S. Pre-Bid Questions CE Response LATEST.pdf

# Question GOV Response

May you provide the sign in sheet for Saturday 21 January 2023 pre site visit? At this time the sign in sheet for the pre-site visit on Saturday

21 January 2023 will not be provided.

Section L, Item L-2 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Part 3.- Part III – Past Performance: Are CPARS required? If so, do they go under item a or item b? Our CPARS contain either 3 or 4 pages. Will the 2-page limitation be increased to allow for all pages?

CPARS are not required, it will be at the offerors discretion to submit CPARS and will fall under item b. The page limit is increased from 2 to 3 pages.

Section L, Item L-2 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Part 3 – Part III – Past Performance: The Past/Present

Performance Questionnaire provided under Attachment R in the solicitation documents contains 3 pages. Is this form required for all of the projects submitted? If so, do they go under item a or item b? Since the form contains 3 pages, will the 2-page limitation be increased to allow for all pages?

Submission of PPQs will be at the offerors discretion to submit and will fall under item b. The page limit is increased from 2 to 3 pages.

The Past/Present Performance questionnaire provided under Attachment R shows the completed form should be send to Ms. Tacy Boje at tacy.boje.1@us.af.mil or Lt. Candice Arcuri at candice.arcuri@us.af.mil. Is it required to go to

Ms. Tacy Boje since she is not listed as a contact for this project? Do we copy Ramon Marrufo at ramon.marrufo@us.af.mil instead?

Please direct all communications in regard to this solicitation

FA3099-23-R-0001 to Mr. Ramon Marrufo

(ramon.marrufo@us.af.mil) and 1st Lt Candice Arcuri

(candice.arcuri@us.af.mil).

Section L, Item L-2 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Item E3, it says that “cover pages shall be considered in page count, therefore it is recommended to minimize the use of it”. To be clear, are separation tabs between items included in the page count?

Yes, separation tabs between items are part of the page count.

On the SF1442 Solicitation Under Item 10, sub-item 4 “Complete the ‘Contractor Information’ in Section G –

Contract Administration Data and return it with an offer”. Where is the “Contractor Information” section in Section

G?

Please disregard item 10, sub-item 4 refenced in the SF1442.

Section L, Item L-2 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Part 1 – Part I – Price Proposal “e. Sign and return the RFP in its entirety, to include any amendments to the solicitation”. We are already signing the SF1442 and acknowledging any amendments. Do we need to sign and submit all 67 pages of the RFP and amendments?

Yes, please sign/submit the SF1442, acknowledging any amendments with all 67 pages of the RFP, and amendments.

Typical Section 1 on drawing C-10.02 shows Existing 2-Course Surface Treatment on Existing Crushed Limestone

Base in pavement section O06C. However, borings B-1 through B-4 shown on drawing G-1.09 that represent this section don't indicate any crushed limestone base being present. The existing underlying material will be difficult if not impossible to properly compact. Please advise.

The scope of work for this project does not include any compaction of the sub-grade. Only mill and overlay the existing asphalt per the 100% Design Drawings

Because there is no existing crushed limestone base in pavement section O06C as indicated in typical section 1 on drawing C-10.02 and no new base shown under the Double Bituminous Surface Treatment in pavement section

O06C how should the finished grade be adjusted to meet the proposed grades shown on the drawing C-5.01 and the on the cross sections shown on drawings C-10.08, C-10.09 and C10.10?

The scope of work NO LONGER requires to alter the grade as outlined in the 100% Design Drawings. The Contractor shall match the existing grade when performing a mill and overlay

During a review of the drawings it has been discovered that the Boring Logs shown on drawings G-1.09 and G-1.10 don't show any existing crushed aggregate base under the existing pavement. This doesn't match the cross section shown on drawings C-10.01, C-10.02 and C-10.03 that all show existing crushed limestone base under the existing pavement. Please advise.

The scope of work for this project does not require to alter the sub-grade. Only mill and overlay the existing asphalt

The typical cross sections for pavement section O07C (detail 4 on drawing C-10.02) shows that the asphalt pavement is to be placed on the exiting crushed limestone base. However, the borings don't show any existing crushed limestone base. Is it the intent of the government that the new asphalt pavement be placed directly on the existing dirt subgrade? Compaction of the existing dirt subgrade will be difficult to obtain.

Correct, the scope of work requires to remove and replace the existing asphalt as outlined in the 100% Design Drawings.

Drawing G-1.02, general note #3 states that a geotechnical investigation was performed by Arias and Associates in

2014. Please provide a copy of this report.

See Attachment S-1 Geotech Report

On Drawing C-2.02, the hashing shown in the sheet legend is contradicted by the section cuts shown on this sheet.

Please confirm whether the hashing in the legend is referring to the correct demolition details.

There is a mistake on Drawings C-2.02. Cross Section Detail

6 on Sheet C-10.03 should be Detail 1 Sheet C-10.03

On drawing C2.02, the hashing shown from station 198+56 to approx.. station 200+05 refers to detail 2 on C-10.03, showing 4" of asphalt pavement demolition. The corresponding plan sheet C-4.02 refers to detail 1 on C-10.01 from station 199+51 to 200+05, and this detail only shows 3" of asphalt being installed in this area. Please confirm whether the station range from 199+51 to 200+05 requires 3 or 4" of pavement demolition and new asphalt.

The demolition for this section shall be 4 inches

On drawing C2.02, the hashing shown from station 203+50 to station 204+28 refers to detail 6 on C-10.03, showing

3.5" of asphalt pavement demolition. The corresponding plan sheet C-4.02 refers to detail 1 on C-10.01, showing 3" of asphalt being installed in this area. Please confirm whether this station range requires 3.5" or 3" of pavement demolition and new asphalt.

The demolition for this section shall be 3.5 inches

On drawing C2.02, the hashing shown from station 205+44 to station 206+48 refers to detail 6 on C-10.03, showing

3.5" of asphalt pavement demolition. The corresponding plan sheet C-4.02 refers to detail 1 on C-10.01, showing 3" of asphalt being installed in this area. Please confirm whether this station range requires 3.5" or 3" of pavement demolition and new asphalt.

The demolition for this section shall be 3.5 inches

On drawing C2.02, the hashing shown from station 206+48 to station 208+54 refers to detail 8 on C-10.03, showing

3.5" of asphalt pavement demolition. The corresponding plan sheet C-4.02 refers to detail 1 on C-10.01, showing 3" of asphalt being installed in this area. Please confirm whether this station range requires 3.5" or 3" of pavement demolition and new asphalt.

The demolition for this section shall be 3.5 inches

The typical cross sections for pavement sections T16C, O08C, O09C and O10C shown on drawing C-10.03 all show that the asphalt pavement is to be placed on the exiting crushed limestone base. However, the borings don't show any existing crushed limestone base. Is it the intent of the government that the new asphalt pavement be placed directly on the existing dirt subgrade? Compaction of the existing dirt subgrade will be difficult to obtain.

The scope of work for this project does not require to alter the existing sub-grade.

On drawing sheet C-10.05, the north (RWY 13) end overrun shows the installation of yellow chevron markings with retro-reflective beads. On drawing sheet C10-06, the south (RWY 31) overrun shows the installation of yellow chevron markings without retro-reflective beads. Attachment E, UFC 3-2260-04, “Airfield and Heliport Marking” states in general note #3 on Figure 5-7 that Chevrons do not require application of retro-reflective beads. Please clarify whether each overrun requires retro-reflective beads or non-reflective yellow chevron markings

The overruns REQUIRE retro-reflective glass beads

Attachment S - Pre-Bid Questions GOV Response LATEST

Repair Overruns on Center Runway

FA3099-23-R-0001

20 Is the government willing and planning to supply onsite laydown area for asphalt plant and asphalt lab?

The Government can provide a laydown area for asphalt plant and lab but the Contractor shall submit a proposed laydown area for this to the CO for approval. NOTE: No approval is guaranteed and it is NOT likely that this laydown area can be on the airfield.

As this project is for overruns construction, is the government willing to entertain a different asphalt mix based on local superpave materials, due to the lack of availability of Marshall mix?

Yes, however please provide data/specs sheet of materials/method to the CO for Government review and approval

22 Based on requests for material pricing, P-409 Asphalt pavement for this contract is not currently available in the area.

Contractor respectfully requests the option to substitute the proposed asphalt pavement with Portland Cement

Concrete Pavement (PCCP).

The Government respectfully denied the request to substitute the proposed asphalt pavement with Portland Cement concrete pavement. The Contractor shall apply Asphalt and

Portland Cement concrete IAW with 100 % Design

Drawings & Design Specifications.

Based on request for material pricing, P-209 Aggregate base is not available in the area. Contractor respectfully requests the option to substitute the proposed aggregate base with TXDOT specs aggregate base.

Substitutions may be accepted as long as the proposed substitute meets the specifications as stated in the SOW under section 2.2.20.

In the Project Design Drawings, several references are made describing alternate work. The solicitation does not provide an Item for pricing the alternate work. Should the alternate work be included with the Base Bid?

Alternate work is not included in this solicitation however the design drawings do mention some "alternate 1 and alternate 2" work. These are a result of some discrepancies in design. Alternate 1 consists of the sections labeled O10C which is now mandatory for this scope of work. The only work that shall be included in the base bid can be seen on section 2.2.12 in the SOW stating double bituminous surface treatment (DBST) of section O06C and mill and overlay for sections O07C, T16A, O08C,O10C, and O09C

Airfield operations will be ongoing during construction. Measures shall be taken to ensure the least amount of impact. 1.0 SOW

Unable to provide a response based on the information submitted.

This project has already been fully designed by URS. Will the contractor be required to create CAD Record

Drawings from the original CAD Files to be provided by the government? Or will the contractor only provide red-lines which the government will provide to URS to create the Record Drawings?

The Contractor shall only provide red-lines to the

Government.

There is contradictory specification information provided in the bid documents. Attachment B 100% Design

Specifications appears to have been prepared January 30, 2015 and has not been updated since that time. The government has provided a supplemental specification Section 32 12 15.13 which is dated October 2021. Please confirm we are to use Section 32 12 15.13 from Attachment H in lieu of that included in Attachment B

Please follow Section 32 12 15.13

28 SOW Section 2.0 states, “removing/installing new arresting system duct/bank/net anchoring system. Section 2.1.1.3 states, “Provide and install new arresting system duct bank/net anchoring system.” Please confirm that we are only providing the duct bank/net anchoring system and are not providing nets as these does not appear included in the

Statement of Work

The Contractor is not required to replace the nets but the

Contractor is required to provide all equipment, labor, and means to remove and store the nets prior to the construction of this project. If nets are damaged by the Contractor the

Contractor shall replace these nets at no additional cost to the

Government. Specs are provided for nets, see attachment S-2

Nets Data.

29 If we are to provide and install the net please provide model, manufacturer, install details, etc.

The Contractor is not required to replace the nets but the

Contractor is required to provide all equipment, labor, and means to remove and store the nets prior to the construction of this project. If nets are damaged by the Contractor the

Contractor shall replace these nets at no additional cost to the

Government. Specs are provided for nets, see attachment S-2

Nets Data.

G-1.03 provides phasing requirements for Phase 1. It shows a barricade detail going across the work area for 31C.

Please confirm that barricades are only required across the runway to close off the area and that the entire work area does not have to be encapsulated by barricades.

Barricades are only required across the runway. Please refer to G-1.06 in the 100% Design Drawings for additional details

Please confirm per G-1.06/2 that in areas where barricades are required, they must be spaced 8’ maximum apart.

Correct, please follow barricade as shown on sheet G-1.06 detail 2

32 Detail G-1.06/2 shows each barricade to have two flashing red lights and an 18” x 18” flag. Typically, we have only been required to provide the red flashing lights. Can the 18” x 18” flag be eliminated?

The flags are NOT REQUIRED on the barricades and it is the Governments recommendation to NOT use them to mitigate FOD

G-1.03 and G-1.04 Note 10 states, a free zone will be established during construction to include the overrun construction areas and defined haul routes. The contractor shall supply and maintain all barricades, markings, flags, signs, and other boundary markers at no additional cost to the government. Please clarify if barricades and/or other markings are required for these areas. Please provide specific parameters for barricades, distance between, etc. if required.

Please follow barricade details as shown on sheet G-1.06 detail 2 in the 100% Design Drawings. Barricades are only required across the runway and DO NOT have to encapsulate entire construction area. Temporary Runway and Taxiway

Closure Markings are no longer required.

G-1.04 Note 11 mentions a flag man being required to direct construction traffic crossing taxiway G. Please confirm no work to be performed on taxiway G and that it will remain open.

Please reference section 2.2.7 of the SOW. A Flag man will no longer be required for this project since all aircraft traffic will not be using Taxiway Golf during construction of 31C overrun in order to avoid FOD/dust damage to aircraft.

Taxiway Golf will remain open to emergency vehicle response traffic and will remain open during construction of

13C overrun.

C-1.01/C-1.02 indicates a significant amount of erosion control to be installed, for instance straw wattle that appears to be hundreds of feet. This would have seemed more appropriate if the project included full depth pavement reconstruction which would have disturbed soil, but since the project is now Mill and Overlay will the government reduce the amount of Straw Wattle required on this sheet and/or eliminate it? This would reduce costs for what appears to be unnecessary based on the current scope of work.

Yes we could reduce the amount of erosion controls since not as much soil is going to be disturbed however, there should still be some and we want to ensure inlets are protected.

SOW Paragraph 2.2.15 states the contractor shall submit any major variation in materials and locations in the Erosion

Control Plan in the 100% Design Drawings. The Erosion Control is shown on C-1.01 and C-1.02. As we do not believe the current scope requires grading or full depth construction any longer, we recommend controls shown on these sheets be eliminated as runoff will not be an issue.

It is likely they can be eliminated however we will need the contractor to submit a map of the area to be disturbed and the controls they plan to use. This includes the areas where trucks will be driving on grass etc.

C1-01/C-1.02 includes a significant amount of area with a symbol representing seeding and mulching which appears to encompass 11 acres. Please confirm that we are to hydroseed the areas shown on this sheet?

Only dirt/grass areas disturbed will need to be repaired/hydroseeded. This includes the areas where trucks will be driving on grass etc. The Contractor shall submit a map of the area to be disturbed after issuance of NTP #1.

If hydroseeding is required in areas identified on C-1.01/C-1.02 will watering of these areas be required after final inspection. If so, this would result in significant cost for someone driving a water truck for nearly a 90 day period until the grass is established because temporary irrigation is not recommended for these large areas. Currently vegetation is not growing in these areas. Please advise.

The Contractor shall provide all equipment, labor, materials, and means necessary to restore disturbed areas to their original condition or better. The Contractor shall also follow any additional requirements outlined in the permit obtained by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

C-1.01/C-1.02 has a designation indicating grading limits. The scope of work makes no mention of grading on the outside of the runway. It also does not indicate any specific grading requirement. Is grading required as part of this project?

The Contractor shall only match the existing grade in this project. The Contractor may disregard any details in the

100% Design Drawings outlining the change of grade.

If grading is required on this project, please indicate the specific scope of work as it pertains to grading?

The Contractor shall only match the existing grade in this project. The Contractor may disregard any details in the

100% Design Drawings outlining the change of grade.

41 C-2.01 indicates existing base cans and PCC slab removal for 10 stations. Is this still part of the scope of work? If so, can more information be provided pertaining to these base cans?

Yes, this is part of the scope of work. Base can are 3 feet long 3 feet wide. Depth was not able to be determined but pictures have been provided.

42 C-2.01 indicates existing base cans and PCC slab removal for 10 stations. Is this still part of the scope of work? If so, can more information be provided pertaining to the PCC slab be provided (Length, Width, Depth).

Yes, this is part of the scope of work. Base can are 3 feet long 3 feet wide. Depth was not able to be determined but pictures have been provided.

C-2.01 indicates two concrete pads to be removed. Per Note 5, removal shall be to a minimum depth of 3’ for concrete slabs. What is the length and width of these pads?

One pad is 11 feet by 100 feet. Four pads are 12 feet by 8 feet and include some bolts. Pictures have been provided.

44 C-3.02 shows removal of chevrons (base bid). Are these required to be removed or just removed or just remove during the milling process in this area?

Just removed as part of the process of mill and overlay. The

Contractor shall re-apply Chevrons once mill and overlay construction for the overruns are complete.

Sheet C-4.02 shows all of the work to be done for Runway 31C. Please confirm that both sides of Taxiway G can be done in the same phase instead of two separate phases with Taxiway G being closed.

The Contractor may perform construction for 31C as one phase as long as they do not barricade across Taxiway Golf in order to allow emergency response vehicles to still drive through Taxiway Golf. It is the responsibility of the

Contractor to provide all materials, equipment, labor, communications, and means to allow emergency response vehicles to drive through Taxiway Golf without impeding their response times.

Please confirm that all references to Alternates can be ignored.

All references to alternate 1 and alternate 2 can be ignored.

However, please keep in mind that in the 100% Design

Drawings, "Alternate 1" consists of the section labeled

O10C which is now mandatory for this scope of work. The only work that shall be included in the base bid can be seen on section 2.2.12 in the SOW stating double bituminous surface treatment (DBST) of section O06C and mill and overlay for sections O07C, T16A, O08C,O10C, and O09C

Quotes from the supplier of anchor disc assemblies are quoting lead times of 200 days. How will this be incorporated into the 245 calendar Period of Performance?

If this occurs, the Contractor shall provide documentation/justification and the additional time required will be added to NTP #1 to ensure the required materials are received prior to issuance of NTP #2.

Please confirm 1/C-10.13 does not apply since the work only includes mill & overlay and therefore no new grading of the pavement will be performed.

The scope of work NO LONGER requires to alter the grade as outlined in the 100% Design Drawings. The Contractor shall match the existing grade when performing a mill and overlay

It is recommended that straight edge testing as required by Attachment H Section 32 12 15.13 1.6.9.1.1 be eliminated from the specification since these are overruns where planes would be caught by a net so surface smoothness is not critical. This will help to reduce cost in an area where precise pavement smoothness is not critical. These areas should focus more on compaction, mix stiffness, and strength. Please confirm straight edge surface smoothness testing can be eliminated.

Straight edge smoothness testing can be eliminated

Availability of hot mix asphalt in Del Rio is a very scarce commodity. Please confirm per Attachment H Spec 32 12

15.13 that a PG binder used by the state highway department in the area is acceptable as this will be the most readily available material.

Substitutions may be accepted as long as the proposed substitute meets the specifications as stated in the SOW under section 2.2.20.

The revised SOW Paragraph 2.2.11 and 2.2.12 no longer requires full depth pavement replacement but instead just mill & overlay. Since only mill & overlay are required, are we still required to install a new arresting system grade beam on both ends as shown on C-4.01 and C-4.02 for installation of new net anchor discs?

Yes, the Contractor is still required to install a new arresting system grade beam on both ends

SOW Paragraph 2.4 references three phases. Paragraph 2.2.7 states that contractor is no longer required to re-stripe center line of taxiway Golf or provide flaggers because Taxiway Golf will be closed. Please confirm whether the project can be done in two phases with the closure of Taxiway Golf?

The Contractor may perform construction for 31C as one phase or two phases as long as they do not barricade across

Taxiway Golf in order to allow emergency response vehicles to still drive through Taxiway Golf. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to provide all materials, equipment, labor, communications, and means to allow emergency response vehicles to drive through Taxiway Golf without impeding their response times.

Striping of the Taxiway Alpha centerline does not appear on the drawings. SOW Paragraph 2.2.7 references re-stripe of the Taxiway Alpha centerline. Please confirm that this is required since it is not shown on the drawings.

Please ignore this statement in the SOW. The Contractor is

NO LONGER REQUIRED to re-stripe the Centerline of

Taxiway Alpha since aircraft will not be using Taxiway

Alpha during 13C construction.

SOW Paragraph 2.2.3 requires a FAA Form 7460-1 to be submitted and indicates that approval can take up to 60 days to process. Section 2.3 only provides 59 calendar days for NTP 1. Based on the FAA Form 7460-1 requirement, it is recommended that NTP 1 be a minimum of 75 calendar days.

If this occurs, the Contractor shall provide documentation/justification and the additional time required will be added to NTP #1 to ensure the required submittals are received prior to issuance of NTP #2.

SOW Paragraph 2.3 provides durations for NTP’s. Please confirm that NTP 3 and NTP 4 will be combined.

NTP 3 and NTP 4 shall NOT be combined for this project.

Please reference section 1-16 Phasing in the 100% Design

Specs.

NTP 2 outlines work labeled Phase 2A in the 100% Design

Drawings which refers to the south (31C) overrun between center runway and Taxiway Golf.

NTP 3 outlines work labeled Phase 2B in the 100% Design

Drawings which refers to the south (31C) overrun on the south end of Taxiway Golf.

NTP 4 outlines work labeled Phase 1 in the 100% Design

Drawings which refers to the north (13C) overrun.

The Contractor may combine NTP 2 & 3 if they do not barricade across Taxiway Golf to allow emergency response vehicles to still drive through Taxiway Golf and the

Contractor shall provide all materials, equipment, labor, communications, and means to allow emergency response vehicles to drive through Taxiway Golf without impeding their response times. The Contractor shall not work on both north and any south overruns at the same time due to safety and flying mission impacts.

Please confirm that Profilograph Testing is not required since we are only doing overruns (not runways, taxiways, or landing zones).

This testing is not required

SOW Paragraph 2.2.20 allows for a superpave mix in lieu of a marshall method. Please confirm attached TXDOT approved Superpave Type C PG76-22 mix is acceptable for this project

Substitutions may be accepted as long as the proposed substitute meets the specifications as stated in the SOW under section 2.2.20. See attached S-4 Superpave C PG70-22

Specs