Combined_Questions_RESPONSES_1_May_2017.pdf

FA4417-17-R-0006

FTEV 15-1016

Questions and Answers

1. Specification section 21 13 39 paragraph 1.02 references UFC 4-211-01. We have been unable to locate this document. As it is incorporated into the solicitation, please provide a copy of this document for reference.

Response: References to UFC 4-211-01 have been removed and specification section 21 13 39 has been updated. See revised paragraph 1.02.Q.

2. The proposed arrangement of foam system risers and equipment may result in inadequate proportioning, and we suggest that this be considered carefully. The scope of this project includes replacing existing deluge valves in two foam risers with flow control valves that incorporate a pressure regulating function. The existing foam ratio controllers are located on the discharge side of the existing deluge valves, and drawing FP-3 indicates that at the completion of this work the ratio controllers will remain on the discharge side of the new flow control valves. This drawing also indicates that the water line connections that pressurize the foam bladder are to remain on the discharge side of the flow control valves. This arrangement may lead to inconsistencies in proportioning between the systems. We are currently providing FPE services on an Air National Guard hangar that was shown with a similar arrangement. This hangar has three high expansion foam systems, and during the first preliminary test one system proportioned lean, one high and one correctly. After extensive discussions with the foam supplier’s technical personnel, it was concluded that these differences were likely due to differences in pressure on the discharge side of the flow control valves and consequent differences in proportioning.

Although the flow control valves were set to approximately the same pressure, there will be some variations due to the pressure regulating function. We witnessed a second preliminary test this week after the systems were reconfigured to locate the bladder tank water supply and ratio controllers below the new flow control valves, and all three systems proportioned correctly. From these results, it appears that if multiple systems are to be fed from the same foam supply, the water connections and foam proportioning should be located below flow control valves. Please consider revising the foam equipment layout. If the layout is to remain as shown, it is questionable whether consistent proportioning for all systems can be achieved and the contractor should not be responsible for any subsequent modifications to correct such a situation.

Response: The contractor is to provide a compete new system, including new flow control valves, foam ratio controllers, and all associated valves and piping from one manufacturer, installed per the approved manufacture’s shop drawings and submittals. See revised FP-7 and

FP-3.

3. Will a preliminary foam discharge test be required, making it a total of 2 full scale foam discharge tests?

Response: Specification 21 13 39 in Preliminary Testing on page 16 requires a foam discharge test along with the final foam test

4. Who will be responsible if the system fails to meet the coverage requirements, it is outside scope to change piping and generator location.

Response: The government will be responsible for the coverage requirements. The contractor will be responsible for the response time requirements.

5. Are there any test reports proving the system worked prior to this solicitation?

Response: Test reports are unavailable.

6. Has the existing Fire Alarm Control Panel been inspected to make sure there are available terminals?

Response: There is no new wiring required to be connected to the existing Fire Alarm Control Panel. There is one monitoring module being inserted into the existing SLC loop above the new Foam Control Panel.

7. The new draft UFC 4-211-01 95% requires that the concentrate tank be inside a containment berm.

Will that be required on this project?

Response: A containment berm is not required. References to UFC 4-211-01 have been removed.

8. Section 1.08 para F states that the contractor is to perform hydraulic calculation for the new flow control valve are there “As-Built” Drawings available or will the contractor be required to survey the existing system?

Response: As-built drawings are not available. The contractor will be required to survey the existing system.

9. Has there been a recent fire pump test done or will there need to be a pump test performed to get the accurate water supply information? UFC requires recent data.

Response: The contractor shall be required to run a flow test on the fire pump to verify the scheduled data.

10. What if calculations prove that the 20 psi loss for the flow control valve will prevent the system from passing?

Response: The contractor should immediately notify the Contracting Officer if it is found the existing system cannot operate with the required modifications.

11. Please confirm that the conduit for the Det-Tronics system is to be galvanized rigid conduit.

Response: Specification 21 13 39 has been updated to show requirement of galvanized rigid.

See revised paragraph 2.04.C.

12. Will the devices need to be explosion proof or just NEMA 4?

Response: Electrical work in this maintenance and storage hangar must meet NFPA 70:

National Electric Code Article 513 Aircraft Hangars.. Sheet FP-4 has been updated to move IR sensor outside of 5 foot zone from aircraft. .

13. Please confirm that the conduit must be painted red.

Response: Electrical conduit for fire suppression system must be red. Specification section 21 13 39 has been updated to reflect this. See revised paragraph 3.04.C.

14. What is the purpose of the balancing valve in the concentrate line?

Response: The valve on FP-7 was misidentified. Sheet FP-7 has been updated.

15. What will be the desired means of disposal for the existing concentrate in the tank?

Response: The contractor shall containerize the fluid and dispose of it off-base in accordance with all local, state and federal laws. Note 1 on Sheet FP-1 has been updated to reflect this.

16. Will we be required to remove the concentrate from the abandoned concentrate line?

Response: Contractor shall remove concentrate from the abandoned lines. Note 3 on Sheet FP-1 has been updated to reflect this.

17. There are no control valves on the existing surge arrestors will they need to be added to be in compliance with UFC?

Response: Adding control valves is not in the scope of this contract. References to UFC 4- 211-01 have been removed.

18. Please confirm that Det-Tronic Eagle Quantum Premier IR Detection system is the only acceptable system.

Response: Specifications and plans state a Det-Tronic system is required.

19. Is it possible to get the information for electrical panel F as shown bottom left page E-2. It says to add a 30/2 breaker, but gives no manufacture or breaker type info?

Response: It is a GE Type NAB and takes TED breakers

20. 4.1.6.2 states that: At the time of initial contract offer and at time of award, each business must be a HUBZone Small Business. In order to submit an offer on a contract, each business concern in a teaming agreement must be a HUBZone Small Business under the designated NAICS size standard, and must also be HUBZone when combined in the aggregate of all teaming affiliates-Question: If teaming with a business that is not HubZone does this mean we would not qualify even though we are HubZone?

Response: Both parties in a teaming agreement must meet the HUBZone status criteria as outlined in FAR 19.13 and as stated in the solicitation.