Most Recent RFI Questions and Answers.pdf

11 August 2022

QUESTION AND ANSWERS

Solicitation: FA2521-22-B-0006 Project Number: DBEH 21-1507

Project Description: Repair Tower 81559, Cape Canaveral SFS, FL

1. Question – Attachment 1 of the Technical Specification calls for a repair or replacement of the tower. Is the tower replacement truly an option? 2. If replacement is an option, can we obtain the tower structural drawings and tower design loading data?

Government Response – Tower is not being replaced, and it is not an option. Drawings details work to be accomplished, all work is repair.

2. Question – Will the government extend the RFP response date by 14 days to afford offerors adequate time to obtain pricing for a tower replacement?

Government Response - Tower is not being replaced, and it is not an option. Drawings detail work to be accomplished, all work is repair.

3. Question – Who is responsible for removing the equipment and cabling on the tower?

Government Response – Government will remove and reinstall equipment as necessary.

4. Question – Who is providing access to the gate and/or escorts?

Government Response – Government will provide gate access, and escorts if required.

5. Question – Can we obtain the latest structural analysis or structural design information (including member sizes, etc.) of the tower? Or any other as-builts from past repairs?

Government Response - The as-built sheets available only calls out a few IPS (Iron Pipe Sizes) and does not explicitly state the wall thickness of the members. Through research, it was assumed around minimum 1/8" wall thickness for the IPS members, so the 1/8" thick sleeve and 1/8" welds would match or be less than the connecting member thicknesses and provide adequate load capacity for the length of the pipes. The as-builts will be provided to you.

6. Question – Can the bid be extended to allow for review of any new documentation the Space Force can provide from past repairs?

Government Response - Use information as provided in spec and drawing.

7. Question – Are you looking for a bid strictly based upon the items/fixes provided? OR can we value engineer a better solution for these areas?

Government Response - Drawing does not dictate means and methods for repairs, value engineering is welcomed.

8. Question – Do you have foundation/geotechnical information for the tower? TIA-222-H requires that for any modification a full analysis of the foundation is incorporated.

Government Response - Geotechnical information is not available.

9. Question – Can you provide at a minimum the thickness of the corroded pipe members? We need to know the thickness of structural pipes at a minimum as depicted in the drawings. A 1/8” weld is being specified, which is smaller than the typical minimum structural weld of 3/16”. I am not sure if the pipes we are proposing to weld to are thick enough to even accept a weld or if we risk more damage to them by welding.

Government Response - The as-built sheets available only calls out a few IPS (Iron Pipe Sizes) and does not explicitly state the wall thickness of the members. Through research, it was assumed around minimum 1/8" wall thickness for the IPS members, so the 1/8" thick sleeve and 1/8" welds would match or be less than the connecting member thicknesses and provide adequate load capacity for the length of the pipes. The as-builts will be provided to you.

10. Question – Will encasing the footing be allowed as previously performed? Special inspections?

Government Response - Per drawing, the footings do not require encasing. However, if requirement is identified, it will be allowed.

11. Question – Will all pipes that are installed incorrectly be required to be corrected? Ie. weep holes facing up?

Government Response - All pipe members appeared to be the originally installed pipes.

Incorrectly installed pipes are not anticipated, but in the case of unforeseen site conditions, report to CO, no actions outside of scope of work may take place without CO direction.

12. Question – Special requirements for cranes. Height requirements or restrictions, FAA notification? If so, who will prepare documentation and what is the timeline?

Government Response - FAA notification is not required for this project. Crane may not exceed 150' horizontal surface, and will be restricted during equipment operations. Shortest equipment needed should be used.

13. Question – Any special preparation or cautions needed on site. i.e. keeping special clearances in any locations, designated staging areas, restrooms, will power be provided or do we provide our own?

Government Response - Restrooms will not be provided. Power may be provided, if an accessible point is located. Staging on-site will be allowed. No particular clearance but all government assets must be protected. The instruments have safety and property clearance restrictions.

14. Question – Any restrictions on open flame ie. welding/cutting torch or will this all need to be cut out with a plasma cutter or saw then grind.

Government Response - All burning requirements must submit and gain a burn permit from CCSFS Fire Chief. A three-day notice is required.

15. Question – Estimated Timeline for SF remove tech equipment from tower. (Down time) Estimated Timeline for tower to be in non-commission status (CX timeline), Estimated Timeline to reinstall all equipment Government Response – All removals are subject to constraints at time of operation.

Recommend planning on one day to accomplish any particular move, or re-installation. Tower downtime will be dependent on operations.

16. Question – 000101 FUNDING for CLIN 0001 Page 4 of 55, Is this requirement funded for this fiscal year? If not, will it be for early 2023?

Government Response - Please see SF 1442 block 10 paragraph G for funding information.

17. Question – Can the Contracting Office provide projected launch schedules through December 2022? Can they provide link to published rain schedule mentioned at the site walk?

Government Response - Link to published launches is found at spaceflightnow.com.

18. Question - A previous question was asked seeking more detailed information as to the structural member sizes. We were referred to the Technical Specifications. Upon further review of these specifications, under 1.5 Contract Drawings, the specifications state that the drawings indicate general location and arrangement of existing conditions and that field measurements may be necessary to determine size and quantity of materials. This is important as the recommended remediation methods within the drawings call out specific weld and material sizes.

In order to properly size the materials and the weld, it is essential to know the thickness of the material. A weld can only be sized to match the connected materials, so without the thickness, we can do more damage than repair if the underlying pipe has less thickness than the weld. A professional engineer cannot stamp a set of design drawings without knowing the safety of the underlying structure.

Are any of the structural member sizes and thicknesses of the structure known? If not, we recommend a structural mapping be conducted to determine the exact size and thickness of the damaged members. This may be done as part of the remediation, but the repairs quoted may not be valid given the underlying structural configuration. For example, one of the repairs is at the base of the tower. This is desiring to remove a steel collar around the leg steel. Without knowing the thickness of the pipe underneath, the removal of the collar may inflict more damage on the leg, if the material is too thin and create larger structural issues than are attempting to be remediated.

Has a structural analysis been conducted on this structure in order to develop the technical drawings? This is essential for several reasons.

1. The first is that a rigging plan must be developed to ensure that any repairs being made have sufficient support so that should the repair go awry due to concerns above, such as the pipe is too thin for the weld and is damaged, the structure will be safe and the loads will be transferred through temporary support members. The rigging plan is an important part of the overall safety plan for the work to be performed. The TIA-322 standard governing the Loading, Analysis and Design Criteria Related to the Installation, Alteration and Maintenance of Communication Structures requires a Class IV Rigging Plan be developed whenever a tower’s structural integrity may be compromised during the construction, which is reviewed and stamped by a Professional Engineer. This means that for example, if you are doing any structural work on a tower, an engineer will complete an analysis to determine the safety of the upgrade and devise any construction means and methods to protect the structure during the work to preclude a failure.

2. In order to determine the adequacy of the repair (desired to bring it to either the members full capacity or the analyzed loads the member requires to support), we need to know either the member size and length to determine its capacity or we need to know what the member is required to support through the structural analysis. The remediation shown in the drawings may be sufficient, but without the underlying information a professional engineer cannot confirm nor stamp any design documentation.

3. The structural analysis will also determine the sufficiency of the welds desired. The weld must be designed to properly transfer the load to the new material and have the capacity to withstand the loads placed upon it. The drawings indicate design parameters that were incorporated into the drawings, which infers some form of structural design was completed. Also, the design drawings within the notes specifies the following:

The contractor and supporting engineer need to have the design documentation or the ability to reproduce it in order to be in compliance with the designers require Government Response – All existing steel collars are only called out for sleeve reinforcement, not removal. The purpose of the standard sleeve reinforcement is to restore the member to its initial specified cross-sectional area or better where there is loss of cross section due to corrosion. The exact wall thickness of the I.P.S size callouts on the as-built drawings is unclear.

Through research, it was assumed around minimum 1/8" wall thickness for the IPS members, so the 1/8" thick sleeve and 1/8" welds would match or be less than the connecting member thicknesses and provide adequate load capacity for the length of the pipes.

19. Question – will the facility supply water and power (208 single phase) for use by contractors?

Government Response - Yes, typical facility water supply and 110V power outlets are available. 208V is available from a facility interior location.

20. Question – Are brush/roll method and or spraying applications of coatings all approved methods of application?

Government Response – See section 2.2.3 of Specification 09 97 30.30 98. Brush application is only permitted for touch up on spray application.

21. Question – In the corrosion control/sequence of work #2-on the drawings on sheet S-001 states that all corroded steel members and areas specified shall be cleaned to an SSPC-SP5 which is white metal blast-which is the equivalent of a SSPC-SP10 or SSPC-SP11.However SSPC- SP11 is power tool to bare metal. Are we to assume that it was intended to SSPC-SP10 not 11 as the SSPC-SP10 is the definition of near white blast which is the equivalent of the SSPC-SP5 Government Response – Contractor shall use any SSPC method to achieve bare metal free of grease, oils, dirt and dust, drawing and cutting compounds, mil scale, rust, paint, and oxide coating. SP10 is acceptable.

22. Question – In the corrosion control/sequence of work #3- on the drawings on sheet S-001 states that the entire tower shall be cleaned to an SSPC-SP3 which is hand tool remove lose mill scale lose rust and lose paint or SSPC-SP6 which is commercial blast- to remove all coatings.

Are we to assume it was the intent to be a SSPC-SP7 which definition is a brush blast which is to remove all lose paint and lose rust?

Government Response - Yes, the intent is to remove all remaining loose paint and rust prior to applying coating. SP7 is acceptable as well.

23. Question – On the drawings on sheet S-001 in the sequence of work-Are we to provide testing of coatings on steel before work? Are we to provide testing of spent blast media?

Government Response - Contractor is required to provide test results demonstrating waste materials are not hazardous. Coordinate with the government/contracting officer for testing existing coatings prior to work.

24. Question – The contract drawing S-001 Corrosion Control/Sequence of Work state: Prior to the removal of any existing paint, the contractor shall conduct additional testing of the paint for heavy metals. Coordination with IRP will be required to ensure PCB/lead affected paint is not released on site.

Government Response - Contractor is responsible to take steps necessary to determine nature of waste resulting from the project. Government completed preliminary testing with a preliminary conclusion, indicated resulting wastes will be nonhazardous.

25. Question – Unclear and conflicting coating inspection specifications 3.4.1 Repair of Applied coatings. The coating applied is determined by the type of metal and exposure. Section 09 97 30.30 98 in the contract specifications, Table 1-Repair of Applied Coating. The second box in this table states, “Galvanized steel”. Please confirm. Is the tower constructed with galvanized metal?

Government Response – Due to age, it is unclear if original tower was galvanized.

26. Question – The surface preparation is determined by the coating manufactures recommendations and must be followed to provide the manufactures warranty. Does the government only want the 13 identified areas in the contract? drawings power tool cleaned.

And/or does the government want the structure abrasive blasted? Abrasive blasting greatly affects the project’s cost.

Government Response – All new or directly repaired materials are required to be blasted to bare metal, for appropriate corrosion control coatings. The rest of tower is to receive pressure wash for final coating.

27. Question – Can the government please provide Attachment labeled 45 SW Pressure Washing compliance.

Government Response – Will provide a Pressure Washing attachment.

28. Question – If the coating contractor is QP1 certified does the government still require a third-party NACE III inspector to perform the coating hold point inspections if the coating company is certified to inspect these hold points?

Government Response – Yes

29. Question – Does the government require an independent third-party NACE III inspector to inspect the QP1 company hold point inspections?

Government Response – Yes

30. Question – Are the coatings on this table to be used for the preservation portion of this project?

Government Response - Yes

31. Question – The manufacture sometimes must give alternative coatings because of availability or VOC incompliance. Will the government accept a manufacture recommendation for alternative coatings?

Government Response – No. If specified coatings create VOC noncompliance, alternatives will have to be considered.