RFI_Responses_for_RIG-19_March_2015_with_Pictures.pdf

PDF 923 KB Posted

Attached to
FA2823-15-R-4009* Construct RIG Facility, Site C-3, Eglin AFB
Solicitation number
FA2823-15-R-4001
Issued by

About this file

RFI Questions and Responses 19 March 2015

View the file

Other files

Show all 11

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

RESPONSES TO THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

FOR

CONSTRUCT RIG FACILITY SITE C-3, FTA121174

19 MARCH 2015

1. E103 A Location of F/A and MNS Panels. The Panels that we use have a can that is 6 inches deep. The cover is an additional 6 inches deep. Would it be possible to move the

2 panels into Corridor 105 close to the front entrance?

Response: Yes, it is acceptable to move panels F/A and MNS to corridor 105 near the entrance door 105B. Furr out the wall to accommodate the panels from the jamb of

Door 105B to the jamb of the opening for Door 103A.

2. E103A Room 106 UPS. Is there no Pull Station by the exit doors?

Response: A pull station is required in Room 106 UPS and it will be contractor provided and installed by the exit door.

3. E506 General Note.

A. Does this General Note apply to the Transformer Ground Grid?

Response: Yes, it applies to the Transformer Ground Grid.

B. Does this General Note apply to all Grounding Locations in the Building?

Response: No, it does not apply to all Grounding locations in the Building.

C. Does this General Note also apply to the Ground Rods?

Response: Yes, it applies to the Ground Rods.

4. E601 Single Line Diagram.

A. The Water Main entering the building is 6 inch PVC. Does the bond need to be made at the riser before the Main Cut off, or after it on the copper lines?

Response: The ground connection to the water pipe is not required unless the water main piping is metallic.

B. The Bond to Structural Steel-does it need to be a Crimp on Lug or Exothermic

Weld? If it is a Crimp on Lug, is it permissible to drill through the Structural steel at the nearest location to the Ground Bar to attach the Lug?

Response: Either connection type is acceptable. Drilling the structural steel and attaching a ground lug would be preferable to the exothermic weld.

5. Reference: Drawings, Section and Details, Sheet 22 of 71. There are multiple locations where the continuous hooked rebar from the footers continues into the slab. It also is showing 3/8” pre-molded JT, with filler (Typ). Will the 3/8” pre-molded JT, with filler

(Typ) be required, as this is a monolithic connection between the footings and slab?

Response: The Sections shown on Sheet of 71 are correctly shown. It is not constructed as a monolithic connection and the 3/8” pre-molded JT, with filler is required. The concrete masonry unit is notched at the locations for the #5 hook @32” o.c. w/ #3 continuous. See the attached photos of another project using the same detail.

6. Specification 31 00 00 directs the Contractor to perform a geotechnical investigation, and to provide a geotechnical report. If there are differences between the structural design and recommendations in the report, will the government perform the redesign effort? Will adequate time be added to the POP for this effort?

Response: Paragraph 1.01B (3): The soil borings and geotechnical report are to be deleted from this section only. Due to previous construction at Site C-3 the government does not anticipate soil conditions to change within this geographical area. The Contractor is to assume that the soil conditions is Lakeland sand and the foundation design is based upon an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. If any unforeseen site conditions occur at the time of excavation, then this will be addressed to the Contracting Officer.

7. The POP seems tight if we are to perform a geotechnical investigation, which typically takes a couple of months. Please reconsider the POP.

Response: The Period of Performance shall remain as indicated in the contract.

8. Specification 31 00 00, paragraph 3. 02. B.1 states to over excavate footings if required by the Geotechnical report. How are we to bid an unknown quantity? The Government should add a bid option for over excavation and backfill. Same applies to paragraph

3.02.c.2, except concerns wet and or un-compactable soils.

Response: The soil borings and geotechnical report are deleted from the requirements which would no longer require the contractor to over excavate the continuous wall footing lines and/or columns footings. All other requirements as stated in Section 31 00 00 and the Contract Drawings still remain.

Blank Page

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .