RESPONSE_TO_BIDDER_QUESTIONS_6-15-18.docx

80KSC018R0016

QUESTION & ANSWERS 6/15/19

RESPONSE TO BIDDER QUESTIONS:

1. REFERENCE: DWG: 79K40361; Sheet 12, 30, 33 & 42 (dwgs. C-121, S-001, S-101 and S-402) & Ardaman Report (1/10/17) QUESTION: Site civil and structural drawings reflect a design with large spread footer/mat foundation. This includes the basis for Dewar foundation design loads (Reference S-001). The Ardaman Report appears to approach the subject of the use of a spread-footing as basis of design and has an option for Auger Cast Pile Foundations. In that report, Ardaman appears to be leaning to the recommendation of the use of Auger Cast Piles. Please confirm that the engineer of record has reviewed this and has committed to the option of the spread footing /mat foundation only, where all potential bidders are to provide the base bid with the assumption that no Auger Cast Piles will be required. Or provide further design direction.

ANSWER: The geotechnical report does not establish the design requirements for the foundation, which are contained in Drawing 79K40361 and Specification 79K40362. Any design recommendations about foundation types in the geotechnical report were to the design A-E who subcontracted the report and are not recommendations to the construction contractor.

1. REFERENCE: Spec. 40 29 98 Para. 2.2.10 and 3.4.2.4 DWG: 79K40361; Sheet 124 (dwg. MC104) QUESTION: Please reference specification noted at paragraph 2.2.10 for the construction of the sixteen (16) vaporizers, and the revised performance testing noted in the solicitation (Item 8 in section C.2.b). No cold shock requirements appear to be imposed on these vaporizers, with the assumption that the performance testing will suffice to establish the integrity of this construction. We have approached each of the basis of design vendors, and they have confirmed that they do not cold shock equipment like this as the equipment is meant to impart heat to the conveyance medium. Please confirm no cold shock will be required for these pieces of equipment.

ANSWER: Cold shock testing requirements in Specification 79K40362 Section 40 29 98 Subpart 3.4.2.1 apply to the vaporizers, which comprise a portion of the non-vacuum jacketed piping assemblies specified in this section. Cold shock testing is required to verify the structural and weld integrity for damage, deformation, leaks, or other anomalies that occur on exposure to cryogenic conditions. There is also a precedent for this cold shock testing of vaporizers on recent construction projects at KSC.

1. REFERENCE: DWG: 79K40361; Sheet 29 & 30 (drawings ED-101 and ED-102) QUESTION: Are any schematic drawings available or existing wiring diagrams to identify the conductors in the existing underground duct banks that are being demolished specifically the following: A) Drawing ED-101, note A: Disconnect and remove existing mini power zone, provide temporary power to circuits that must remain hot and provide permanent power to circuits that must remain. What size is the primary size of the mini power zone? How many circuits must remain permanent? Drawing ED-101, note D: B) What was this control panel that is to be removed serving? C) Drawing ED-101, note G: How many conduits are in these duct banks identified with this note, along with voltage, conductor size and quantities in these conduits?

ANSWER:

A) Assume primary size to be 225A; assume no more than 6 circuits to remain permanent B) The control panel and electrical equipment rack have been removed by others. Amendment 7 will delete Flag Note D on ED-101.

C) These conduits were not able to be located during design field walks. Assume removal of two (2) 4” conduits at depth up to 48” for the extents indicated.

1. REFERENCE: DWG: 79K40361; Sheet 35 (drawing ES-105) QUESTION: Drawing ES-105, flag note C: We are somewhat confused on this note stating the following: “Remove and temporarily store transformers.” Is the requirement to remove these (2) facilitate duct bank installation? Is there an expectation to replace pad once duct bank installed? A) Are these transformers 750KVA, 13.8KV to 480/277V? B) Where are these (2) transformers to be stored? Are there on-site facilities available for storage of these transformers? C) If we remove these two transformers what is expected for power downstream of what these transformers are currently serving? There is no information on the one-line depicting what these transformers are serving, or will everything downstream not require temporary reconnection? D) If we are to provide temporary power how much power is required? E) Are we relocating these transformers just out of the way and providing temporary power connections until the concrete work is complete? F) Assuming these transformers potentially support the existing LH2 ball, will there be a specific schedule window to accomplish this work to avoid launch impacts?

ANSWER: Yes, removal and temporary storage of transformers is for facilitating duct bank installation. There’s not an expectation to replace the transformer concrete pad unless it is damaged during the duct bank installation. That is the contractor's responsibility to address.

A) Existing transformers are 500kVA, 13.8kV: 480Y/277V B) It is the contractor’s responsibility to properly store the transformers on site. There will not be a government facility available for storage of these transformers.

C) These transformers currently serve panels and equipment inside of the existing EE building. There are no requirements for temporary power during installation of the duct banks. It is the contractor’s responsibility to coordinate and schedule outages with NASA per Sheet ES-105 Note C.

D) Temporary power is not applicable.

E) The transformers are required to be moved out of the way to allow duct bank installation. No temporary power connections are required.

F) Any outage request needs to be coordinated with NASA per contract requirements.