12. YXTK 13-1806 DeLaHoz (20231114) Govt Responses.pdf

Question & Answer Template

Solicitation: FA252123B0008

Project Number: YXTK 13-1806

Repair Electrical Distribution Lines, Feeder 5, AAAF

Contractor Name: De La Hoz Builders, Inc.

POC: Chad Walters / James Hickman

Q&A #1

IFB Section Paragraph

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page DWG C-502; Pole Setting Detail

Other (Specify)

Question: The Pole Setting Detail on DWG C-502 shows an excavation profile of a pole which appears to be augered; however, it has been our experience on Ascension that in the majority of the cases the excavation of each hole cannot be performed in this manner given the existing soil conditions of the island. Instead, it will require the use of a trackhoe and a hydraulic breaker leaving the hole profile much more like a crater. Therefore, this will require much more concrete than the 4-inches shown in the detail and would require the pole to be temporarily supported while the concrete sets up. Typically, in the past for this type of installation, we have always backfilled and compacted around the poles using Red Hill fill in lieu of concrete. Please advise if Red Hill fill will be an acceptable alternative.

Government Response: Provide cast in place concrete foundation as described in construction drawings and Specification 33 71 01.00 40 Sections 2.1.2 and 3.1.2. However, the pole manufacturer's engineer may allow alternative foundations. As long as the pole, including foundation, can resist the environmental loads as shown in the contractor provided calculations, alternative foundations may be proposed.

Q&A #2

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page

Other (Specify)

Question: In the past we have always used Red Hill fill for backfill material, base material, bedding material, etc. Will this be acceptable for this project as well?

Government Response: Red Hill fill is acceptable for foundation base material. Vapor barrier is required between base material and concrete as noted on Sheet C-001 Foundations Note #7.

Q&A #3

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Section 01 00 00, Para 1.5

Other (Specify)

Question: Section 01 00 00, paragraph 1.5 (Pre-Construction Survey) calls for the contractor to

“perform a pre-construction survey to validate design conditions prior to mobilization.” It goes on to call for an “assessment report with shop drawings for any changes to the design scope, as verified in the field.” This would take place after award of contract. It would take months (to include training classes, theater clearance, on-site work, etc.) to complete and be very expensive.

Also, anything found would be treated as a differing site condition; the same way it would be treated if found during construction without the additional cost of the pre-construction survey.

Please confirm if the pre-construction survey is required or not.

Government Response: Adhere to paragraph 1.5 for Pre-Construction Survey requirements.

Q&A #4

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Dwg E-004

Other (Specify)

Question: Drawing E-004 shows a pole installation schedule that shows a GPS coordinate location for each pole. This information is also shown on the civil drawings at each pole. This is part of the design that is to be verified in the pre-construction survey. We believe this information was used as a tool to establish pole count; however, there is no way we will be able to install the poles at those exact coordinates as the landscape is very rocky in some areas. Also, with the ground being so hard, we will have to move poles often. We believe the intent is to maintain the maximum

200 feet spacing. Is this correct?

Government Response: (1) Electrical: Doesn't have an issue with exact pole location but the 200 feet spacing does need to be maintained. (2) Civil: No issues.

Q&A #5

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Section 01 00 00, Para 1.13

Other (Specify)

Question: Section 01 00 00, paragraph 1.13 (As-Built Record Drawings) talks about documenting all deviations from the drawings; however, for the most part, the design does not provide dimensions on the locations/items/equipment (i.e., manholes, handholes, guy anchors, SDS pads, etc.). As such, there is no deviation as long as we install the items in the same general area reflected on the drawings; however, the power/comm poles do have GPS coordinates provided. As stated in our Q&A #4, we will have to move numerous poles. To as-built all the poles after installation would require a surveyor crew and the amount of work cannot be done in a turn-and-burn;

therefore, they would be on island a minimum of 17 days. This obviously would be very expensive

Q&A #7 and we’re not sure if it is worth the gain. Please confirm if it is necessary or not.

Government Response: As built drawings are required.

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page

Other (Specify)

Question: Will our cargo and equipment be insured by the Government for the full value listed on the DD1149 during transportation to and from Ascension or will we need to take out additional insurance?

Government Response: The shipments are self-insured by the carrier. There is a process in order to submit a claim should damage occur while in-transit IAW Defense Transportation Regulation

(DTR) Part II, Chap 210 (Transportation Discrepancy Report), paragraph O.

USC9 is the contract used for the sailings. Below is an exert from USC9 contract about claims:

2.1.5 Increased Liability for Lost or Damaged Cargo. Lost or Damaged Cargo. The contractor is required to deliver cargo to final destination in the same condition it was tendered by the shipper.

The contractor is liable for cargo that is lost, damaged, or in any way altered from the tendered condition. For all bookings, the contractor is liable for lost or damaged cargo up to the COGSA liability limitation, or the actual amount of the loss or damage to the cargo, whichever is less.

Should a shipper desire to declare the value of its booked cargo in an amount greater than the

COGSA liability limitation, the shipper will order the “increased value” at the time of booking and a one time only (OTO) rate will be solicited in accordance with Exhibit Four for the additional coverage.

2.1.6 A “booking” covers all cargo booked under a single PCFN and the contractor is liable to the shipper for lost or damaged cargo up to the amount declared in the booking, or the actual value of the lost cargo, whichever is less.

2.1.7 Notice. Government claims shall be submitted to the contractor within 3 years of the accrual of a claim. However, the Government will take all reasonable steps to provide notice of loss as soon as it is discovered.

IFB Section C Paragraph 4.3

Other (Specify)

Question: Within Section C of the IFB, paragraph 4.3 (Retrograde Shipments) states “Return sea transportation from Ascension Island to Port Canaveral is limited but available.” Please advise how often these shipments are available, are they direct from Ascension to Port Canaveral, and how long do they take?

Q&A #6

Q&A #8

Government Response: Reference SF 1442, Section C, Para 4.3 Retrograde Shipments. The request for return of equipment will need to be processed through the Ascension base operations support contractor (ABOS / Yang Enterprises) Shipping and Receiving section no later than the cutoff date on the vessel shipping schedule (note the cargo cutoff date is the same for both southbound and northbound shipments). Once processed through Shipping and Receiving the equipment will be kept at their designated shipping area. The construction contractor will no longer have access to the equipment. Because each Ascension vessel is contracted as a stand alone procurement through

USTRANSCOM there may be instances where there is not enough return cargo for the carrier to accept the items for return. The items may have to wait until the next scheduled vessel when there is sufficient cargo for the carrier to accept. In other instances, the vessel may take the return cargo but make other stops on the way back to Port Canaveral which extends their return sailing time.

Historical retrograde shipment information ranges from 2 to 8 months from when the equipment is manifested for return to actual return at Port Canaveral.

Other (Specify)

Question: It is our understanding that gasoline is available for purchase off-base. Please provide the hours of operation and average cost for the fuel.

Government Response: Fuel prices are set at £1.50 per litre at this time and opening hours are

1630hrs to 1830hrs on Mondays and Thursdays

Q&A #9

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page

Other (Specify)

Question: DWG C-424, Detail BF show a new underground communication line to be installed along the eastside of Transmitter Road; however, the match line refers you to Sheet E-409 instead of another civil drawing which typically shows existing utilities and/or structures in the area. When you look at Sheet E-409, Detail L, it appears to be missing a layer on the drawings as the flag notes are pointing to blank areas and the building is not shown; therefore, the exact entry point is unknown. From looking at the electrical drawings and in follow-up to the 11/08/23 site visit, it appears the duct bank will also be crossing through an existing parking lot not shown on the drawings. Please identify the entry point for the underground communication duct bank, any existing utilities in the area, and photos of the existing conditions/connection point inside the facility.

Government Response: Sheet E-409 was updated to show missing layer. Missing layer identifies entry point. Updated Sheet E-409 incorporated as Attachment 14.

Q&A #10

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page

Other (Specify)

Question: At the end of Pyramid Point Road near the radar facility, there are warning signs on the existing utility poles advising on the danger of the radar facility. Is the Government going to provide new signs or is it the responsibility of the contractor?

Government Response: Government will re-install new signs.

Q&A #11

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page

Other (Specify)

Question: It appears that the radar facility has limitations on working around the facility during normal operations. This could interfere with the installation of poles and cable due to their elevations. It’s our understanding that there is very limited time in which to work at those elevations. Please clarify access restrictions.

Government Response: Operations in this area that would impact work occur a few hours per week.

Government inform the contractor when the area is off limits.

Other (Specify)

Question: Are there any weight or size restrictions for cargo and/or equipment being offloaded at the pier head on Ascension? If so, what are they?

Government Response: Asension offloading weight restriction is a maximum of 35 Tons.

Preference is 20’ seavans, but there is the ability to lift 40’ seavans. Maximum allowable weight for the loaded seavan containers (20 TEU (twenty foot equivalent unit)) is 15T (30K lbs). The vessel carrier does not use tri-axel chassis to move the seavans.

Q&A #12

Q&A #13

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Dwg E-404

Other (Specify)

Question: DWG E-404, Flag Note 6 calls for conductors to be tied into the existing transformer located in Facility 800; however, during the 11/08/23 site visit we could not access the facility.

Please provide photos of the inside of Facility 800 and the transformer which we are to tie into.

Government Response: Reference Attachment 21, Photos, Facility 800

Q&A #14

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Section 26 08 00, Para 3.4

Other (Specify)

Question: As numerous facilities and power distribution components are affected by the Feeder 5 upgrade, please confirm/clarify the coordination study scope to start at 15KV Main Switchgear, then 15KV Switchgear Feeder F5, then all interconnected 15KV distribution switches, down through step down transformers and including facility main service distribution panel main breaker.

Government Response: Confirmed

Q&A #15

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Section 26 08 00, Para 3.4

Other (Specify)

Question: Please confirm/clarify that the Coordination Study deliverables shall include short circuit calculations, device interruption rating evaluation, load flow/voltage drop study, protective device coordination analysis, arc flash study and arc flash label preparation, and final protective trip units settings at affected 15KV Solid Dielectric Switch units.

Government Response: Need protective device coordination study and final relay settings.

Q&A #16

IFB Section F Paragraph

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page

Other (Specify)

Question: Due to lead time of materials, the scope of work required, vessel scheduling, along with crew flights, 660 days does not seem realistic. Will the Government consider a PoP extension?

Government Response: The number of days identified in Specification Section 01 00 00, Para

1.17.1 did not take into account the variable logistical timeframes associated with shipment of material from Port Canaveral to Ascension Island utilizing the contracted vessel that is limited to 5 sailings per calendar year. Further review by the Government determined that it was appropriate to increase the total period of performance from the stated 357 days to 660 days. The stated on site period of performance of 297 should still be used as the basis for direct costs associated with on site performance. The Government will consider a no-cost revision to the period of performance to account for lead time and shipping, if necessary, under the conditions of an excusable delay (FAR

52.24-10, Default (Fixed Price Construction)).

Q&A #17

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Dwg C-103

Other (Specify)

Question: Are there any known hazardous materials located in the ground in the POL/Catherine’s

Point area? Who is the RAF point of contact for work in this area? What, if any, are the restrictions of access to this site?

Government Response: There are no known hazardous materials located in the ground at

Catherine's Point. Contractor will coordinate with Government or Government representative for access to the area.

Q&A #18

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page

Other (Specify) General Site Conditions

Question: What are the permitting requirements from the Ascension Island Government for excavation and/or special conditions for environmental/wildlife concerns? Is there a specific point of contact for this? Are there any specific site surveys required prior to construction?

Government Response: Contractor is not responsible for any environmental permitting. However, any construction activity performed outside the US Government leased property will need to be coordinated through Ascension Island Government (AIG) Conservation. The point of contact is the

Director of Conservation and Fisheries, Diane (Dee) Baum, diane.baum@ascension.gov.ac

Q&A #19

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Section 01 74 19, Para 1.11.3

Other (Specify)

Question: Where is the demolished material to be relocated? Do all wooden poles require to be stripped of all mechanical devices, insulators, and ground wire prior to removal? Shall any removed equipment be turned over for reuse to the base?

Government Response: All waste debris will be disposed of locally in the landfill. Contractor will be instructed where to place the poles. Poles are to be stripped of all attachments.

Q&A #20

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Dwg C-502

Other (Specify)

Question: Please confirm what size communication hand holes are required.

Government Response: Communication handholes are to be minimum 4' x 4' x 4'.

Q&A #21

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Dwg C-502

Other (Specify)

Question: It was observed on the site visit that there were several guy anchor blocks laying on top of the ground. Per the guy anchor detail, are these to be buried or can they be located as needed to achieve proper tensioning?

Government Response: Guy anchors may be installed as required provided all proposed guy anchors and medium voltage cabling are tensioned in accordance with Specification Section 33 71

01.00 40 Section 2.2.2 and Section 1.3.2 Sag and Tension Calculations.

If above grade anchorage is proposed, ensure the engineer of record for the pole is in agreement with the method of anchoring and that the location of the proposed anchor does not conflict with or obstruct existing to remain infrastructure or pathways and is not located within five-feet or a buried utility.

Q&A #22

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Dwg E-001, Grounding Note

Other (Specify)

Question: It has been our experience on Ascension and as seen during the 11/08/23 site visit, the sea ground is typically routed atop the ground. As such, can the new sea ground be routed atop the ground and routed U/G at the road crossings? Also, please confirm the size of the existing sea ground conductor.

Government Response: Grounding general note 4 pertains to when ground conductor is installed under roads or designated areas called out in the drawings. Flag note 7 on sheet E-410 is an example of new #4/0 AWG sea ground conductor is installed on top of soil.

Q&A #23

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Dwg C-501, General Notes

Other (Specify)

Question: Multiple communication/electrical raceway sizes are noted throughout the details and drawing notes. Please confirm that 5” PVC is an acceptable raceway size for use for both communications and electrical systems on this project.

Government Response: Sheet E-001, Electrical General Note 3 states all new MV underground ducts are 6-inches trade size. For communication, UFC requirement is for a minimum of 4” and is the design intent; however, this is a minimum and if 5” facilitates constructability it is acceptable.

Q&A #24

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Dwg E-101, Flag Note 1

Other (Specify)

Question: Flag Note 1 states that all direct buried communications cable is to be removed. As such, can the Government provide an estimate as to how much is U/G and approximately how deep?

Government Response: Design team believes there is direct buried communications at the following locations:

- From existing HH-11 at Catherine Point Road and Gannet Road Junction to Facility 12240 at

RAF POL site and SURE Facility.

- From existing pole 52A at command control to Facility 12225

- From existing pole 72 to Facility 41011

- From MH-53 to Facility 16545

Q&A #25

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Dwg E-408

Other (Specify)

Question: At the bottom right of DWG E-408, it reflects “90% Design Review Only – Not For

Construction”. Has anything changed since the 90% design review and/or is a 100% drawing available as a slip page?

Government Response: Sheet is intended for 100%. 90% watermark on sheet is incorrect.

Q&A #26

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Dwg E-003, Note 2

Other (Specify)

Question: Note 2 states “Terminate new fiber to existing fiber optic patch panels in each facility.”

Can the Government provide the make and model of these units?

Government Response: Contractor responsibility to identify.

Q&A #27

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Section 27 13 23.00 40, Para 2.2.1

Other (Specify)

Question: Is the replacement cable ATTTIC stock to be turned over to the Government?

Government Response: Reference SF 1442, Section C, Para 9, Excess Material. Contractor shall turn over all excess material using the DD Form 1149. Turn over will be coordinated through the

Contracting Officer.

Q&A #28

SOW/Technical Specification/Drawings paragraph/page Dwg C-408, Detail T

Other (Specify)

Question: DWG C-408, Detail T shows an underground communication duct bank going to

Facility 12240; however, during the 11/08/23 site visit, it appeared that this line will be crossing a concrete driveway which is not shown on the drawings. Please confirm if this is correct and advise if any additional items (i.e., concrete/road crossing and/or any utilities) found in this area are not identified on the drawings.

Government Response: No existing survey or utility information was available at the time of design. Per Specific Note #10 on Sheet C-408 "Coordinate with the Royal Air Force and MITIE for trenching and communication routing through Catherine Point Site to Facility 12240".

Match existing pavement and refer to Communication Ductbank at Road Cross Detail on Sheet

C-501 for pavement restoration.