FA282317R4027_Amendment_0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this Amendment is to incorporate the Questions and Answ ers dated 15 June 2017. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 2

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Jun-2017

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X

FA282317R4027

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-May-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

15-Jun-2017

CODE

AFTC/PZIO EGLIN - FA2823

308 WEST D AVE. BLDG 260 STE 130

EGLIN AFB FL 32542-5418

FA2823 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA282317R4027 Requests for Information – Amendment 0003

June 15, 2017

Q1. It is requested that we be allowed to submit the 50 Division Cost Breakdown within 24 hours after the scheduled bid hour. The price would not change, but would allow the proposer to provide more accurate information within the breakdown. The breakdown at bid time would be very inaccurate (even if it were to be provided) as we receive bids right up to the scheduled bid hour. We could receive prices at 1:30-1:50 PM that would make our breakdown totally inaccurate and difficult for your office to evaluate.

A1. The 50 Divisions Cost Breakdown shall be provided by the proposal due date and hour. We expect the Offerors to have established business relationships with their subcontractors and the ability to receive subcontractor proposals in a timely fashion in order to meet the proposal due date and time.

Q2. Please confirm that we are required to include the minimum amounts of $10,0000 for As-built drawings, and

$5,000 for O&M manuals, as noted in specification section 01 32 01.00 10 paragraphs 3.3.18.1 & 3.3.18.2.

A2. Yes, or the percentages indicated.

Q3. The specification indicated that prior to issuance, the manufacturer of the existing system was not confirmed.

Do we now know the manufacturer of the system, and the Enterprise Network Server?

A3. In reference to the existing fire alarm panel/equipment – the manufacturer of the existing equipment is

NOTIFIER by Honeywell. We do not anticipate the Contractor having to mess with the Enterprise Network Server;

we simply need any new/modified products installed in the work of this project to be recognized by the on-site

GWEF NOTIFIER system.

Q4. Can the site superintendent also be the SSHO per spec section 01 35 26, para. 1.6.1.1?

A4. Yes, in accordance with 01 35 26 paragraph 1.6.1.1.1.

Q5. Is there a requirement for an onsite QC manager? There is no specification for this and want to confirm none will be required, and if one is required, can this person share management roles as the site superintendent or SSHO.

A5. There is not a requirement for an onsite QC manager, but this does not alleviate the Contractor from fulfilling quality requirements.

Q6. Per spec section 01 32 01 00 00, para. 3.6.1, will the contractors scheduler be required to be onsite for the monthly schedule updates or can this be performed via teleconference?

A6. This can be done via teleconference.

Q7. Per Spec section 01 11 00, para. 1.5 it states the government will provide *491 access floor panels for the new raised floor system. This is only 1964SF if the GFCI panels are the standard 2x2 size. However, it appears there is approximately 3365SF of new flooring per drawing A-111 room finish schedule. Please verify that the government will indeed supply all the new access floor panels per the room finish schedule on drawing A-111 and the contractor will not need to follow the specification section 09 69 13 "Rigid Grid Access Flooring" in regards to the floor panels noted.

A7. The 491 floor panels are in addition to the existing floor panels, which were installed relatively recently. It is possible that the number of existing floor panels will suffice for the remodel effort. The Government will supply all floor panels by virtue of the 491 overstock coupled with the number of existing floor panels.

Q8. Due to soil condition bearing capacity and anticipated foundation thickness. The net bearing capacity will be low. Can alternative foundation systems be explored other than mat foundations?

A8. Absolutely, but keep in mind that the issue isn’t necessarily a bearing one – we’re much more concerned with the isolation, containment and control of the equipment vibration to ensure that the equipment stays in place and that it doesn’t affect, and isn’t affected by, adjacent machines, equipment and structure. In a nutshell the purpose of the concrete foundation (aka “pier”) is to not only isolate the system from building (and other equipment) vibrations, it also has to isolate the building (and other equipment) from system vibrations.

Q9. The RFP specifies maximum foundation dimensions of 14’x20’x6’ deep. The overall dimensions will be dictated by the loading criteria. If the loads exceed the maximum allowable bearing capacity, alternative foundation systems will need to be provided. Please confirm if the dimensions of the pad may expand or if the use of alternative foundation measures will be allowed.

A9. The overall maximum equipment foundation dimensions were determined based on preliminary engineering calculations and the limitations imposed on us by the existing building foundation system. We wanted to stay away from existing column footings and the strip footing beneath the exterior wall, and to ensure that we didn’t disturb the bearing soils beneath them. The new equipment load was not considered to be the great concern. The mass of concrete supporting the equipment is meant to offset/cancel-out the moment of inertia(s) generated by the equipment. It is the multi-dimensional movement capability of the equipment atop the pier that is the critical issue.

Envision a very large CNC lathe machine that is very intricate, exacting and methodical in the manner in which it operates. We want to make sure the lathe stays in place while it’s working (i.e. little to no movement), that it’s able to produce the final product we’re looking for (i.e. minimized vibration of the machine while carving away), and that it’s not affected by movements of the building, adjacent machines or other processes that are going on simultaneously (i.e. a nearby lathe machine isn’t causing this one to fail, or vice-versa). The dimensions given are the maximum that we believe will fit in the space.

Q10. How many simulator pads will be on the new simulator, i.e., bearing points?

A10. We anticipate that the equipment will have a continuous, flat base, somewhat similar to how the head of an engine bears atop the engine block itself. Likewise, the equipment (head) will attach to the pier (block) at a number of points along its perimeter by anchor bolt. The number of pads required will actually be dictated by analysis of how to best separate the concrete pier from the adjacent supporting soils. Refer to the UNISORB Foundation

Isolation Solutions website for a more elaborate explanation.

Q11. Please provide the static vertical tension load per pad.

A11. The information cannot be disclosed to any degree of exactness or certainty since the information regarding the equipment is proprietary; therefore more exact information is to be provided to the awardee. For proposal purposes the information can be determined by the various axis forces, equipment weight and maximum pier dimension information that was provided in another response.

Q12. Please provide the static horizontal shear load per pad.

A12. The information cannot be disclosed to any degree of exactness or certainty since the information regarding the equipment is proprietary; therefore more exact information is to be provided to the awardee. For proposal purposes the information can be determined by the various axis forces, equipment weight and maximum pier dimension information that was provided in another response.

Q13. Please provide the dynamic loads induced on the foundation which include vertical compression, vertical tension, and horizontal shear.

A13. 22,500# overall equipment load

1920 ft-#-sec2 about Axis 5

590 ft-#-sec2 about Axis 4

145 ft-#-sec2 about Axis 3

50 ft-#-sec2 about Axis 2

0’ offset on X axis to center of gravity

3.75’ offset on Y axis to center of gravity

5.5’ above pier to center of gravity

4950 ft-#-sec2 base inertia about X

6150 ft-#-sec2 base inertia about Y

Q14. If alternative foundation methods are necessary, may access be provided through the exterior wall with a temporary opening? The opening would be closed after installation of the new foundations. This may be the only feasible way to install the new foundation system without major retrofitting of the existing access floor systems.

A14. No access through the exterior wall will be permitted; Numerous other similar foundations have been installed in this Building.

Q15: Since the contractor is providing the structural engineer and design for the simulator foundation, will the government delay the NTP after the structural design is approved? This is the only way this project can be completed on time within the allotted 160 calendar days per the RFP.

A15: The government has no intention of delaying the NTP – there is ample work to be performed while foundation issues are being dealt with. The data above has already been taken into account in the maximum pier dimensions provided.

Q16. Please provide a schematic drawing of the new simulator that is to be installed on the new isolation pad so we can see the connection points to the isolation pad.

A16. A more detailed drawing, or portions of a drawing, will be provided to the successful bidder. For bidding purposes, assume that there are twenty (20) connection points via embedded anchor bolts at equidistant points along the perimeter of the equipment (refer to the engine head/engine block analogy above). The top dimension of the pier will be much larger than the footprint of the equipment – which is where the analogy differs – the equipment base will not “mate” with the concrete pier in the manner that an engine head mates with an engine block.

Q17: Will the government provide the anchor bolt system for the simulator installation? If not, please provide the connection details so we can estimate the anchor bolt plan.

A17: The government will provide the anchor bolt criteria as far as location/spacing/sizing goes at a later date. For bidding purposes assume there will be forty (40), ¾” diameter x 12” long, Hilti-type anchor bolts connecting equipment to pier.

Q18. Will the contractor have to access the work area through the main entrance each day or can we access the work area from the loading dock area since we are to be escorted for this work? We acknowledge that we will have to leave all electronics in our vehicles while working within the facility.

A18. We envision the contractor accessing the work area(s) via the loading dock area, and not using the main entrance. We intend to limit the areas that are accessible to contractor personnel for both our sake, and vast majority of the work will occur in the northwest quadrant of the Building off the loading dock in that region.

Q19. What is the load capacity of the existing access floor in test control area 109?

A19. Assume the existing elevated flooring rolling load capacity is 1000# for 10,000 passes.

Q20. Will this project require Ultrasensitive Smoke Detection to protect the Flight Motion Simulator Area?

A20. No.

Q21. Will an Air Aspirating Smoke Detection System be required to protect the underfloor spaces in lieu of regular smoke detectors?

A21. No.

Q22. The fire alarm drawings do not indicate any fire alarm device associated with AHU-11, will duct smoke detectors, relays, and remote indicator test stations be required?

A22. There are existing devices in the AHU-11 system that we do not anticipate needing replacement, though there might be a need to relocate some of them a bit depending on the configuration of the new AHU-11 machine.

Q23. Although not shown on the drawings there is a reference in specification section 28 31 63.00 20; 1.3 - SD-02:

to “Provide detailed drawings of the Graphic Annunciator”

At the site visit for this project on 6/5/17, behind the desk in the Lobby there is a large wall mounted fire alarm LED graphic annunciator, it was indicated that this annunciator is not part of the existing fire alarm system.

Please verify and confirm that there is no required work associated with this annunciator.

Adjacent to that annunciator is a Notifier Onyx First Vision Enclosure in which the electronics have been removed.

The Onyx First Vision is an Interactive Graphic Display which displays the Alarm locations.

Is it anticipated that this device will be reinstalled and be active before the end of this contract?

If so, is there any obligation under this contract for the fire alarm contractor to provide any associated work with this device, including modification of the bit map floor plan for the area of construction?

A23. There is not work associated with the annunciator located behind the reception desk. It is not anticipated that the Notifier Onyx will be operational before the end of this contract, and we do not expect the fire alarm contractor on this project to have to work on this particular piece of equipment.

Q24. Would you provide a sketch drawing of the existing isolation concrete foundation to be removed?

A24. The existing foundation is basically 10' x 14' x 4' deep; Assume there's 0.018% temp/shrinkage steel in there as well.

Q25. Please confirm that the removal of the acoustical insulation panels in the existing Test Chamber E-109A is not in the contractor's scope of work.

A25. The removal of the acoustical insulation panels is not in the contractor's scope of work.

Q26. Please confirm that the removal of the floor-to-deck metal partition separating the existing Test Chamber E-

109A and Test Control Area E-109 is not in the contractor's scope of work.

A26. The removal of the existing metal test chamber walls is not in the contractor's scope of work.

Q27. What is the thickness of the acoustical ceiling tile and grid? It's not shown in the specifications.

A27. The specifications allow for the contractor to suggest products that meet the requirements listed in Section 2 of

Section 09 51 00; Thickness of the tile and associated grid system will be dependent on the selected ceiling tile that meets the light reflectance, sound, CAC, etc. requirements described.

Q28. At the site visit there was comment made about re-using the existing access flooring, please confirm, do we need to include furnishing any new rigid grid access flooring?

A28. Re-use of the existing access floor system is at contractor's discretion, and is encouraged to be done to the extent possible; however, Government suggests that contractor have a "Plan B" for supplementary materials.

Q29. New communications cabling and outlets are government installed. Per drawing E-100 Electrical Demolition

Plan shows existing data outlet, associated wiring and conduit to be removed back to source. Please furnish location of communication rack for removal.

A29. The communication rack is located in Room 225; however, the existing communication rack does not need to be removed.

Q30. Who is responsible for the deactivation and reactivation of the Advantor devices deleted and/or relocated which has to be completed by Advantor?

A30. The Government will take care of deactivating and reactivating the Advantor devices affected by the work of this project.

Q31. Will the Advantor system be required to stay armed during construction?

A31. The Advantor devices associated with the work of this project will not need to be armed during construction, though we may keep the Room 146A ones active.

Q32. What is depth of the existing concrete?

A32. The existing equipment pad is 4’ thick, approximately 2.5’ of which is below grade.

Q33. Is there any restrictions on noise or vibration for jackhammer or saw cutting during work hours?

A33. No. Once we have an established construction schedule we’ll plan around it if it becomes problematic.

Q34. Is pumping concrete through building an option?

A34. If that means pumping from the loading dock area, down the corridor to Room 109/109A/109B, then yes. If it means pumping through an existing exterior wall penetration to Room 109A/109B, then yes. Otherwise, probably not.

Q35. Will the Government provide any additional simulator load criteria? This includes horizontal dynamic and static loading, along with tension dynamic and static loading.

A35. Not at this time. In response to another Offeror’s question the following information was provided:

22,500# overall equipment load

1920 ft-#-sec2 about Axis 5

590 ft-#-sec2 about Axis 4

145 ft-#-sec2 about Axis 3

50 ft-#-sec2 about Axis 2

0’ offset on X axis to center of gravity

3.75’ offset on Y axis to center of gravity

5.5’ above pier to center of gravity

4950 ft-#-sec2 base inertia about X

6150 ft-#-sec2 base inertia about Y

Q36. Will other alternative foundation solutions be acceptable if mat foundation does not meet the loading criteria?

If not, may the size of the pad increase to accommodate the bearing stress forces induced on the soil?

A36. Absolutely, on the alternative foundation option. Probably not, on the increase in size possibility. The overall maximum equipment foundation dimensions were determined based on preliminary engineering calculations and the limitations imposed on us by the existing building foundation system. We wanted to stay away from existing column footings and the strip footing beneath the exterior wall, and to ensure that we didn’t disturb the bearing soils beneath them. The new equipment load was not considered to be the great concern. The mass of concrete supporting the equipment is meant to offset/cancel-out the moment of inertia(s) generated by the equipment. It is the multi-dimensional movement capability of the equipment atop the pier that is the critical issue. Envision a very large CNC lathe machine that is very intricate, exacting and methodical in the manner in which it operates. We want to make sure the lathe stays in place while it’s working (i.e. little to no movement), that it’s able to produce the final product we’re looking for (i.e. minimized vibration of the machine while carving away), and that it’s not affected by movements of the building, adjacent machines or other processes that are going on simultaneously (i.e. a nearby lathe machine isn’t causing this one to fail, or vice-versa). The dimensions given are the maximum that we believe will fit in the space.

Q37. To access the simulator foundation area, moderate size equipment may be necessary. May the Contractor provide a temporary opening through the exterior wall to as this area? This new wall opening will be designed by a

Professional Engineer and secured by the Contractor.

A37. No, to the exterior penetration.

Q38. Will the Government provide cut-sheets for the simulator pad locations for foundation design by specialty engineer?

A38. The number and location of simulator “pads” are to be determined by the specialty engineer to achieve the desired isolation of the equipment from adjacent structure. The equipment itself will be anchor bolted to the top of the foundation/pier. The Government will provide a more definitive anchor bolt pattern to the Awardee.

Q39. Are the only submittal requirements for the solicitation be those provided in Section L?

A39. Yes.

Q40. Is the 50 Division Cost Worksheet to be provided in Volume I and III?

A40. Please provide in Volume I only.

Q41. Some areas states there is to be an original and one copy while some other areas show original and two copies.

Please specify.

A41. Amendment 0002 has an updated Section L to make it uniform with Block 13A of SF1442. Please provide original and two (2) copies.

Q42. For Attachment J, is the offeror to only enter the banking institution and company name information?

A42. Amendment 0002 has update Attachment J to include a Point of Contact for the financial institution. Please provide the name of the financial institution, a Point of Contact, their email address, and line item #1.

Q43. Can we use our own form in lieu of Attachment H for Past Performance Information sheets as long as it does not exceed one page per project?

A43. No, please reference Section L Paragraph 2.3.4.1.

Q44. What are the restrictions for construction access? Will there be times when required for shut down? Will a contractor-supplied guard be required?

A44. The restrictions are that construction access is to occur during Normal Working Hours as defined in the

Specifications, and that contractor personnel are to be escorted by Government personnel. There may be times where the contractor is shut down, and this possibility is further defined/described in the Specifications. A contractor-supplied guard is not required.

Q45. Can the offer date be extended a week to allow adequate time following the site visit for pricing?

A45. The due date has been extended to 22 June 2017 at 1300 (01:00 PM Local Time), see Amendment 0002.

Q46. Is the jib crane mentioned in specification section 01 11 00 -1.5.2 to be furnished by Prime Contractor?

A46. Yes

Q47. The hydraulic pump foundation design requirements in specification section 01 11 00 – e, calls for the 24 in.

thick foundation to be flush with the top of the raised access floor, however, the raised access floor is shown to be only 20 in. high on 2/G002. The Floor Plan – Demolition on A-111 does not show demolition of the existing concrete slab at the Pump Room, so that would put the top of the concrete foundation 4 in. higher than the raised access floor. Please clarify.

A47. 2/G002 shows an 18” high raised access floor height so that the entire floor elevation remains constant across rooms 109, 109A & 109B. Section 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.6.e describes the need for a pump assembly foundation that is anticipated to be 6’-8” wide by 8’-5” long by 24” deep to accommodate the hydraulic equipment rack. The

24” in estimated depth described would be from raised access floor elevation down … so, in other words, the bottom of this foundation would be roughly 6” into the existing concrete floor below (not 4” above raised access floor). In reality though, the final hydraulic pump assembly rack horizontal dimensions will require the sawcutting of the existing concrete floor to the depth necessary to accommodate the design depth required. And it’d only make sense to sawcut full-depth, which in this instance is roughly 7”, which would result in a foundation that is closer to 25” deep overall. Regardless, the elevation of the raised floor is the overriding factor, coupled with the need to isolate this foundation from adjacent concrete floor/building (which might preclude leaving 1” of concrete floor anyhow).

FA282317R4027

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

(End of Summary of Changes)