QA_06_24_20181106.pdf

FA4418-19-R-0007

Repair Runway 06/24

North Auxiliary Airfield (NAAF) Joint Base Charleston, SC

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

6 Nov 2018

1. QUESTION: Please allow an email submission in lieu of hard-copy, mail-in submission. Our entire preconstruction team will be in another state attending a conference. (CONS)

ANSWER: In accordance with Section L of the solicitation, “Offeror’s shall submit a complete, original signed proposal to be received in the Contracting Office no later than the date and time posted for receipt of proposals. Faxed proposals will not be accepted.”

2. QUESTION: Please confirm that no Subcontracting Plan is required. (CONS)

ANSWER: No subcontracting plan is required.

3. QUESTION: We are bidding job as a Joint Venture under a SBA Mentor Protégé Relationship. Do you want the entire Mentor Protégé Agreement? Or will the SBA Approval Letter suffice? (CONS)

ANSWER: The SBA’s acknowledgement of the relationship will suffice.

4. QUESTION: We are biding job as a Joint Venture under a SBA Mentor Protégé Relationship. Must we provide a Joint Venture Agreement? (CONS)

ANSWER: Yes, the SBA’s acknowledgement of the relationship is required.

5. QUESTION: We are biding job as a Joint Venture under a SBA Mentor Protégé Relationship.

Please confirm we are required to submit a narrative as to the history of the team arrangement (in addition to the requirements of Paragraph C(2)(b) Performance Surveys). If so, please confirm page limit on the additional narrative of teaming arrangement history. (CONS)

ANSWER: The page limit applies to each past performance reference (each job or contract). The narrative relative to the teaming arrangement history is required to demonstrate the team’s past performance together. The narrative need not be involved. Please limit it to a description of the project(s) that the team has performed that is/are recent and relevant to this solicitation. The page limit applies to each referenced job.

6. QUESTION: Please confirm that the Quality and Satisfactory Ratings be for the ten (10) projects that we submit for Performance Surveys. (CONS)

ANSWER: The solicitation requirement is to submit past performance data for recent and relevant performance. If there are any quality and / or satisfaction ratings (i.e., CPARS) that exist to substantiate performance, then these may be submitted.

7. QUESTION: We work for the federal government, which has strayed away from submitting letters of recommendations, metrics, and surveys other than CCASS or PPQs. Please confirm that CCASS and PPQs are acceptable for the Quality and Satisfactory Ratings. (CONS)

ANSWER: Any documentation that conveys recent and relevant past performance is acceptable.

8. QUESTION: Drawing C326 is missing from Attachment 2 Combined Drawings dated 6 April 2018 that is provided on the NECO site. Please provide Drawing C326. (CES)

ANSWER: Drawing C326 will be provided in an Amendment to the Solicitation before the proposal due date.

9. QUESTION: According to the specifications, compaction testing is required. However, there is no detail as to whether the Contractor is to hire these services or if the Owner will provide. (CES)

ANSWER: It is the contractor’s responsibility to perform or hire for these services.

10. QUESTION: The schedule show on drawing G202 shows 196 days for project duration. The SF 1442 states that the project duration is 230 days. Please clarify what is the correct duration for the project. (CES)

ANSWER: For Clarification, there are 90 days for submittals and mobilization and 106 days for construction (including inclement weather) as shown in the schedule on drawing sheet G202. After the completion of all work the contractor has 30 days for closeout. Once the runway is closed and turned over to the contractor the 106 days begins and liquidated damages will be assess if the construction is not completed within the 106 days. Therefore the total contract performance time is 226 days, but the construction performance is only 106 days

11. QUESTION: The new pavement marking details shown on sheet C225 indicate a 6" non-reflective black border around all new markings on concrete pavement. Do all the existing markings shown on sheets C101 through C106 to be removed that are on concrete pavement have a 6" non-reflective black border? (CES)

ANSWER: All existing markings to be removed have 6” non-reflective black borders. Will be addressed in Addendum 1.

12. QUESTION: Please define the elements of the teaming arrangements allowed to perform the work required to complete Project Number ML 12-1110, Repair Runway 06/24 at North Auxiliary Airfield (NAAF), Orangeburg County, SC. Project Requirements state that this solicitation is issued as a 100% TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE. Therefore, is it enough that the Prime Contractor (who is a qualified small business) complete 51% or greater of the work and a sub-contractor (who is not a small business) complete 49% or less of the work? (CONS)

ANSWER: There is no specific restriction on what work teaming partners may perform other than those imposed by 52.219-14 -- Limitations on Subcontracting. Teaming partners are generally subcontractors to the prime contractor. The referenced clause states that for a small business set-aside, with construction by special trade contractors, the prime shall perform at least 25 percent of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees.

13. QUESTION: Is the intent of the pavement marking removal, on the concrete over runs, to be done at the beginning of the project? Or will it be acceptable to remove and re-stripe the over runs at the same time that the new striping of the runway takes place? (CES)

ANSWER: The paint removal and restriping on the concrete overruns can be accomplished after the asphalt cure period, but the contractor will have to take care to not damage the new joint sealant when removing paint. If the joint sealant is damaged then it will be replaced at no cost to the government.

14. QUESTION: The detail for resealing the existing joints does not provide width dimensions of the joint. Please provide an average joint width to be used for accurate pricing. (CES)

ANSWER: The existing joints are 1/2" +/- 1/16".

15. QUESTION: You have provide two Section B – Bid Schedules. One is attachment 4 and the other is Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices. Please confirm which Price Schedule we must submit. (CONS)

ANSWER: Attachment 4 was provided for ease of use. You may complete either one.

16. QUESTION: Please confirm that the teaming narrative is only required if we submit a subcontractor’s projects under the Performance Survey section? (CONS)

ANSWER: That is correct.

17. QUESTION: This project involves a considerable amount of electrical work, and the wage decision provided with the solicitation does not include a rate for an electrician. Is there an additional wage decision that is applicable that does include the electrician classification? (CONS)

ANSWER: After award of the contract, the awardee can submit a Standard Form (SF) 1444, Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, to add the Electrician classification.

In June 2017, the approved rate by the Wage & Hour Division, Washington, DC, was $18.50 per hour plus $0 fringe benefits payment.

18. QUESTION: Does the Quality and Satisfaction Ratings count towards the 3-page limit for each project? Most performance evaluations are more than 5 pages alone. (CONS)

ANSWER: No, the 3-page limit is for a description of each reference contract submitted. The Quality and Satisfaction Ratings are separate.

19. QUESTION: The offering entity for our proposal submission is a Joint Venture company participating in the All Small Mentor-Protégé Program. Therefore, can we use past performance information from the mentor company? (CONS)

ANSWER: Past performance will be relevant if it is from the Joint Venture firm, or either of its member firms. If the mentor is participating in the Joint Venture on this acquisition, then its past performance may be relevant. If it is not participating, then it will not be evaluated.

20. QUESTION: The solicitation states, “Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety. For Sections C through I, the offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.” I’ve looked through Sections C through I and didn’t see any fillable spaces. I only saw fillable sections for Section K – Representations and Certifications. Please confirm that there are no fillable parts for Sections C through I and that we do not need to include it in our proposal submission. (CONS)

ANSWER: That is correct. Only Section K, Representations and Certifications, contains fillable spaces that must be completed.

21. QUESTION: Are offerors supposed to submit Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices that is listed below the SF 1442 in the Solicitation OR submit Attachment 4 Section B – Bid Schedule?

(CONS)

ANSWER: See the answer to Question 15.

22. QUESTION: I saw that a Bid Bond is required but I didn’t see a section in the Solicitation that lists the percentage of the proposed price that we are supposed to request. Can you please amend this section and let us know if it is 20%? (CONS)

ANSWER: See Page 7, Section C of the Solicitation. Performance and Payment Bond Requirements (IAW FAR 28.101-2 and FAR 28.102-3). Proposal bond in the amount of 20 percent (20%) of the proposal price.

23. QUESTION: Are we to submit two CDs – Part 1 and Part 2? (CONS)

ANSWER: One CD is sufficient for both Parts. (Please bind and submit the hardcopies of Parts 1 and 2 separately.)

24. QUESTION: Can we submit recently completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) for Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts completed in past ten years? If so, would you consider excluding customer surveys from the 3-page count limit? Many of our PPQs are 3 pages or longer and wouldn’t have any room to discuss our problems and corrective actions taken on each contract.

ANSWER: You may submit recently completed PPQ for Quality and Satisfaction Ratings for contracts complete in the past ten years. Please see Question 18 regarding the page limit.

25. QUESTION: Does the 3-page limit apply to sections (a) Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Ten Years, (b) Performance Surveys or (c) Subcontractor Consent?

Or does the page count apply to all three sections? (CONS)

ANSWER: See the answer to Question 18. The 3-page limit applies to each contract listed.

26. QUESTION: Please confirm that providing a bid bond is proof of suffice bonding. (CONS)

ANSWER: The bid bond is required with the proposal and is sufficient for the proposal. The payment and performance bonding will only be required in the event of an award.

27. QUESTION: Please confirm that price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns is not applicable to this RFP. (CONS)

ANSWER: There will be no price adjustment on this 100% Small Business Set-Aside.

28. QUESTION: Please clarify the correct specification for pcc material requirements as shown in detail A-A, on sheet C-201. (CES)

ANSWER: 12" PCC shall be in accordance with (IAW) specification section 03 30 53 Miscellaneous Cast In Place Concrete. Concrete for the duct bank shall also be IAW specification section 03 30 53 Miscellaneous Cast In Place Concrete, the electrical drawings and electrical specifications. Flowable fill shall be IAW the South Carolina Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Flowable Fill.

29. QUESTION: Due to the upcoming holidays (Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving) being in such close proximity to the bid date for this project and the sole sourced airfield lighting material (solely manufactured by ADB), would the government consider extending the response date for this project?

ANSWER: No, we are unable to extend the response date for this project.

30. QUESTION: Per the CSPP, there is an asphalt cure time of 25 days scheduled upon completion of the mill and overlay of the runway and any other corrections deemed necessary and prior to the pavement marking/grooving features of work. While the cure time is adequate, due to the new asphalt being so porous the contract requirement of 1 gallon of paint per 121 square feet (plus or minus 6 square feet) will not provide a quality product with respect to striping, in our opinion. Would the government consider altering this requirement to 1.5 gallons of paint per 121 square feet (plus or minus 6 square feet)? (CES)

ANSWER: No, please bid as specified.

31. QUESTION: Is the 4 way 4” duct detail shown in detail 1 on E-405 to be used for the Duct Bank Extensions connecting to the new Can Plaza’s (JCP 16 & 17) on each end of the runway? (CES)

ANSWER: Correct.

32. QUESTION: Plan Page E-304 shows the new RW 0624 LZ Circuit and the two replacement RW

0624 A & B circuits running to the Taxiway C Hand Hole on the south west side end of the existing duct bank. Continuing the circuit routing from this Hand Hole, only the new RW 0624 LZ Circuit is shown being completed with new cable through existing duct back to the vault. This is shown on both Plan page E-304 and E-307. Given the requirement to run the new RW 0624 LZ circuit through existing duct back to the vault, Is there an empty duct running from the Hand Hole at Taxiway C back to the vault? If not, will the contractor be required to replace the two existing RW 0624 A & B Circuits to facilitate the placement of the new RW 0624 LZ circuit in the same conduit? (CES)

ANSWER: Per as-built documents, there are empty ducts from existing hand hole at TW C to existing lighting vault. Contractor shall base bids on running new circuits through existing spare conduit as shown.

33. QUESTION: Given the age and condition of the existing adaptor rings, there is a high probability for broken bolts during the removal of these adaptor rings from the existing cans. Is there an approved procedure to repair the broken bolts and the existing base can when this occurs? (CES)

ANSWER: Where existing mounting bolt locations have been broken or damaged or cross threaded, the contractors shall remove the damaged bolt and provide new 3/8” 400 Series stainless steel threaded inserts. Bolt hole repairs shall only be made with equipment specifically designed and approved for the purpose of repairing L-867 and L-868 base cans. Drill jigs and alignment rings shall be used at all times. “Free hand” repairs shall not be allowed. The contractor shall utilize an insert / repair kit manufactured by Jaquith Industries (Part# AW7012Kit) or Guard Specialists Co., Inc. (Part# 200-AW7012G-2) or approved equal. Contractor shall base bids on repairs needed on 25 base cans.

34. QUESTION: Which Duct Bank Cross Section detail should be used for the ”Long Dash and Two Short Dashes” duct bank symbol such as the conduits between the B Junction cans in turf as shown on plan page E-304. (CES)

ANSWER: The conduit between the “B” junction cans in turf is 2-2” Schedule 40 PVC concrete encased. The top of the concrete encasement of the duct bank shall be 18” min. below finished grade with 3” min. of concrete around conduits. Refer to detail 1, sheet E405 for general duct bank installation requirements.

35. QUESTION: Please direct us to the Duct Bank Cross Section detail for the duct bank symbol “Dash Dot Dot Dash”. This duct is shown in shoulder pavement connecting the T/W lights. (CES)

ANSWER: The conduit between the TW edge lights in shoulder pavement is 1-2” concrete encased. Refer to sheet E401 for installation.

36. QUESTION: Item #13 and Item #17 on the New Item Description list appear to be duplicates.

Please clarify. (CES)

ANSWER: Item #13 and Item #17 on the New Item Description list shown are sheet E000 are duplicates. Item #17 can be removed.

37. QUESTION: Is the Spare 208 Volt Regulator that is required in the proposal a “turnover only component” or will install be required? Please confirm input voltage of the regulator 208v vs. 480v shown on E-408. (CES)

ANSWER: The spare 208 Volt Regulator is “turnover only component”. The input voltage for the new LZ RW 06-24 regulator to be installed in the vault is 480V.

38. QUESTION: Is the SSHO allowed to also function as the superintendent? (CONS)

ANSWER: No. EM 385-1-1 requires “the SSHO shall be a full-time responsibility…”. A person serving as the SSHO and the superintendent would at best be part time superintendent and part time SSHO, therefore the superintendent cannot serve as the SSHO.

39. QUESTION: Is the contractor responsible for providing a separate on-site trailer for the Title II Personnel? (CES)

ANSWER: Yes, refer to Addendum #1.

40. QUESTION: Is the finished grade information, of asphalt surfaces, required to be provided by a registered professional land surveyor? (CES)

ANSWER: The project specifications do not specifically require a registered surveyor for validation of grades, however, the quality control requirements of 01 45 00.10 20 and 32 12 15.13 require submittal of the qualifications of each member of the quality control organization. Since finished grade of the finished surface is a defined element of the quality of the asphalt, and a specified pay factor item, the qualifications of the persons performing this work will have to be submitted for consideration.

41. QUESTION: The intent of the paragraph discussing Subcontractor Consent is not clear. Please clarify whether teaming arrangements must be provided for ALL subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, or only those subcontractors for which the Prime Offeror is submitting past performance information. (CONS)

ANSWER: Subcontractor consent is required for Contracting personnel to discuss a subcontractor’s past performance with other parties (in this case, the prime contractor). Teaming arrangements are only necessary if the prime contractor desires to designate a subcontractor as a teaming partner and submit past performance for evaluation with its proposal.

42. QUESTION: According to the basis of evaluation for past performance, past performance for subcontractors who will be performing major aspects of the project will NOT be considered as highly as past performance for the principal offeror. Due to this project being a major asphalt project, and the high complexity of DoD airfield pavement specifications, we consider it very important to submit past performance for the contractor or subcontractor who will be performing the airfield asphalt pavement scope. It is our opinion that the asphalt pavement contractor should be rated separately and this rating should be considered as highly as the past performance of the prime offeror to help ensure only the most capable and qualified teams are selected in order to mitigate any risk for delays due to preconstruction submittals and/or production complexities. (CONS)

ANSWER: This appears to be formatted more as feedback rather than a question, and it is noted.

Past performance for a key subcontractor or teaming partner will be evaluated if it is submitted, but as the solicitation states, it will not be considered as highly as the prime’s past performance. It will, however, be considered in the overall performance confidence rating for the prime.

43. QUESTION: Sheet G200 shows two gates along the haul route entering the airfield, one of which appears to be owned/controlled by Aiken Power. Please confirm that the Contractor shall only provide guards at one gate, and that two guards should be present at that gate at all times during construction operations. (CES)

ANSWER: Correct.

44. QUESTION: Please confirm that the only impact that drop zones will have on construction will be the non-working days every Monday. Please confirm that operational drop zones will not impact construction on regular working days. (CES)

ANSWER: Confirmed.

45. QUESTION: Please confirm that the unit price for Item No 0006, Replace 2" Conduit under concrete pavement shall include the removal and replacement of concrete pavement per details shown on Civil demolition and site plans. (CES)

ANSWER: Correct. This unit price item shall include the removal and replacement of the concrete for the width and length of the a trench needed and the repair of the conduit itself.

46. QUESTION: All of the detail drawings for the” In-Pavement Fixture in New Asphalt Pavement” on plan page E-401 show a 2” PVC drain running from the bottom of all cans. Where do these drains terminate? Is there an existing under-drain system?

ANSWER: Drainage of electrical base cans is not required for this project. There is no existing under drain system.

47. QUESTION: The detail drawing #4 for a “Typical Base Can Section” on Plan Page E-405 shows a 2” PVC drain running from the bottom of the can and references it running to a 4” Drain Pipe. Is this 4” drain pipe an existing pipe? Where does this drain terminate?

ANSWER: Drainage of electrical base cans is not required for this project.

48. QUESTION: Are drains required for the 4-Can Junction Can Plaza on E-405? If so how are they connected and where does the drain terminate?

ANSWER: Drainage of junction can plazas is not required for this project.

49. QUESTION: On pan page E-402 Step 2, Note D references a Drain to be installed in the bottom of the base can for the LZ lighting system. The drains are not shown on any of the details on the same plan page. How should these drains be installed and where will they terminate?

ANSWER: Delete Step 2, Note D on sheet E-402.