Civil Works Responses to Questions.pdf

CIVIL WORKS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

28 Jun 2011

Question #1:

Please specify whether the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SW3P) required per page 46 of the RFP, item HF021.3.v.1, shall 1) be a general SW3P plan prepared for projects at Hurlburt Field (site specific plans would be required later) or 2) be based on the seed project Statement of Work to construct a new 6” water main and repair the parking lot.

Answer: 1SOCES has determined that a SW3P is not required as part of the

Technical requirements for either the Basic IDIQ or the Sample Project.

However, a Quality Control Plan is required as part of the Technical requirements for the Basic IDIQ. The Seed project is being deleted from this acquisition and an amendment will be posted to Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website.

Concur

If the SW3P will be based on the seed project from #2 above, the following questions/information will be required to make a proper submission.

1. The site, as illustrated in the layout provided with the SOW called “CONSTRUCT WATERMAIN / REPAIR HURLBURT PARKING LOT”, will not disturb more than one acre including the 465 LF of new water main, repair of parking lot, and proposed adjacent area for material laydown/storage, etc. Therefore the site does not qualify for a small site SW3P according to the FLDEP. Is this site considered part of a larger common plan of development that will ultimately disturb five acres or more as defined by the FLDEP General Permit (FEB 2009)?

If not, is preparation and submission of a SW3P required?

2. Please provide a project location map to determine the location of receiving waters/impaired water bodies, nearby MS4, latitude/longitude, soil types, etc.

3. Please provide information related to onsite topographic contours with nearby existing drainage facilities.

4. Provide NEPA report for Hurlburt Field or confirm there will be no environmental impact or protection required for endangered species or historic features.

Answer:

I think you have the Seed project and Technical project confused. Your question refers to the Technical project and the answers are as follows:

1. No, SW3P is not required.

2. A map is not required to meet the technical requirements for this project.

3. Information is not required to meet the technical requirements for this project.

4. Information is not required to meet the technical requirements for this project.

Question #2:

What is the government’s preference concerning the manufacturer of the pop up gate system?

Answer:

The Seed project is being deleted from this acquisition and an amendment will be posted to Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website.

Question #3:

Where and at what depth is the existing power supply located in relation to the Seed

Project site?

posted to Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website.

Question #4:

How far from the pop up gate system will the traffic control loops be placed?

Question #5:

At what elevation above pavement and how far from the pop up gate system will the exit button and entry key pad device be placed?

Question #6:

One other thing I am curious about is Item 1.03 1.A.b; it states “Remove existing gate, motors, controllers, key pads and exit buttons.” The gate we saw was manual and had none of those things, so should we just ignore that part of that item?

Answer:

Question #7:

Does new gate fit in existing Columns or will these be removed and/or replaced?

Question #8:

Req'd Clearance when gate is open?

Answer:

Question #9:

How many remote devices will be required?

Answer:

Question #10:

Will there be an alternative entry during construction?

Answer:

Question #11:

Where is the power source for the gates located?

Answer:

Question #12:

Is there a preference on Manufacturer and Model of Gate to be used?

Answer:

Question #13:

The solicitation for the Civil Works IDIQ includes the Economic Price Adjustment

Clause, FAR 52.216.4. Certain line items in the bid schedule have been marked as to which are applicable to this Far Clause. However, there are a good number of line items which are not marked but will likely have significant price increases. It is believed that these should also be included. Examples are copper electrical wiring (line item

0249), PVC conduit (line item 0238), HDPE piping, (line item 0145), corrugated plastic pipe (line item 0055) and many others. Why can’t the entire bid schedule be marked for this FAR clause in an effort to protect the contractors?

Answer:

No additional materials will be added (marked) under the Economic Price

Adjustment Clause, FAR 52.216-4.

Question #14:

Specification 01010-1.09.B – States the contractor shall be responsible for the location of all existing utilities by providing an independent locating company to locate and mark all utilities within a construction area using ground penetrating radar. Will the government provide any sort of data to assist the contractor in this task? With construction sites varying from the possibility of little to no utilities to sites with many utilities how is the contractor to estimate this cost and how are we compensated for this cost?

Answer:

The Contractor is responsible to obtain a Dig Permit (AF Permit 103) from the 1

SOCES prior to construction. The Civil Engineer office (1 SOCES) assists by providing drawings of site indicating where utilities are located within industry standards. Compensation is not given to the contractor for physically locating existing utilities. This is a responsibility of the contractor.

Question #15 a-l:

Specification 01020-1.08 Line items

a. 0001.a – refers to the cost of Mobilization/Demobilization is line item 0005. It appears that this is the incorrect line item and should refer to line item 0004.

b. 0002.a – refers to the cost of Mobilization/Demobilization is line item 0005. It

c. 0003.a – refers to the cost of Mobilization/Demobilization is line item 0005. It

d. 0009 to 0020 – all of these items include ”loading for hauling and disposal”. Does this mean that the disposal is included in this line item or is the actual disposal paid for in line items 0029?

e. 0042 to 0055 – all of these items included excavation up to a depth of 4 feet. Will any excavation beyond the 4 feet be paid for by line item 0025?

f. 0056-0062 – “Includes mitered end sections only, add pipe as a separate line item.” Does this mean this line item is only for the concrete apron on a Mitered End Section?

g. 0067-0069 –States to include 8” aggregate base. I did not see this requirement in the Specification 2720. Is 8” aggregate to be included in this item? If so, what are the installation and material parameters that we are to go by?

h. 0070-0071 – States “installation in accordance with FDOT Standards”. There are many types of FDOT Curb Inlets. Please clarify which FDOT Design Standards Index # each line item is to include.

i. 0083b – The Line Item name is ”PROVIDE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE, DELIVERY

ONLY – HIGHWAY MIX”. Part “b” states “all other cost including hauling and placement.” Should “and placement” be deleted from this?

j. 0084b – The Line Item name is ”PROVIDE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE, TO BE

PICKED UP BY GOVERNMENT – HIGHWAY MIX”. Part “b” states “all other cost including hauling and placement.” Should Part “b” be deleted al together since all the contractor is providing is the material at their Plant?

k. 0092-0093 – The descriptions for the work included in this pay item do not match the schedule of values provided. Line Item 0092a is for Material according to the schedule of values but the description given here is “Includes cost to form, place, finish, and cure concrete to construct sidewalks.”

l. 0130 – The Unit of Measure “LF-HDR” does not match the schedule of values.

Answers a-l:

a. Yes

b. Yes

c. Yes

d. Yes

e. Yes

f. No

g. Yes (Refer to latest FDOT Specifications for proper installation and material requirements for Graded Aggregate Base.)

h. Type “F” Curb & Gutter, Ribbon Curb, and Valley Curb must conform to latest

FDOT Standards.

i. No

j. Yes

k. Must include in cost

l. Month is the Unit of Measure to use.

Question #16:

Specification 02510 – This specification refers to FDOT Mix Designations S-1 and S-3.

These mixes are no longer included in the FDOT specifications. All FDOT mixes are now Superpave mix designs such as SP12.5 and SP 9.5. It seems that this specification may need updating to reflect the new mix design methods.

Answer:

S-1 and S-3 are still being made by the asphalt plants and are to be used here at

Hurlburt Field. SP 12. and 9.5 are more expensive than S-1 and S-3 and may be substituted to use, but will only pay S-1 and S-3 prices.

Question #17:

Per Amendment #1 issued June 10, 2011 for the Hurlburt Field AF Civil Works IDIQ RFP, it states that paragraph 3 of Section HF021 should be replaced with the following:

“A complete proposal will shall consist of the following four (4) sections: Section I Technical Proposal; Section II Past Performance; Section III Price Proposal/Executed RFP Documents; and Section IV Seed Project Proposal. The original RFP states in Section HF021 item 3.a that the Technical Proposal consists of a construction schedule and bid schedule. It is our understanding that the construction schedule is in reference to the Seed Project and should be included in Section IV. Additionally, Section HF021, item 3.a.v states that a QC Plan and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be submitted. It is our understanding that those are also in reference to the Seed Project and should be incorporated in Section IV.

Please clarify what is to be submitted under Section I Technical Proposal for this RFP.

Answer:

IAW HF 0021 Para 3(a) Technical proposal includes construction and bid schedule and Quality Control Plan. Per Response to Question 1, the SW3P is no longer required for the Basic IDIQ or the Sample Project.

IAW HF 0022 , Para (4) A separate technical proposal is required for the sample project but the SW3P and Quality Control Plan are no longer required for the sample project.

The Seed project is being deleted from this acquisition and an amendment will be posted to Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website.

Question #18:

Reference Attachment 4, Past Performance:

a. If the proposing entity has no relevant, recent past performance can it submit the same from activity resulting from one of its affiliate or sister companies owned by the same parent company and operated by the same management? If yes, will these projects be evaluated?

b. Will teaming be allowed on the Civil Works IDIQ? If so will a teaming partner’s past performance and experience be allowed for consideration under Section II of the proposal?

a. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a) 2(iii) and (iv); (iii) The evaluation should take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors what will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the acquisition. (iv) If the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

b. In accordance with FAR 9.6, Contractor Team Arrangements company relationships should be fully disclosed and arrangements identified when submitting the proposal. Past performances for both partners should be submitted and will be evaluated if relevant to the current requirement.

Question #19:

Can past performance be submitted for projects that are delivery orders under

IDIQ/JOC/SABER Contracts? If yes, will these projects be evaluated?

Answer:

Yes, see response to Question #18

Question #20:

Have noticed several discrepancies involving Units of Measure between the Specifications and the Contract Line Item Listing, Attachment 1. Please clarify which document takes precedence.

If discrepancies exist between the Specifications and the Contract Line Items, the latter will take precedence, i.e., the Contract Line Items govern.

Question #21:

Line Item No 4020 Demolition Fire Hydrant: What is the termination point below grade or at the 90 of the main?

Answer:

The termination point is at the flange where it joins the elbow.

Question #22:

Security Gate Bid: What is the length of the 6' chain link lift gate? Single lane or double lane access opening?

Question #23:

Where is the source of electrical power for the lift gate?

Question #24:

What is the voltage and phasing of electrical power for the lift gate?

Question #25:

Is the lift gate to have one key pad for entry and sensor opening exit or key pay operation entry and exit?

Answer:

Question #26:

Attachment 4, C. states

C. FAX or Email COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE FORM TO: 1st Special Operations Contracting Squadron/LGCB, 350 Tully St, Bldg 90339, Hurlburt Field, FL 32544-5810, Attention: Mary Hallmon, FAX : (850) 884-6626. mary.hallmon@hurlburt.af.mil <mailto:mary.hallmon@hurlburt.af.mil>

However, Section L , Page 46 and 47, (b) Section II(v) show the following:

(v) Inform your references that they shall forward questionnaires directly to the address below. Questionnaires must be received in the 1st Special Operations Contracting Squadron office not later than the closing date of the solicitation. Offerors are responsible for ensuring their references transmit the questionnaire to the Contracting Office.

FA4417-11-R-0019 Page 47 of 51 1 SOCONS/LGCB

Attention: Ms. Mary Hallmon and Tina Kneip

350 Tully St, Bldg 90339

Hurlburt Field, FL 32544-5810

Fax: (850) 884-2041, Attention: Ms. Mary Hallmon and Tina Kneip

Email: mary.hallmon@hurlburt.af.mil and tina.kneip@hurlburt.af.mil mailto:mary.hallmon@hurlburt.af.mil mailto:mary.hallmon@hurlburt.af.mil mailto:mary.hallmon@hurlburt.af.mil mailto:tina.kneip@hurlburt.af.mil

Which is correct for sending the response?

Attach 4 top portion is to be filled out by the offeror and forwarded to the appropriate agency POC to complete the past performance questionnaire. The agency POC will then forward the questionnaire to

Attention: Ms. Mary Hallmon and Tina Kneip

350 Tully St, Bldg 90339

Hurlburt Field, FL 32544-5810

Fax: (850) 884-2041, Attention: Ms. Mary Hallmon and Tina Kneip

Email: mary.hallmon@hurlburt.af.mil and tina.kneip@hurlburt.af.mil

Question #27:

How are permit application fees to be handled in the Contract Line Item Listing? There are no line items for this expense.

Permit application fees are considered part of doing business and should be included as part of the Lump Sum total cost.

AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, AN AMENDMENT WILL BE POSTED TO THE FEDERAL

BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES (FBO) WEBSITE. PROPOSAL DUE DATE REMAINS

THE SAME, AS STATED IN THE SOLICITATION.

mailto:mary.hallmon@hurlburt.af.mil mailto:tina.kneip@hurlburt.af.mil