Amendment 0004_RFP-RFIs Combined_6.5.2026.pdf

No. Contractor Question/RFI or Recommendation Government Response

The minimum requirements for section 11.5.3. Subfactor B-Key Personnel Qualifications states the Project Manager (PM) must be the Contractor’s primary point of contact and have the following minimum qualifications: 8-years’ experience on similar magnitude, scope, and complexity to this project; whose initial cost magnitude at contract award was equal or > $25M. This requirement is outlined for the Superintendent and Quality Control Manger. Considering these management requirements and the solicitation restricted to 8(a) participants, small disadvantaged businesses with limited resources, these requirements do not align with 8(a) capabilities. In accordance with FAR Subpart 19.8 – Contracting with the SBA 8(a) program, typical SBA-approved 8(a) Contractor’s capabilities are subject to projects with a lower magnitude, less complexity, limited scopes of work, and lesser project durations than what is required for this RFP. Will the government consider requiring Key Personnel qualifications similar to typical 8(a) set aside projects, i.e. $1M-5M project, design-build, military installation, etc.?

The language in the subfactor evaluation will not be modified as it is considered critical factor to the success of the project execution.

Specification Section 01 33 00, Submittal Procedures, addresses the requirements for generating and submitting required data for this project. Paragraph 1.5.1 states that ENG Form 4025 -ALT is to be used as the transmittal form for submitting this data to the government. Additionally, UFGS4288 is to be used as the submittal register format for this project. On prior Air Force projects, the Air Force has asked that the contractor use AF IMT 3000 as the transmittal document. Please confirm that the Air Force will accept the use of the ENG 4025-ALT as the Transmittal Document and UFGS4288 as the Submittal Register format.

The information contained within Specification 01 33 00 is accuarate for this projects requirements.

There is existing CAT6 cable that has already been placed on this project in some locations on the 2nd and 3rd floors. If the location of these existing CAT6 cables will support the new floor plan, may the existing CAT6 cables be left in place and re-used? Or does the Government want the contractor to remove all CAT6 (drop wire) and replace it with CAT6A?

KTR shall refer to 01 11 00 para 1.4.1.2.1.a(1) and 1.4.1.2.13.g

4 The government has stated that they are supplying the data switches. Does the government want the contractor to provide fiber jumpers?

Yes

Section J, Attachment 15, 15 RFI-Combined_Spec Updates, Tab 5 – COMM, questions 8 & 9 states that the government DOES NOT want the contractor to provide drops for WAPs or the WAPs (equipment) . However, Tab 016 – COMM questions states that the government DOES want the contractor to provide one NIPR drop to each WAP location.

Does the government want the contractor to provide one CAT6A Drop to each WAP location?

No, WAPs are not part of the project scope.

6 Does the government know where they want the contractor to provide drops for the future WAPs? N/A See Above Response to item #5

7 Does the government know how many future WAPs twill need to be placed? N/A See Above Response to item #5

If yes, how many and in what areas? (remember the Operations Area requires a minimum of a 30’ bubble around it, No WAPs).

See Above Response to item #5

Section J, Attachment 15, 15 RFI-Combined_Spec, Tab Non RFI updates line 14 says to provide a design in which the Operations Center is split in to two sides. Does the government want the contractor to provide a X-10 lock on the door separating these 2 areas?

Yes

10 Which side of the door will have the lock? Refer to end User Narrative in ATT-7 Conceptual Layout for the Operations Center

11 Does the government want the contractor to provide an cypher lock on the door separating these 2 areas? KTR shall refer to 01 11 00 para 1.4.1.2.7.b

12 Which side of the door will have the lock? See Above Response to item #11 13 Will the Operations Center have a separate (its own) NIPR Comm Room? KTR shall refer to 01 11 00 para and 1.4.1.2.13.d(3) 14 Will the Operations Center have a separate (its own) NIPR Comm Room? Repeat question 15 Does the government want NIPR to be CAT6A, or fiber in the Operations Senter? KTR shall refer to 01 11 00 para 1.4.1.2.13.g, the answer is no to fiber to workstations 16 If CAT6A, does the government want this to be shielded drop wire? Refer to UFC 3-580-01 for allowable cable types based on targeted space use.

Section J, Attachment 15, 15 RFI-Combined_Spec, Tab 005-COMM, question 41 states that the government DOES NOT want the contractor to provide PDU’s, but in the revised response to question 7 of RFI-005 Comm, the government it states that the government DOES want the contractor to provide PDU’s.

Yes, Refer to 01 11 00 para 1.4.1.2.13.e

18 Please clarify if PDU;s are to be provided. See Above Response to item #17

19 How many NIPR, and SIPR drops does the government want in their large conference table? Assuming this question relates to the Operations Center, assume to provide a total of 8 drops.

20 Will the HVAC installers be required to place “man-bars” on the ducts over 96 sq inches? KTR shall refer to UFC 4-010-05 for physical security requirements

21 Does the government want the contractor to provide media converters for the SIPR printer(s)? No

22 If yes, how many? N/A See Above Response to item #21

23 Is the government requiring a White Nosie system to be installed in the operations center along the hallway wall?

KTR shall refer to Specification 01 11 00 para 1.4.1.2.7.b(2)

24 Is the government going to require a White Nosie system to be installed in the operations center along the hallway wall?

Same question as above.

Is the government going to require a White Nosie system to be installed in the operations center along the Conference room walls?

See Above Response to item #23

Section J, Attachment 15, 15 RFI-Combined_Spec, Tab 005-COMM, question 83 states open 7’ data racks are to be used in the Comm Rooms. During the walk we noticed that there are 7’ data cabinets in at least 2 of the existing Comm rooms. These cabinets eat up all of the floor space and will not allow for the” sparing” required in the UFC. Does the government want the contractor to remove these cabinets and replace them with 2 Open Data Racks?

KTR shall refer to 01 11 00 1.4.1.2.13.e and layout design according to UFC 3-580-01

Or does the government want the contractor to use these 7’ data cabinets that are already in place and use open data racks in the remainder of the closets?

See Above Response to item #27

28 Does the government want 7’ data cabinets in all of the comm rooms? See Above Response to item #27

If the government wants the contractor to us these data cabinets, does the government want the contractor to provide fans for the cabinets?

See Above Response to item #27

Section J, Attachment 15, 15 RFI-Combined_Spec, Tab 005-COMM, question 88 states that the government DOES NOT want the contractor to provide cypher locks on the comm room doors, but in the revised response to this question it states that the government DOES want the contractor to provide keyed locks on each of the NIPR comm rooms. Does the government want the contractor to provide cypher locks on all of the NIPR comm room doors (FSH’s Standard)?

Question asks specifically about Kaba locks which are oftern interpreted to mean X-10 specifically. Refer to 01 11 00 para 1.4.1.2.13.d(4)

Project Title: DB - Repair Multi-Service Facility B2263 Project Location: JBSA-Fort Sam Houston, Texas

Section J, Attachment 15, 15 RFI-Combined_Spec, Tab 005-COMM, questions 7 and 41 states that the government DOES NOT want the contractor to provide PDU’s, but in the revised response to question 7 it states that the government DOES want the contractor to provide PDU’s in each of the NIPR comm rooms. Does the government want the contractor to provide PDU’s for every data rack/cabinet?

Repeat question. See Above Response to item #17

If the contractor is to provide PDU’s, are they to be provided for every data rack/cabinet including the spare ones with no equipment in them?

Yes

Many of the rooms on the prints do not show their usage. Does the government want the contractor to assume all of these empty rooms will have 8x10 cubicles in them and the contractor is to provide 2 voice drops and 2 data drops in every cubical RFI005 Question 91)?

KTR shall refer to Specification 01 11 00 para 1.4.1.2.1.a(1), ATT-7, and 1.4.1.2.13.d(6)

Does the government want the contractor to run all of the comm drops through the modular furniture and have them terminated in the modular furniture?

-KTR shall refer to Specification 01 11 00 para 1.4.1.2.8.c(1).

-The intent is for a future separate FF&E installer to run Comm cabling through the modular furniture and terminating at the furniture faceplate.

Or does the government want the contractor to run all of the comm drops and terminated them up high on the walls above the modular furniture, to avoid the furniture covering the outlets with the furniture walls?

KTR shall refer to 01 11 00 para 1.4.1.2.13.c(1)

The response on the RFI said to only place CATV drops in the Operations Center and nowhere else. Does the government want the contractor to provide CATV outlets in the Command Suite?

KTR shall refer to 01 11 00 para 1.4.1.2.13.1(2).b.

37 Does the government want the contractor to provide CATV outlets in the Breakrooms? No

The OSP cable enters the building in the middle of the building on the Stanley Street side of B-2263. There are four OSP fiber cables that are cut off right where they enter the building (at the entrance duct). There is also 600 pair OSP cable entering the building and terminated on PETs right where the cable enters the building RFI 005 Questions 97 & 98. Because of the difficulty and potential cost impacts of the entrance room/facilities, would it be possible to set up a meeting with the 502nd to discuss the best way to handle this design/UFC issue?

Please provide a specific question on the concern.

Is the government going to require one or two closed CCTV systems to be installed, in just the operations center, to monitor the Vestibule/Entrapment Areas?

There is no CCTV requirement within the Operations Center entrapment areas

40 If just one, which side will the monitoring station be located? The monitoring station will not be within the Operation Center

In the “non RFI changes” it says to provide a design for a future PA System. This would require the Fire Alarm Sprakers to be upgraded to PA System Quality to be able to use them for the future PA System. Does the government want the Fire system speakers to be upgraded?

The PA system referenced by specification 01 11 00 section 1.4.1.2.13.2 is meant to be stand-alone from the fire alarm mass notification system. As such fire system components do not need to be upgraded to PA system quality.

During the 65% or 95% review, is the government going to look for the DOR to provide:

a. Data rack details for each comm room?

b. Comm room overhead layouts and wall layouts for each comm room?

c. A riser detail for the Fiber cables and Copper cables in the building?

d. A cable tray layout for each floor?

e. A grounding and riser detail for the comm room grounding system?

f. Information on bonding and grounding the cable tray system or if a ground wire is required to be placed in the cable tray?

Refer to specification 01 33 16.00 30 section 1.3.14 and 1.3.15.

During the site walk it was observed that noted that under the previous contract the windows were installed with blast resistant steel framing and the floors had progressive collapse features applied to them. The Summary of Work is silent on any blast resistant or progressive collapse requirements.

KTR shall refer to Specification 01 11 00 para 1.4.1.2.1.1 and corresponding UFC reference.

Do blast resistant and progressive collapse requirements apply to this project?

If blast resistant and progressive collapse requirements no longer apply to this project, to what extent may penetrations or alterations be made in the existing floors?

KTR shall refer to Specification 01 11 00 para 1.4.1.2.1.1 and corresponding UFC reference.

Additionally, the building is a historical structure, therefore NO penetrations may be made without prior Section 106 Consultation with the JBSA Cultural Resources Office AND corresponding APPROVAL from SHPO.

Consultations do not occur until after 65% drawings are APPROVED by the Government.

Specification Section 01 32 01.00 30 addresses the requirements for the Project Schedule for this contract. This specification is written around the use of Primavera P6 as the scheduling software. Paragraph 2.1 and 2.1.1.2 state that software other then P6 would be acceptable for use as well. Paragraphs 2.1 and 3.3.7 address that the software must be capable of supporting the Standard Data Exchange Format (SDEF). SDEF compatibility is generally a requirement when the government intends to upload the schedule into their own evaluation software package. Is scheduling software other than P6 acceptable for use on this project?

As stated by specification 01 32 01.00 30 section 2.1, the offeror's chosen scheduling software must be capable of meeting all requirements of the specification.

Can the Air Force identify the software package they will be using that requires the contractor's scheduleing software be capable of the SDEF conversion capablity? Clarify scheduling requirements

No further explanation will be provided. Refer to response to item #45.

During the site visit it was noted that there were existing clay tile block partition walls in the attic that had openings that appear to have been used for duct penetrations. The duct work was removed under the prior contract. In addition there were multiple penetrations in the walls at the floor for the installation of the fiber that had been applied to the floor. Appendix B contains As-Built drawings for this facility. Appx B_B3_19880720_As-built, Sheet Number A-9.2 of 22, the Attic Floor Plan, identifies these partition walls as an Existing Clay Tile Structural Fire Stop Partitions. Are these openings to be infilled?

If these are to be infilled, do materials to be used need to meet historical requirements of the Cultural Resource Office?

Please advise if these openings are to be infilled.

Infill of the attic space dividing walls is required only where specified by code. Otherwise, existing openings in the attic space dividing walls can remain. Refer to the statement of work for other infill requirements.

Specification Section 01 11 00, Summary of Work, paragraph 1.4.1.2.j.12 states that the existing Juliette Railings that were previously removed are to be refinish and reinstall along the South facing side of building on the 1st and 3rd floors. Currently these railings have been stored on the South exterior of B2263. Appendix A, Attachment List, ATT-8, Inventory, does not include any information on the quantity of Juliette Railings being provided as Government Furnished Material (GFM).

Please confirm that there is sufficient quantity of railings required to comply with the Summary of Work. Please identify the number of windows that will require the railings, and the number of railings that are GFM.

-Onsite are 17 long railings and 19 short railings.

-There is not sufficient quantity remaining on-site for the number of windows requiring reinstallation. New railings must be fabricated per 01 11 00 section 1.4.1.2.7.j(12). KTR is responsible for verifying dimensions of existing and new railing to fit into appropriately measured openings.

Specification 01 11 00, Summary of Work, paragraph 1.4.1.2.1.a.(2) addresses the excess materials left behind in the facility and conex boxes and the salvage requirements. Paragraph 1.4.1.2.9.g addresses Fire Alarm System components that are to be salvaged by the Government. Paragraph 1.4.1.2.11.e identifies AHU equipment to be salvaged. Paragraph 1.7 identifies contractual requirements for Salvaged Materials and Equipment. Appendix A, ATT-8 provides an inventory of materials that were left behind. The exact location of individual materials items has not been identified. During the site visit on 26 May the government indicated that some of these materials are in the building and some are in the conex box(s), and that some of these materials could be used in conjunction with the renovation. if deemed to be serviceable. The condition of these materials has not been identified. The Summary of Work states the that the contractor is to allow the Government to identify materials that they wish to salvage and that all other materials are to be properly disposed of.

During the site visit it was mentioned that there was NO materials to be salvaged, if this is not the case, please identify the items that on the Inventory list that the Government wants as Salvage materials. This will assist the contractor in determining materials that need to be disposed of.

We understand that the majority if not all of the material in the conex storage containers is damaged and or outdated, and may not fit the new design. Please identify if there are any materials types that the Government would consider for use in the renovation effort.

Until contract award when roll off dumpsters can be provided by the KTR, no conex inventory can be assessed.

Therefore, offerors shall refer to 01 11 00 para 1.4.1.2.8.a.

50 Please provide the sign in sheets from the site visit held on 26 May 2026. Yes, Sign-in sheets included with Amendment 0004.

Specification Section 01 11 00, Summary of Work, paragarph 1.4.1.2.5.c(3) addresses the requirement for installing an accessible pathway to B2263. The pathway is to be located on the West side of the existing driveway on the West side of B2263. There is an existing tree in the proposed pathway. The root ball of the tree will not allow for a proper slope to be set that meets ABA compliance requirements.

1. Will the tree be removed so the pathway can be constructed to meet ABA compliance requirements?

2. If removal of the tree is not possible, please provide options for the path to be routed. Allow the tree to be removed or provide an alternate routing for the access.

-This is an assumption based on no definitive site investigation.

-KTR shall refer to 01 11 00 para 1.4.1.2.1.a.(1). As more than one design solution is possible, removal of the tree should not be necessary to accomplish the Government's requirement.

-Assume the tree cannot be removed due to historical preservation.

Reference the West stairwell/elevator access. The Southwest door to this stairwell is identified as the ABA access to B2263. The Summary of work does not address any requirements for tis door. Is the existing door ABA compliant or does it need to be replaced with a door that is compliant?

Please verify if the door is ABA compliant or needs to be replaced.

This should be part of KTR site investigations based on current ABA and UFC standards. KTR shall refer to Specification 01 11 00 para 1.4.1.2.7.a.(5)

Reference Section J of the solicitation, Attachments, attachment 01, Addendum to RFO 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services, paragraph 4, Team/Team Members(s)/Teaming Partner(s). This paragraph addresses teaming agreements with subcontractors.

Please verify the government is requiring teaming agreements to be completed for any subcontractors unless there is a teaming agreement in place. We understand the requirement contained in Evaluation Factor 1, Subfactor A - Subcontractor Relationships, is to provide history of working with proposed subcontractors.

However, to request any and or all subcontractors we intend to utilize to have a teaming agreement in place would not be feasible.

Please verify if Teaming Agreements are to be in place for all proposed subcontractors that the Prime Contractor intends to use on this project and, if so, in which volume they should be presented.

A teaming agreement would only be required if two contractors are submitting a proposal with the intent to use either past performance or other elements within the technical factors for consideration as an entity representing the proposal. A teaming agreement is not required for every subcontractor.

54 The solicitation for this project does not address if payment of State and Local taxes are to be included.

Please advise if the contractor is to include payment of taxes in the estimate.

The proposal cost submitted should be a total cost, including any applicable taxes, fees, etc. For additional information, please refer to RFO Clause 52.229-3

There are various requirements contained within the Summary of Work that indicate that any new penetrations for utilities are to be made below grade. Examples of this are contained in 01 11 00, paragraphs 1.4.1.2.7.j(13) and 1.4.1.2.13.g(2).

Currently there are a number of existing utility items that enter the building above grade. These include, but are not limited to, chilled water lines, electrical disconnects and the cable entrance box. Is it the intent of this solicitation to remove all existing utility entrances and penetrations that are currently above grade and relocate them below grade to meet CRO and SHPO requirements?

Please advise if all existing utility entrances and penetrations that are above grade are to be relocated below grade.

-01 11 00 section 1.4.1.2.7.j(13) speaks to existing penetrations not being reused. 01 11 00 section 1.4.1.2.13g(2) does not speak to exterior penetrations.

-Existing penetrations that will still be used do not need to be relocated below-grade unless some other factor outside CRO requires it.

Specification Section 01 11 00, Summary of Work, paragraph 1.4.1.4.11.c requires that the contractor make all necessary repairs to the existing elevator as a result of flooding to the machine room and pit. This paragraph also states that it is not the intent to replace the elevator.

Given the age and condition of the existing elevator, replacement parts may be difficult to obtain.

Would the government consider allowing the contractor to replace the elevator and all of its components if the cost of replacement is less than the cost of the repairs?

Please advise if the contractor's proposal could include replacement rather than repairs to the elevator.

Proof that all direct and incidental work for elevator replacement being less costly than elevator repair must be documented in Volume III of the offeror's proposal.

Specification Section 01 11 00, Summary of Work, paragraph 1.4.2.7.a(4) states that the existing built-in safe, located on the first floor of the facility, is to remain in place. During the site walk on 26 May 2026, a free standing floor mounted safe was observed sitting in the middle of a room on the first floor.

What is to be done with this free standing floor mounted safe?

Advise what is to be done with the free standing floor mounted safe.

Free standing safe to be properly disposed of by the KTR.

Section 12.1 states, "The Offeror must provide past performance information for the separate legal entity(ies) and other signatories to the Performance Agreement. If the Offeror proposes to have portions of the Summary of Work performed by an entity(ies) other than itself (e.g., subcontractors), it must provide relevant information concerning the past performance of the entity(ies). The Offeror bears the burden of demonstrating its past performance, therefore, the Offeror is required to provide sufficient data for the Government to properly evaluate past performance. The Offeror must submit a completed Past Performance Information Form (PPIF) (Attachment 09) for at least three (3) separate contracts."

Section 12.2 states, "Offerors must provide no more than five relevant contracts, as the higher confidence rating will be given to the submissions that demonstrate the greatest relevance within this limit."

(1) Please verify if "Performance Agreement" is the same as a Teaming Agreement.

(2) Please verify if subcontractors are to complete a PPIF if they are performing portions of the Summary of Work as noted above or if a description of their past performance in Subfactor A is sufficient.

(3) If PPIFs are to be submitted for multiple subcontractors performing portions of the SOW (e.g., electrical, mechanical, etc.), then we will exceed the number of contracts permitted in Section 12.2.

(1) Yes; this has been corrected and is reflected in the language at Amendment 0004.

(2) No; a PPIF is not required and will not be evaluated for subcontractors.

(3) Not applicable.

Section 8.3 states, "For each volume, provide a redacted copy of that volume. Information to be redacted must include Prime Contractor and Subcontractor names, logos, and emblems."

Please verify if the Offeror should use company-specific CAGE Codes for the above-mentioned information.

Updated Section 8.3 has been corrected and is reflected in the launage in Amendment 0004.

The current language in RFP Sections 11.5.1.1 through 11.5.1.4 requires that the subcontractor's scope of work and length of relationship be derived strictly from past contracts where the Offeror acted as the Prime Contractor over that subcontractor. To maximize SBA 8(a) program certified small business participation and ensure the Government receives the full benefit of enterprise-grade subcontractor capabilities, will the Government consider modifying this subfactor to allow Offerors to detail the relevant experience of a key subcontractor exceeding $25,000,000 (per Section 11.5.1.4) based on the subcontractor's independent past performance, supported by an exclusivity and teaming agreement for this specific solicitation?

-The language in the subfactor evaluation will not be modified as it is considered critical factor to the success of the project execution.

-Addendum to RFO 52.212-1, section 11.5.1 and subsections do not require that a subcontractor's work on a contract have been at least $25M. It is stating that the offeror's contract with the Government (or equivalent) must have originally been awarded for at least $25M. The value of the subcontracted agreement is not governed by these evaluation factors.

Additionally, will the Government permit Offerors to demonstrate an “established relationship” under Section

11.5.1 by submitting a documented pipeline history of collaborative, exclusive teaming arrangements on pending federal pursuits, formal Mentor-Protégé Agreements, or emerging Joint Venture vehicles?

-The proposed "documented pipeline history" approach may be used within the requirements established in

11.5.1 narratives.

-Per Addendum to RFO 52.212-1, section 11.5.1.1 to 11.5.1.4 describes established relationships as current or past contractual efforts.

-Please refer to Addendum to RFO 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Section 11.5.1.5 in Amendment 0004. "May include signed agreements specific to this solicitation to effectively show a positive working dynamic. However, pending federal pursuits (or equivalent) or pending agreements will not be considered."

-Please refer to Addendum to RFO 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Section 4 regarding MPs and JVs.

62 Are project labor agreements (PLA) be required on this magnitude of a project?

No, PLAs are not required for this project. An exception was approved by the Senior Contracting Official (SCO) on 1.23.2026.

RFP-RFIs Combined