Reposition Aircraft Mooring Points QA.pdf

Reposition Aircraft Mooring Points Questions

1. Solicitation Section C paragraph 1 provides definitions for “tie-downs” and “mooring points.” These definitions conflict with those provided in UFC 3-260-01 “Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design.” In this UFC, a “tie-down” is not defined but a “tiedown mooring eye” is “a mooring casting with a grounding rod attached” while a “tie-down anchor” is “a device to which lines tying down an aircraft are secured.” UFC 3-260-01 also defines a mooring point as “a mooring casting without a ground rod attached, used to secure aircraft” and is detailed in Figures B11-1 and B11-6. Please confirm that the definitions provided in the RFP for “tie-down” and “mooring point” take precedent over UFC 3-260-01.

The definitions stated in the Statement of Work Section 1. Second Paragraph “When “tie-down” is mentioned, it is a representation of the rod with an eyelet used to attach a chain that secures the aircraft in place. When “mooring point” is mentioned, it is a representation the cutout in the pavement surrounding the tie-down.”

When looking through the UFC stated in the question above, it seems like there are many different terminologies/definitions for means of securing an aircraft and every military branch has different means/standards. From the as-built drawings and existing site conditions, it seems like Laughlin AFB has been using these 10 foot rods as static grounds to tie-down the aircraft so we would like to match existing conditions. For this reason please reference Section 1 Second paragraph in the SOW.

2. Solicitation Section C paragraph 2.6 states “details for typical tie-down and mooring point demolition are shown in Conceptual Drawings (Attachment E). Attachment E, Conceptual Drawings, page one shows a detail that appears to be a typical “Air Force Static Grounding Point” as illustrated in Attachment B, UFC 3-575-01, Figure 2-2. Solicitation Section C paragraph

2.6 states to meet requirements of UFC 3-375-01 Section 2-3.3.1.1; however, this section states “For the Air Force. . . Static grounds may not be used as tie-downs.” UFC 3-260-01 Appendix B Figure B11-11 and 12 illustrate an “Air Force Aircraft Tiedown, Profile” and “Plan” details, and these details differ from RFP Attachment E. Please confirm that all “tie-downs” required by this RFP are to be per the sketch on Attachment E page 1, and the Contractor is not required to follow UFC 3-575-01 paragraph 2-3.3.1.1 and UFC 3-260-01 Figures B11-11 and B11-12 for their respective definitions of “tie-downs.”

All “tie-downs” are to follow the sketch on Attachment E page 1 and the as-built drawings provided. The Contractor is not required to follow UFC 3-575-01 UFC 3-575-01 paragraph 2-

3.3.1.1 and UFC 3-260-01 Figures B11-11 and B11-12 for their respective definitions of “tie-downs.” Most of what we have at Laughlin AFB consists of tie-downs made of copper clad steel, 10 feet long, and no less than 0.75 inch in diameter.

3. Solicitation Section C paragraph 2.6 states to meet requirements of UFC 3-375-01 Lightning and

Static Electricity Protection Systems Section 2-3.3.1.1. Please confirm that grounding required is only a “static” ground and a “power” ground is not required. If “power” ground system is required with less than 25 ohms then UFC 3-575-01 para 2-3.3.1.2 requires the grounding receptacle to be interconnected to the facility grounding grid with a specialized grounding receptacle detail per Figure 2-3.

Only “static grounding” is required. In previous projects involving, the replacement of said “tie-downs”, installing the 10 foot rod to the desired depth was enough to obtain a ohm reading of 25 ohms or less. The previous readings in other apron rows did not exceed 4 ohms.

4. Solicitation Section C paragraph 2.6 states to meet requirements of UFC 3-375-01 Lightning and

Static Electricity Protection Systems Section 2-3.3.1.1. Figure 2-2 in this section shows a #4 pigtail connected to the ground rod and presumably connected to other grounding rods/system. Paragraph 2-3.3.2 and 2-3.3.3 describes interconnecting tie-downs or grounding receptacles with bare copper cable and refers to UFC 3-260-01, Appendix B, Section 11 for layout. Please confirm that the Government does not require the new individual ground rods to be interconnected to other new ground rods or an existing grounding system.

The Government does not require the new ground rods to be interconnected to other new ground rods or an existing grounding system. The paragraphs stated in this question are referring to hangars not sunshades.

5. How many of the rows have sunshade covers? Please clarify specifically which rows include sunshades.

10 out of the 11 rows have sunshades. Rows Alpha through Juliet (A-J). Kilo (K) row is the only row without a sunshade.

6. SOW Paragraph 3.5 indicates that barricades shall be placed, and that no separation would be permitted between barricades. In the past on airfield projects, we have installed barricades with 25’ spacing between each. This will greatly reduce the cost of barricade rentals for the project. Will the government accept low profile barricades to be placed no more than 25’ apart with two red operating lights on each?

The Government will NOT accept spacing in between the barricades. All barricades must be interlocking with zero separation. This helps prevent the spread of foreign object damage.

7. Per the site walk, it appeared that each tail section tie down was in a striped area. Please confirm that after removal and repair that each of these locations will require striping to be repaired in accordance with Detail 4 of the Attachment E Conceptual Plans labeled Typical

Taxilane/Apron Striping Detail.

Correct. All striped areas affected because of construction (whether intentional or unintentional) shall be repaired in accordance with Attachment E Conceptual drawings labeled Taxilane/Apron Striping Detail and per the as-built drawings provided. If however there are differing site conditions in regards to pavement striping, the Contractor shall match existing conditions. The Contractor shall ensure all paints/materials used for striping are IAW UFC 3-260- 04 Airfield Heliport Marking.

8. Attachment E Page 4 Detail 5 Note 2 states, “Aircrafts tied down in shade structures adjacent to columns should use ground rods set in columns.” Will all new tie downs for aircraft adjacent to columns need to be connected to the existing shade structure grounding (Please note this will require a significant amount of trenching of existing concrete)? If so, please provide locations of existing shade structure grounding.

New tie-downs will NOT be required to be connected to the existing shade structure grounding.

9. Are tie-downs all considered independent grounds or is trenching to connect tie-downs to a common grounding system required?

All tie-downs are considered independent grounds.

10. Please confirm that only one row can be performed at any given time. If more than one row can be performed, please confirm how many rows can be worked at any given time?

Only ONE row can be performed at any given time in order to mitigate mission impact for flying.

11. SOW Paragraph 3.10 states the superintendent, and the QC manager shall not be the same person. Based on the limited area of work to reduce cost it is recommended that one person serve the role of Superintendent and QC Manager. Please advise if this is acceptable.

This is acceptable as same individuals as long as they meet both qualifications.

12. What is the duration for government review of each design package?

14 calendar days but review may be completed sooner if all essential personnel provide feedback earlier than 14 days

13. What is the duration for government review of each material submittal?

14 calendar days but review may be completed sooner if all essential personnel provide feedback earlier than 14 days

14. Per Section I Schedule of Material Submittals, the 65% and 100% Design package shall both be submitted during NTP 1 which has a total duration of 60 calendar days. Paragraph 4.4 indicates, “All materials shall be submitted within the specified time after issuance of NTP 1 and approved within the performance period of NTP 1.” The Period of Performance seems inadequate for submission and approval of designs and material submittals. Typically, on

Design Build projects we are not permitted to submit Material Submittals until 100% design has been accepted. It is recommended that Design and Material Submittals be separated into two separate NTP’s which each carry a total duration of 60 calendar days increasing the overall Period of Performance from 159 calendar days to 219 calendar days.

Government concurs with recommendation. Please refer to updated solicitation to new NTPs and duration of each.

NTP 1 (Design Only of 65%, 95%, and 100%) – 90 calendar days

NTP 2 (Material Submittals) – 45 calendar days NTP 3 (Construction) – remains at 99 calendar days

15. Paragraph 4.4 indicates that the contractor shall provide a 65% design and a 100% Design.

Please confirm that only two (2) design packages are required. If additional are required, please advise.

Update to Solicitation. There will be three (3) design packages 65%, 95%, 100%. As well as an entire NTP of 90 days.

16. Please provide GIS data of all utilities within the project area.

Utility data is available in sheet C-7 of both as built drawings. Only rows B and C have two sets of underground electrical for the GPU units (one on each end of the structure). All the other GPUs have overhead conduit leading to it. Most rows have underground utility going straight from row panel towards center of aircraft however, rows A, C, E, have underground utility running diagonally across the aircraft. After further site inspection Government confirmed the new position of the mooring points will not interfere with underground utility.

17. Please provide As-builts of the project area.

They have been attached.

18. Please provide pavement thickness at Rows A-K.

Unfortunately, the pavement thickness is not uniform on the apron and we do not have as-built drawings clearly indicating the location and thickness across the apron. Some other records indicate a minimum of 13 inches and up to 24 inches with an average of 18 inches.

19. Solicitation Section B indicates that repositioning rows J, I, and H are to be included in the Base

Bid Item 0001, and the other rows are to be separated into 4 different bid options. Solicitation Section C paragraph 4.4 gives requirements for design deliverables. Are the design deliverables included in base bid Item 0001 to include design for all rows (A through K), or should design for the respective rows be separated out per the Section B bid item schedule?

Design shall include all rows (A through K).

20. Please provide an overall layout of rows A though K that indicates the quantity of aircraft parking spaces.

Ultimate layouts can be seen in sheet C-3.1 and C-4 for Phase 1 and Phase 2 respectively. Row K

(Only uncovered row) has 10 parking spaces. Total parking spaces for rows A-K is 98.

21. Solicitation Section C para 2.6 states “fill the opening with high strength concrete or epoxy.” Please provide minimum strength and placement requirements for “high strength concrete or epoxy” (minimum compressive or flexural yield strength, ASTM requirements, etc.). For example, UFC 3-260-01 Figure B11-6 requires minimum compressive strength of 6ksi and placed in at least 2 lifts to be consolidated by vibration.

For this particular application, FAA recommends minimum compressive strength of epoxy/grout to be 5000 psi. In regards to application requirements 47th CES recommends to follow manufacturer recommendation for mixing and application. Due to small volume to fill each area, 47th CES does not see any issues with one lift.

22. Solicitation Section C para 2.6 states “fill the opening with high strength concrete or epoxy.” Please clarify that fill can be placed in one lift. For example, UFC 3-260-01 Figure B11-6 requires placement in at least 2 lifts to be consolidated by vibration.

CE recommends for Contractor to follow manufacturer’s mixing and application recommends for whichever approved product is used to fill tie-down/mooring points being demolished. Due to small volume to fill each area, 47th CES does not see any issues with one lift.

23. Solicitation Section C paragraph 2.7 infers that the Contractor may need to damage/relocate existing pavement markings as a result of construction activity. Has the Government performed any HAZMAT testing on these markings, and can these results be provided?

No testing has been done. The existing markings were installed in 2021 and due to regulations said paint does not contain lead and is classified as Class II non-haz waste. SDS for paints/beads have been provided.

24. Solicitation Section C paragraph 2.7 infers that the Contractor may need to damage/relocate existing pavement markings as a result of construction activity. Is the Contractor required to perform HAZMAT testing on these marking prior to removal? If markings are found to contain HAZMAT will the Government address removal in a contract modification after award/determination?

The Contractor is NOT required to perform HAZMAT testing. All existing airfield markings were installed in 2021 and per standards are Class II Non-haz. The only requirement the Government has for the Contractor is to collect the paint refuse and dispose of it properly at a landfill that accepts Class II non-haz waste.

25. Solicitation Section C paragraph 2.7 states that the Contractor shall ensure new pavement markings match existing pavement markings “and” are in accordance with UFC 3-260-0. Please confirm that if existing markings are not in accordance with UFC 3-260-0 then the Contractor is not required to bring them up to the UFC requirements but to only “match” existing.

All existing airfield pavement markings are up to code. The UFC was placed as an attachment of reference to ensure Contractor used correct material and installation practices as stated in said

UFC. If there are differing site conditions such as different colors or patterns of striping, the

Contractor shall match existing colors and striping.

26. Solicitation Section C paragraph 3.6 indicates location for water source is ECP#5 and states that the “Contractor shall ensure an adequate gap is implemented” when obtaining water. Please confirm that the Contractor is not required to use a temporary backflow preventer when obtaining water from ECP#5.

No backflow preventer required to obtain water from this source. As long as there is a gap from hose/nozzle of source to tank used by Contractor, no additional equipment will be required.

27. Solicitation Form 1442 block 13.b indicates no bid bond is required; however, Section L (page 60 of 68) Part I.d infers that a bid bond is required. Please confirm if bid bond is required.

The Contractor is required to submit bid bonds with proposal on proposal due date.

28. Solicitation Section C states “Work shall include removing existing tie-downs.” Attachment H shows four (4) tie-downs per plane: one combination tie-down/ground rod at nose, one on each wing, and one on the tail. During the site visit, some locations included more than four (4) per plane. Please provide a layout of tie-downs to be removed or confirm that the Contractor is only required to remove three (3) tie-downs per aircraft parking space.

Contractor is only required to remove three tie-downs, used for the wings and tail of aircraft.

Said layout is attachment H – proposed Mooring Point & Tie-down Locations.

29. Please confirm that mooring load testing per UFC 3-260-01 B11-2.2 is not required.

Load testing is NOT required

30. Please confirm that the Contractor will not be held responsible to meet minimum spacing requirements from existing control/expansion joints for new mooring locations as noted in UFC 3-260-01 Figure B11-6. These minimum spacing requirements could affect the required dimensions shown in Attachment H.

Contractor is not required to meet minimum spacing requirements from existing control/expansion joints for new mooring locations as noted in UFC 3-260-01 Figure B11-6.

31. Will static protection ground rods be needed only for the aircrafts?

Yes

32. Do the existing metal canopies have already static protection in place?

Yes

33. Is it lightning protection included in this project scope of work?

No

34. Does the government expect for metal canopies to be grounded for lightning protection?

No, that is not included in this scope of work.

35. If lightning protection is needed, how does the government expect it to be achieved?

Lightning protection is not in scope of work

36. What is the actual thickness of the existing Concrete Apron Slab?

Unfortunately, the pavement thickness is not uniform on the apron and we do not have as-built drawings clearly indicating the location and thickness across the apron. Some other records indicate a minimum of 13 inches and up to 24 inches with an average of 18 inches.

37. As per Solicitation statement of work "The Contractor shall provide the test results of the ground testing to the Contracting Officer (CO)." Please explain how the government expects for the contractor to do ground testing in concrete aprons.

In previous projects the Contractors would use an ohm reader to test resistivity and clamp the tie-down rod and clamp the stake that was included in their testing kit and insert that stake into the ground that is by the buildings on the flight line. There are several areas by each building that is bare ground and not paved. The distance from areas to farthest tie-down averages about 600 feet.