 6-inch PVC water main located generally as shown on the Construction Documents C302. Offerors shall base their bids on this information. The required connection assembly is shown in the Construction Documents and connection detail(s) C502. All fittings, valves, restraints, and appurtenances necessary to complete the connection in accordance with Drawings, Specifications, and applicable NTUA requirements shall be included in the Bid.

20. RFI-CIV-003 – Number and Configuration of Roadway Drainage Culverts Reference: J02 BOD – Civil Narrative and Appendix A3 Hydrology Report; Civil Drawings C201, C302, C303, C503 and C504 The BOD Civil Narrative states that two culverts will convey flow beneath the proposed access road and describes the culverts as riser-inlet systems with geotextile wrap and gravel.

However, the Hydrology Report contained in the BOD describes three roadway crossing/inlet systems:

1. Southern inlet – 18-inch PVC;

2. Central culvert – 18-inch PVC; and

3. Northern culvert – 24-inch PVC.

Please confirm the final number, size, material, inlet configuration, outlet configuration, and location of all roadway culverts to be included in the Contract.

Where the hydrology report and civil drawings differ, please identify which configuration governs.

- Answer: The final design includes one roadway crossing culvert as shown on the final Civil Drawings and reflected in the Sealed final Hydrology Report dated August 2024.

References in earlier design documents, including the 95% Hydrology Report and Basis of Design Narrative, to multiple roadway crossings and inlet systems reflect previous design iterations and are not part of the final design. For bidding and construction purposes, Offerors shall base their bids on the final Civil Drawings and associated final design documents. The final number, size, material, inlet configuration, outlet configuration, and location of the roadway crossing culvert shall be as shown on the Civil Drawings. In the event of discrepancies between earlier design-phase documents and the final Sealed Civil Drawings, the final Sealed Civil Drawings shall govern.

21. RFI-CIV-004 – Central Culvert Hydraulic Capacity Reference: J02 BOD – Appendix A3 Hydrology Report, Section 6 / Table 5 The Hydrology Report states that the central culvert is surcharged during the 100-year storm event, with peak flow exceeding the stated design-flow capacity, while noting that the associated detention area is expected to accommodate the runoff without overtopping.

Please confirm that the central culvert size and associated drainage configuration shown in the Contract Drawings are the final accepted design and that no upsizing, additional detention improvements, or other modifications are anticipated.

- Answer: The final design includes one roadway crossing culvert as shown on the final Civil Drawings and reflected in the Sealed final Hydrology Report dated August 2024.

References in earlier design documents, including the 95% Hydrology Report and Basis of Design Narrative, to multiple roadway crossings and inlet systems reflect previous design iterations and are not part of the final design. For bidding and construction purposes, Offerors shall base their bids on the final Civil Drawings and associated final design documents. The final number, size, material, inlet configuration, outlet configuration, and location of the roadway crossing culvert shall be as shown on the Civil Drawings. In the event of discrepancies between earlier design-phase documents and the final Sealed Civil Drawings, the final Sealed Civil Drawings shall govern.

22. RFI-CIV-005 – Drainage Inlet Configuration – BOD vs. Hydrology Report Reference: J02 BOD – Civil Narrative and Appendix A3 Hydrology Report; Drawings C302- C304/C504 as applicable The BOD Civil Narrative generally describes the roadway culverts as riser inlets with geotextile wrap and gravel, while the Hydrology Report separately describes a southern double-drop inlet, a northern culvert, and a central culvert with differing hydraulic functions.

Please confirm the exact inlet structure required at each drainage crossing and whether the riser/gravel-cone details shown on the civil drawings supersede the inlet descriptions contained in the Hydrology Report.

- Answer: The inlet structure(s) to be constructed shall be as shown on the final Sealed Civil Drawings and associated details. Reference contained in the BOD narrative and earlier Hydrology Report describing southern, central, and northern drainage crossings reflect previous design iterations and are not part of the final design. For bidding and construction purposes, Offerors shall base their bids on the inlet, outlet, and culvert details shown on the Sealed final Civil Drawings, which govern in the event of discrepancies.

23. RFI-CIV-006 – Governing Project Location and Civil Jurisdiction Reference: J01 SOW §2.1; Solicitation SF 1442; J02 BOD – Project Scope and Hydrology Report The solicitation and SOW identify the project at Indian Route 6290, Tonalea, Arizona 86044, Coconino County.

The BOD Project Scope and Hydrology Report, however, describe the project as being located in or near Shonto, Arizona along Navajo Route 16, approximately seven miles west of Shonto.

Please confirm the governing project location description and the applicable civil permitting and regulatory jurisdiction for the Work.

- Answer: The governing project location is Indian Route 6290, Tonalea, Arizona 86044, as identified in the solicitation and contract drawings. Reference to Shonto, Arizona and Navajo Route 16 contained in the BOD narrative and Hydrology Report may be disregarded. Offerors shall base their bids on the final Sealed Contract Documents.

Applicable permitting and regulatory requirements shall be those associated with the project location on Navajo Nation lands and as identified by the contract documents and authorities having jurisdiction.

24. RFI-CIV-007 – Mohave County Street-Signing Standard Reference: Drawing C001 – Street Construction Notes Drawing C001 requires street signing to comply with Mohave County Standard Details 131-1 and 131-2.

The solicitation identifies the project as located in Coconino County, and other drawing notes reference Navajo Nation authorities and the Navajo Public Services Director.

Please confirm whether the reference to Mohave County standards is intentional. If not, please identify the governing street-signing standard and provide the applicable details.

- Answer: The reference to Mohave County standards is applicable to this project.

Signing requirements beyond those specifically shown on the drawings shall follow Mohave County standards unless Navajo Nation authority (e.g Navajo Nation Fire Department) provides other direction.

25. RFI-CIV-008 – City of Phoenix Trash Enclosure Requirement Reference: Drawing C101 – Site Plan Keynotes Drawing C101 requires the trash enclosure and pavement to comply with City of Phoenix Code Chapter 27, “Solid Waste.”

Please confirm whether City of Phoenix Chapter 27 is intentionally incorporated as the design standard for this project located on Navajo Nation lands. If not, please identify the governing trash-enclosure and refuse-vehicle pavement requirements.

- Answer: Answer to RFI-009: Specification Section 31 23 03, Excavation, Trenching, and Backfilling, is referenced in Section 31 23 00 but is not included in the Project Manual.

Disregard the reference to Section 31 23 03. Utility excavation, trenching, bedding, and backfill, compaction, testing, and restoration shall be performed in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Civil Drawings and Details, Section 31 23 00, the

Geotechnical Report, and utility-owner requirements, including NTUA standards where applicable. In the event of conflicting requirements, the more stringent requirement shall govern.

- Answer to RFI-010: The project grading was designed to achieve a generally balanced earthwork condition and minimize the need for import or export of soils. The total estimated earthwork quantities are Cut = 4,398, Fill = 4,600, and Net = 202 Fill. The estimates for earthwork quantities are net unadjusted quantities only. They do not account for excess cut and fill that may be required during construction. Offerors shall make their own analysis/determination on excess cut or fill. Should excess excavated material generated during construction, the material may be disposed of on-site at a location approved by the Owner. Off-site disposal of excess soil is not anticipated by the Contract Documents. Specification requirements regarding removal of unsuitable material and the potential use of imported fill are provided to address unforeseen field conditions and should not alter the basis of bid described above.

26. RFI-CIV-009 – Missing Utility Excavation / Trenching Specification Section Reference: Specification 31 23 00 – Excavation and Fill (Onsite), §§1.2 and 1.3; Project Manual Table of Contents Specification 31 23 00 states that Section 31 23 03 – Excavation, Trenching and Backfilling shall be used for utility work and that Section 31 23 00 applies to the remaining earthwork.

However, the Project Manual Table of Contents does not list a Section 31 23 03. Division 31 lists Sections 31 10 00, 31 22 00, 31 23 00, 31 25 00, 31 31 16 and 31 37 00.

Please provide Section 31 23 03 or confirm the specifications and standards governing excavation, bedding, trench backfill, compaction, testing, and restoration for water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and other site utilities.

RFI-CIV-010 – Earthwork Balance / Import and Export Assumption Reference: J02 BOD – Civil Narrative; Specification 31 23 00 – Excavation and Fill;

Geotechnical Report The BOD states that the site grading was designed to balance on-site earthwork and avoid import and export of earth material, other than imported asphalt, aggregate base, concrete, and bedding materials.

Specification 31 23 00, however, requires removal of unsuitable material and provides requirements for imported fill, while the geotechnical report also recognizes the potential use of imported engineered fill.

Please confirm whether Offerors are to base their proposals on a net-balanced earthwork condition with no structural/general fill import or soil export, except for materials specifically identified in the Contract Documents.

If import/export is anticipated, please provide the estimated design cut/fill quantities or establish a common bid allowance/quantity.

- Answer: Answer to RFI-009: Specification Section 31 23 03, Excavation, Trenching, and Backfilling, is referenced in Section 31 23 00 but is not included in the Project Manual.

Disregard the reference to Section 31 23 03. Utility excavation, trenching, bedding, and backfill, compaction, testing, and restoration shall be performed in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Civil Drawings and Details, Section 31 23 00, the Geotechnical Report, and utility-owner requirements, including NTUA standards where applicable. In the event of conflicting requirements, the more stringent requirement shall govern.

- Answer to RFI-010: The project grading was designed to achieve a generally balanced earthwork condition and minimize the need for import or export of soils. The total estimated earthwork quantities are Cut = 4,398, Fill = 4,600, and Net = 202 Fill. The estimates for earthwork quantities are net unadjusted quantities only. They do not account for excess cut and fill that may be required during construction. Offerors shall make their own analysis/determination on excess cut or fill. Should excess excavated material generated during construction, the material may be disposed of on-site at a location approved by the Owner. Off-site disposal of excess soil is not anticipated by the Contract Documents. Specification requirements regarding removal of unsuitable material and the potential use of imported fill are provided to address unforeseen field conditions and should not alter the basis of bid described above.

27. RFI-CIV-011 – Heavy-Duty Asphalt Pavement Section Reference: Drawing C101 – Site Plan; Drawing C503 – Pavement Details; Specification 32 12 00 – Paving and Aggregate Base Drawing C101 identifies areas of “Heavy Duty Asphalt Concrete Pavement Section,” while separately identifying light-duty asphalt as 3 inches AC over 6 inches ABC and heavy-duty concrete as 6 inches PCC over 4 inches ABC.

Specification 32 12 00 identifies both light-vehicle parking/circulation and roadway/main aisle pavement as a minimum 3 inches AC over 6 inches aggregate base, unless otherwise shown.

Please confirm the required section for areas designated Heavy Duty Asphalt Concrete Pavement, including asphalt thickness, aggregate-base thickness, mix designation, and subgrade preparation.

- Answer: The "Heavy Duty Asphalt Concrete Pavement Section" designation shown in earlier design documents has been removed from the final design. The governing pavement section for asphalt-paved areas is the standard section shown on the final Contract Drawings and in Specification Section 32 12 00, consisting of 3 inches AC over 6 inches ABC, unless otherwise specifically noted.

28. RFI-CIV-012 – Pavement Subgrade Preparation Requirements Reference: J02 BOD – Geotechnical Report §5.1.4; Specification 32 12 00 §3.02; Civil Drawings C001/C503 The geotechnical report requires pavement subgrade soils to be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum, and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density using ASTM D698.

Specification 32 12 00 directs subgrade preparation generally to SSPWC/MAG Section 301, and Drawing C001 similarly references MAG Section 301.

Please confirm that the geotechnical requirement for 12 inches of scarification/moisture conditioning/95-percent compaction applies beneath all new asphalt and concrete pavement areas, in addition to the pavement sections shown on the civil drawings.

- Answer: Yes. The geotechnical requirements to scarify the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade, moisture condition, and compaction to a minimum of 95 percent of ASTM D698 maximum dry density applies beneath all new asphalt and concrete pavement areas. These requirements are in addition to the pavement sections shown on the Civil Drawings. Where the Geotechnical Report and referenced MAG/SSPWS section 301 requirements differ, the more stringent requirement shall govern.

29. RFI-CIV-013 – SWPPP / NPDES Permitting Authority Reference: Drawing C001 – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Notes; Specification 31 10 00 §1.3; Solicitation H.22 The civil drawings require the Contractor to prepare and implement a SWPPP under EPA/NNEPA requirements. The specifications further state that the Contractor may not begin construction without an NPDES permit and state that the Navajo Nation, through Navajo EPA, administers the permitting process.

Please confirm the specific permit or authorization required for construction stormwater discharge on this project and whether an existing project-level permit/application has already been initiated by IHS or the Designer.

Please also confirm which permit fees, filing fees, and associated inspection/reporting costs are to be included by the Contractor.

- Answer: The contractor shall be responsible for obtaining all permits and authorizations required by the applicable regulatory agencies for construction activities, including construction stormwater permitting. No project-specific construction stormwater permit application has been initiated by IHS or the Designer. Offerors shall include all costs associated with permit acquisition, SWPPP preparation and implementaion, inspections, monitoring, reporting, permit fees, and compliance activities required during construction.

30. RFI-CIV-014 – Existing Utility Information / Record Drawings Reference: Drawing C001 General Notes; Specification 01 73 00 §3.1; SOW §9.1 The Contract Documents require the Contractor to field verify utility elevations, pipe sizes, inverts, and connection conditions, and the specifications expressly state that the existence and location of underground utilities shown as existing are not guaranteed.

Please provide the most current available record drawings, utility maps, and utility-provider information for existing site water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electrical, communications, irrigation, and other underground utilities within and adjacent to the civil work limits.

Please identify which existing utility locations, sizes, and elevations shown on the civil drawings were field surveyed versus derived from record information.

- Answer: Existing utility information shown on the Civil Drawings is based on a combination of field survey and available record information. Visible utilities and sanitary sewer manholes, including accessible invert locations, were field surveyed. Utility alignments, pipe sizes, inverts and connection details not directly observable in the field were derived from available record information. Available utility records are provided for bidder reference. Contractors shall field verify utility elevations, pipe sizes, inverts, and connection conditions prior to commencing related work.

31. RFI-CIV-015 – Utility Relocations Shown vs. Unknown Conflicts Reference: Drawing C001 – Street Construction Note 14; Specification 01 73 00 Drawing C001 states that all utility facilities in conflict with the project shall be relocated by the Contractor, coordinated with the utility companies, at no extra cost to the Owner.

However, Specification 01 73 00 states that existing underground utility locations are not guaranteed and require verification before sitework.

Please identify all known utility relocations that are included in the Base Bid. For utilities that are not shown or whose actual location differs materially from the Contract Documents, please confirm that relocation of such unforeseen facilities will be addressed in accordance with the applicable differing-site-condition/change provisions rather than being included as an undefined Base Bid obligation.

- Answer:

32. Reference: J03 Drawings – G000 and Structural Sheets S001 through S601 The issued Phase IV drawing set is identified as “Final Construction Documents”; however, the drawing title blocks include the statements “ISSUED FOR INTERIM REVIEW” and “THIS

DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR

CONSTRUCTION.” The structural sheets additionally state that unless signed and sealed by a licensed Structural Engineer, the drawings are a preliminary design and shall not be used for construction. This notation appears on foundation plans and other structural sheets.

Please confirm that the J03 drawing set dated August 13, 2024 is the final construction drawing set upon which Offerors are to base their proposals.

If a separately signed/sealed Issue-for-Construction structural set exists, please provide it by amendment.

- Answer: Issued For Construction (IFC) stamped 8/27/24 is included with this response.

This set also includes any revisions (Delta 1 & 2).

33. RFI-STR-002 – Geotechnical Report Referenced by Structural Basis of Design Reference: J02 BOD – Structural Narrative; J03 S001; ATEK Geotechnical Report No. 240012 The structural Basis of Design states that the foundation design is based upon a Western Technologies Geotechnical Evaluation, Project No. 2527JW116.

In contrast, Structural Sheet S001 states that foundation design is based upon the ATEK Engineering Consultants Geotechnical Exploration, Project No. 240012, and the specifications likewise direct building subgrade preparation in accordance with the ATEK report.

Please confirm that ATEK Project No. 240012 is the governing geotechnical report for the structural and foundation design, and that the Western Technologies report referenced in the BOD is not applicable to this project.

- Answer: ATEK Project No. 240012 is the governing report.

34. RFI-STR-003 – Wind Design Speed Discrepancy Reference: J02 BOD – Structural Narrative, Wind Loads; J03 S001 Structural Notes The structural Basis of Design lists a basic wind speed of 105 mph.

Structural Sheet S001 specifies:

Ultimate Wind Speed, Vult = 115 mph

Nominal Design Wind Speed, Vasd = 90 mph

Exposure Category C

Internal Pressure Coefficient GCpi = ±0.18.

Please confirm that the 115 mph ultimate wind speed and associated design criteria shown on S001 govern the project, including design of roof trusses, truss-to-wall connections, shear walls, hold-downs, exterior attachments, and delegated structural components.

- Answer: The basic wind speed shall be 105 mph. This wind speed shall be used in the project, including design of roof trusses, truss-to-wall connections, shear walls, hold-downs, exterior attachments, and delegated structural components.

35. RFI-STR-004 – Final Structural Design Codes and Referenced Standards Reference: J02 BOD – Structural Narrative; J03 G001/G101 and S001; Solicitation H.49 The BOD indicates compliance with the 2021 IBC but identifies older structural standards including ACI 318-11 and AISC 360-05, while the solicitation requires recognized regulatory/code standards to be the latest published edition prior to the solicitation proposal issue date.

Please identify the specific editions of all structural design standards governing the final design, including at minimum:

ASCE 7

ACI 318

ACI 301

AISC 360

NDS

SDPWS

TPI

PTI requirements.

Please also confirm that the design calculations and structural drawings have been checked for compliance with those governing editions.

- Answer: Use the latest codes that are in relationship to the 2021 IBC. This includes ASCE 7-16; ACI 318-19; ACI 301-16; AISC 360-16; NDS 2018; PTI DC 10.5-19. All design drawings and calculations were produced in complience with the governing codes.

36. RFI-STR-005 – Responsibility and Cost for Structural Special Inspections and Testing Reference: J03 S002; J04 Section 014000; Section 033000 Structural Sheet S002 states that the Contractor, acting as the Owner's agent, shall employ one or more special inspectors and requires a preconstruction meeting with the special inspection agency, Building Official, Architect, Owner, and Structural Engineer.

Section 033000 similarly states that the General Contractor shall engage a special inspector and a qualified testing and inspecting agency for concrete testing.

Section 014000, however, distinguishes Contractor-performed inspections, special inspections required by the authority having jurisdiction, and Owner-performed tests and inspections, creating some uncertainty regarding which party contracts and pays for each category.

Please confirm that the General Contractor is required to contract and pay for all structural special inspection and material testing services indicated on S002 and within the specifications, including earthwork/geotechnical observations, concrete, reinforcing, anchors, post-tensioning, wood/shear-wall inspections, and other structural inspections.

If any testing or special inspections will instead be provided and paid directly by IHS, please identify those services.

- Answer: Contractor is pay for all special inspections. IHS must approve the inspection agency being hired.

37. RFI-STR-006 – Contractor-Provided Geotechnical Engineer / Earthwork Inspection Reference: J03 S001; J02 ATEK Geotechnical Report; J04 Section 312300 Structural Sheet S001 requires the Contractor to employ a registered Geotechnical Engineer to perform testing and quality-control inspections and states that all earthwork shall be inspected and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer.

The ATEK report also recommends observation of footing excavations, approval of imported fill, monitoring of backfill operations, density testing, and construction testing.

Please confirm whether the Contractor is required to retain ATEK specifically, or whether the Contractor may engage another qualified registered Geotechnical Engineer/testing agency.

Please also confirm whether this Contractor-provided Geotechnical Engineer is responsible for accepting building pad preparation and footing bearing conditions on behalf of the design team, or whether ATEK/IHS will separately provide geotechnical construction observation.

- Answer: Contractor can retain any qualified Geotechnical Engineer/testing agency approved by IHS.

38. RFI-STR-007 – Building Pad Preparation Requirements vs. Structural Foundation Design Reference: J03 S001/S121/S122; J04 Section 312300; ATEK Geotechnical Report §5 Section 312300 requires building subgrade preparation in accordance with the ATEK geotechnical report, Civil Drawings, and/or Structural Drawings, “whichever is more stringent,” including scarification, moisture conditioning, compaction, proofrolling, and requirements for the upper four feet of building fill.

Structural Sheet S001 provides design bearing pressures of 1,250 psf at grade and 2,500 psf at 2'-6" below lowest adjacent finished grade.

The ATEK report provides an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf at 2.5 feet below finished grade and recommends specific foundation/subgrade preparation.

Please provide a single definitive requirement for the building pad preparation limits, including:

1. Required vertical depth of removal/recompaction or engineered fill beneath the building;

2. Horizontal extent beyond exterior foundation lines;

3. Required compaction criteria;

4. Whether proofrolling is required under the post-tensioned foundation;

5. Elevation from which the required preparation depth is measured.

The phrase “whichever is more stringent” does not establish measurable excavation limits for lump-sum bidding and can result in materially different earthwork quantities between Offerors.

- Answer: Foundation design was based upon 2,500 psf bearing pressure. The bottom of the footing shall be 30" below grade for the exterior foundaitons and 12" below finished slab for interior footing as noted in the foundation details. Building pad preparation limits shall be per section 5.1.2 of Atek's Final Geotechnical Exporation Report dated 9/10/2024.

39. RFI-STR-008 – Post-Tensioned Foundation: Contract Design vs. Delegated Design Reference: J03 S123/S124 and Foundation Details; J04 Section 033816 Structural Sheets S123 and S124 provide a detailed numbered tendon layout and foundation configuration.

However, Section 033816 requires the Contractor to provide shop drawings prepared under a qualified Professional Engineer and a delegated-design submittal, including sealed design calculations for the post-tensioning system.

Please clarify whether the post-tensioned slab shown on S123/S124 is:

1. A complete Engineer-of-Record structural design that the PT supplier is only required to detail and engineer for tendon losses/elongations; or

2. A performance/design-intent layout requiring the Contractor's PT engineer to redesign the foundation system.

If delegated redesign is intended, please provide the required design criteria, permitted deviations from the contract tendon layout, and review/approval responsibilities.

- Answer: Delegated design for the PT foundation is not required. Note this is BARB TYPE 2 Slab.

40. RFI-STR-009 – Post-Tensioned Slab Penetration Coordination Prior to PT Shop Drawings

Reference: J03 S123/S124 and S501-S521; Plumbing/Electrical/Mechanical Drawings; J04 Section 033816 The structural documents contain a closely spaced tendon layout. Structural notes also caution against damaging PT tendons during installation of post-installed anchors.

Please confirm that all under-slab plumbing, electrical, grounding, sleeves, depressions, embeds, floor drains, cleanouts, equipment penetrations, and other slab penetrations are required to be coordinated into the PT shop drawings before fabrication and stressing.

Please further confirm whether relocation of penetrations shown on other disciplines that conflict with the final engineered tendon layout may be made through normal coordination without redesign cost to the Contractor.

Unresolved slab penetrations can require tendon rerouting, additional reinforcement, and redesign and present a significant risk after PT fabrication.

- Answer: Confirmed that all under-slab plumbing, electrical, grounding, sleeves, depressions, embeds, floor drains, cleanouts, equipment penetrations, and other slab penetrations are required to be coordinated into the PT shop drawings before fabrication and stressing. Tendons that conflict with penetrations shown by other disciplines may be splayed around these items as part normal coordination without needing redesign since this is a BARB TYPE 2 SLAB.

41. RFI-STR-010 – Wood Truss Deferred Submittal Design Criteria Reference: J03 S002, S151/S152; J04 Section 061753 Sheet S002 identifies wood trusses as a deferred submittal and requires deferred submittal documents to be submitted to the Architect/Engineer of Record at least 30 days prior to fabrication and approved prior to installation.

Please confirm that the delegated truss engineer is to design the complete truss system using the structural design criteria on S001, including at minimum:

Roof live load = 20 psf;

Superimposed roof dead load = 15 psf;

Ground and flat-roof snow load = 15 psf;

115 mph Vult, Exposure C;

Net uplift and component-and-cladding pressures;

Bearing reactions;

Drag/collector forces;

Required truss-to-wall connection forces;

Any mechanical/electrical equipment loads.

Please provide any additional concentrated or suspended loads that are not specifically identified on the structural roof framing plans.

Complete load criteria are required for comparable truss bids and to avoid post-award redesign or reinforcement.

- Answer: Confirmed that the delegated truss engineer is to design the complete truss system using the structural design criteria on S001, including at minimum:• Roof live load = 20 psf;

- Superimposed roof dead load = 15 psf;

- Ground and flat-roof snow load = 15 psf;

- 105 mph Vult, Exposure C;

- Net uplift and component-and-cladding pressures;

- Bearing reactions;

- Drag/collector forces;

- Required truss-to-wall connection forces;

- Any mechanical/electrical equipment loads. No other loads need to be considered unless contractors adds loads based upon their means and methods.

42. RFI-STR-011 – Wood Truss Permanent Bracing Responsibility Reference: J03 S151/S152/S551; J04 Section 061753 Please clarify responsibility for the engineering, furnishing, and installation of permanent truss bracing.

Confirm whether all permanent lateral bracing required by the truss manufacturer's engineered truss package shall be designed by the delegated truss engineer and included in the Contractor's scope, or whether permanent building bracing is fully defined by the Structural Engineer of Record's drawings.

Please distinguish permanent structural bracing from temporary erection bracing required by the truss installer.

Permanent truss bracing can require significant additional lumber, blocking, connections, labor, and coordination and should not remain undefined at bid.

- Answer: If permanent bracing is required for the individual truss to function and support-imposed loads, that bracing is required to be provided and designed by the truss manufacturer and their engineer. Truss manufacture can design their trusses to eliminate any need for premanent bracing.