Amendment 0004.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1 The RFP states “For all the information required above, the same information should be provided for any major subcontractor proposed. Any subcontract Performance Evaluation Questionnaire’ will be in addition to the 10 surveys provided for the prime offeror. A major subcontractor is defined as those performing more than ten percent (10%) of the effort, on a total cost basis.” Is the contractor required to submit 10 Recent/Relevant projects and PPQs? What if we do not have 10 projects with Fire Suppression over 25’?

Evaluations of Past performance will be done in accordance with section M-2(b). You do not have to have 10 projects.

2 In accordance with Specification Section 21 13 13.00 10 Paragraph 3.4.1 is the Contractor to provide seismic bracing on all new and existing fire sprinkler piping?

No.

3 The Request for Information (RFI) deadline was given on Amendment 0002, dated August 8, 2012, to be August 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM. We were electronically notified of this Amendment this morning (August 9th). We do not have enough time to formulate all our questions in the few hours left between when we were advised of the deadline and the deadline at 3:00 today. Can the RFI deadline be extended just a few days?

4 Page 28 of 35 of the Solicitation, Article L-5, Proposal Submission, subparagraph (b) cautions Offerors regarding delivery procedures for the physical delivery of the completed Offer. Under this Article, hand carried Offers and commercial carrier delivered Offers are not guaranteed delivery acceptance. Please tell us how PAFB expects our bids to be delivered so that they are guaranteed to be accepted. What is the best method to be able to deliver our Offer?

5 On August 2nd a change was posted to FBO.gov for this project to include a report on potentially hazardous materials that may exist at PAFB building 313. The report, produced by MACTEC, dated August 21, 2009, indicates the existence of hazardous materials at the site. The following questions result from that report:

a) Page 1 of the report indicates it is based on a scope of work as shown on drawings prepared by Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan (PBS&J) dated no later than 2009, since that is the date of the MACTEC report. The eleven (11) pages of drawings we have for this project are drawn by Staley Consulting, dated 6-21-2012. The building is about 70 years old and has numerous hazardous material concerns. Does the scope of work shown on the 2009 PBS&J drawings (that are not part of this Solicitation), match the scope of work shown on the current Staley drawings?

No, the design has changed. However, the work area has not changed. We are still working with the same eight (8) risers and the same existing piping.

b) Page 3, Conclusions and Recommendations, states “No asbestos containing materials (ACM) were identified during the confirmation survey that will be impacted by the current scope of work….. If changes to the design include building areas with suspected ACM, the design should be modified to include the abatement of ACM that will be disturbed.”. As asked in (a) above, has the scope of work changed from the 2009 PBS&J drawings to the current drawings?

No, the design has changed. However, the work area has not changed. We are still working with the same eight (8) risers and the same existing piping.

c) Page 5, Conclusions and Recommendations, Article A states “However, when these coatings are disturbed (scraping & sanding, etc.) the resulting airborne dust concentrations may exceed OSHA permissible exposure limits for lead, cadmium and chromium”. Is it the intent of this Solicitation scope of work that we include lead paint abatement at cut points on the standpipes that are to be removed?

Yes.

d) Apart from the anticipated abatement in (c) above, is there any other abatement required for this project?

No.

e) Does the piping debris resulting from standpipe removal need to be disposed of as hazardous waste?

No.

6 What is the elevation of the existing fire sprinkler piping in Hangar 1, 2, & 3?

Answer: Exact elevations of the piping are not available. The area referred to as Hangar 1 is the addition on the West end of the open bay. The underside of that rood section peaks at approximately 46 ft and slopes down to approx. 38 ft. The area shown as Hangar 2 and 3 is in the old section where the highest elevation is approx. 52 ft, sloping down to approx. 34 ft.

7 In accordance with Specification Section 21 13 13.00 10 Paragraph 3.4.1 is the Contractor to provide seismic bracing on all new and existing fire sprinkler piping?___________________

No.