Solicitation Amendment FA462020R00020006 SF 30.pdf

R

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of theoffer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

1 9

0006 4/29/2020 A004848 FA462020R0002

FA4620

FA4620 92 CONS LGC

110 W ENT ST STE 200

ADMINISTRATIVE ONLY NO REQUISITIONS

FAIRCHILD AFB, WA 99011-5320

United States HEATHER ROGERS, Email: heather.rogers.9@us.af.mil Telephone: 657-4871

FA462020R0002

3/26/2020

See Section G

The purpose of the solicitation amendment is to:

1. Answer additional vendor questions.

Contracting Officer Email: richard.hedrick.2@us.af.mil Telephone: (509)247-4867

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Section C - Specification/SOW/SOO/ORD

The Requirements text has been modified to:

Question #84: CLARIFICATION: For purposes of equal bidding each restroom requires showers please CONFIRM that a single shower is needed in each restroom? Is there a requirement for a changing/dressing area adjacent to each shower?

Answer #84 No, restrooms do not require showers; emergency shower adjacent to eyewash station only.

Question #96: Were assuming hangar doors should be tied into the into the fire alarm system to close automatically in the event of the fire suppression system being triggered, is this correct?

Answer #96 Must comply with the UFC and NFPA.

Question #98: Confirm use of Cell Room and CTK room and what function will be completed in the room?

Answer #98 This is a 100% D/B Project; Cell room is where fuel cells are repaired; refer to TAB D Corrosion Control_Fuel Cell Mx Hangar Facility Standard Designs.

Question #99: Will there need to be direct access from the hangar space to these support spaces. Will access be needed to allow for movement of larger items that may need to be pulled from aircraft?

Answer #99 This is a 100% D/B Project; refer to UFC and TAB D - Corrosion Control_Fuel Cell Mx Hangar Facility Standard Designs.

Question #106: In 1.3 SOW paragraph 2.0 states to use the provided Hazardous Materials Inspection Report (TAB E) for reference which states that the building structure is coated with a lead-based paint product. With the addition of the required systems that will use the building structure for support there will need to be an unknown amount of reinforcing to the structure which will require lead paint abatement. Can you provide an assumed amount of lead-based paint abatement similar to the assumed amount of asbestos abatement in 2.0.A.1 for bidding purposes?

Answer #106: Please see SOW as of 27 April 2020 in Amendment 0005.

Question #107: In TAB A the Requirements Document paragraph A. Goals and Objectives (p. 33) and paragraph B. Project Narrative (p. 36) state that floors of the support facilities are to be eighteen inches above the hangar floor. Is this still a requirement for the project and if so what is the desired construction method for raising the floors?

Answer #107: This is a 100% D/B Project Question #108: If the walls of the support areas are to be raised eighteen inches is the minimum height of the 10ft CMU separation wall from the hangar space measured from the hangar floor or the raised support area floor?

Answer #108: This is a 100% D/B project; must comply with the UFC and NFPA Question #125: How can we install the plane tail door? Looking at the pictures I believe we will need a crane, and to have the contractor remove part of the roof. Please advise.

Answer #125: This is a 100% D/B Project BACKGROUND: TAB A5 - As-built Drawings, Sheet A-2 has a wall section that reflects the first wall girt at approx. 9ft6in +/- above finish floor. There is a requirement for all exterior walls be 10ft high.

Question #131: CLARIFICATION: For purposes of equal bidding please CLARIFY if FAFB would allow a variance to the 10ft height requirement, OR is it the responsibility of the contractor to adjust the height location of the wall girt by 6in to meet this top of wall height?

Answer #131: The new 10-ft interior wall, which separates aircraft from support facilities, is separated/adjacent to the exterior 54 1/2 inch CMU walls.

Question #136: What is the size width x height of each of the hangar doors and the tail door opening?

Answer #136: Extrapolated from TAB A.5 As Built Drawing Submittal Hangar Door Leaf - 20ft x 19ft - 6in;

Tail/Tug Door - 16ft - 9in x 10ft - 3in Question #137: What is the size of the other rolling steel doors?

FA462020R00020006

Answer #137: Extrapolated from TAB A.5 As Built Drawing Submittal Dimension - 18ft - 3in x 29ft - 9in Question #138: What is the frame depth of the existing doors?

Answer #138: Extrapolated from TAB A.5 As Built Drawing Submittal Frame Depth: 7in Question #146: The Attch 1.3 SOW, doesnt outline a requirement to paint the existing perimeter CMU walls. Is there a requirement to paint the exterior and/or interior of the perimeter CMU wall after repairs are made? Is it required that the entire exterior of the building be painted (including all metal panels, trim, etc.)

Answer #146: Per Tab A. Planning Charette Report (page 12/59) Finishes, The mission of the program is to convert this hangar into habitable space for the hangars interior, the CMU wall separating the hangar from the support spaces shall be painted.

Question #147: The RFP (including the Tab A2 Site Plan Map) doesnt appear to address the Contractor laydown area. Will the Contractors laydown area be allowed at Building 1007 or will it need to be at a different location away from the airfield and Building 1007. Please advise.

Answer #147: Following post-award, with vendors field observation and coordinating with end-user/fac manager, government will determine contractor laydown area.

Question #149: Per the Attch 1.3 SOW, 4.5, Paragraph D, repair of the perimeter exterior CMU wall is required. However, the Tab A Planning Charette, on the Comparative Analysis, Page 50/59 - The exterior CMU walls are shown as being 10ft high for the perimeter of the Aircraft Maintenance Bay. Is it the intent to increase /extend the existing 54 1/2inch CMU walls to a height of 10ft? Is this in addition to repairing the existing 54 1 /2inch high CMU on the existing perimeter walls?

Answer #149: This is a 100% D/B project; Tab A and A1 are notional concept. See Answer #109 in Amendment 0004.

Question #155: SUBJECT: Raised Floor vs Pressurization

g. According to Tab A Planning Charrette (PDF Page count 50 of 59) Table Comparative Analysis under ISSUES Column Floor Slab and REQUIRED READS: Raise floor OR level Floor and Provide Positive Pressure QUESTION/CLARIFICATION: Do bidders in act have the option of either raising the floors by eighteen (18) inches OR just leveling the floors and use mechanical positive pressures to meet this requirement under the terms of the RFP?

Answer #155: This is a 100% D/B project; Tab A and A1 are notional concept Question #166: Will the CMU walls need to be furred on the occupied side of them?

Answer #166: This is a 100% D/B project Question #167: SOW section 4.5 paragraph D states to repair existing CMU low walls and extend up to the eave line (which is approximately 28ft), in accordance with comparative analysis of TAB A which states 10ft CMU walls on the perimeters, is 10ft high acceptable or are they to be extended full height to the eave line?

Answer #167: See Answer #109 Amendment 0004.

Question #173: 1a. Attachment 1.3-Scope of Work, Paragraph 4.3A.1 and .2 both indicate that the water supply to the hangar for fire suppression is to be supplied from an existing 16inch main along the west side of the hangar. Tab A4-Utility Plan shows the water supply connected to a new 6inch main on the east side of the hangar. Tab-A4 also indicates the existing main on the west side to be a 12inch main. 1b. In addition, the fire suppression supply main to the hangar must be sized for the combined hydraulic demand of the foam/water system and overhead sprinkler system per UFC 4-211-01. A 6inch supply main is not large enough for the combined demand.

Answer #173: See Answer #194 Amendment 0004 Question #174: Will fire suppression be supplied from the west side of the hangar per the Attachment 1.3, either 16inch or the 12inch shown is sufficient, and the fire pump location relocated to the west side of the hangar? If not, the new main on the east side of the hangar should be upsized at least to the point of the fire suppression supply to the hangar. Please clarify.

Answer #174: See Answer #194 Amendment 0004 Question #179: Serviceable insulation. For bidding purposes, please indicate a type of insulation (manufacturer and/or ASTM) that meets your definition of serviceable.

Answer #179: See TAB D - Corrosion Control_Fuel Cell Mx Hangar Facility Standard Designs of the Seed Project attachments.

Question #180: Verify roof and wall replacement quantities. Since there was no site visit, all bidders will need estimated quantities of roof and wall repairs. Also be aware that roof replacement panel with similar profiles are not available. Please update SOW.

Answer #180: See updated SOW 27 April 2020 in Amendment 0005.

Question #187: Are the existing CMU walls to be extended in height? If so to what height?

Answer #187: No; the new 10-ft interior wall, which separates aircraft from support facilities, is separated /adjacent to the existing, exterior 54 1/2inch CMU walls.

Question #188: Will the new overhead coiling doors need to be considered blast resistant by the current UFCs?

If this is the case, then the existing structure (1958) is likely too weak to be strengthened based on the existing condition (connections, foundations, etc) to meet these modern requirements. Our concern is that the extent of upgrades will not be known until design is well underway.

Answer #188: Nose bays roll-up door or tail tug door? As-built drawings coupled with your structural engineers evaluation; fire suppression and insulation projects at similar hangars require no structural modification; see attachment TAB G in Amendment 0003.

Question #194: The concept site plan shown in Tab 4A indicates an existing 12inch water main on the West side of Building #1007 while the virtual site video and Section 4.3.A.1 of the Statement of Work indicates a 16 main. Please clarify the correct main size on the West side of Building #1007.

Answer #194: Confirmed; 16 inch water main does in fact run parallel along west face of B1007 Question #195: The Planning Charette Report indicates that Building #1007 will also need to meet the specific fire separation and egress requirements of UFC 4-211-01. Paragraph 3.0 of the Statement of Work states to bring Building #1007 into compliance with fire protection and life safety codes insofar as practicable. The Request for Proposal documents do not specifically indicate that the Fire Protection Life Safety Design Analysis required by UFC 3-600-01 is to be performed, in which all facets of fire protection and life safety are evaluated for conformance. Is it the intent to evaluate all facets of fire protection / life safety or only address specific items? What determines as far as practical when considering this project?

Answer #195: All facets of fire protection and life safety are to be evaluated for conformance.

Question #196: The Functional Adjacency Diagram paragraph contained in Section 2.4.D of the Air Force Corrosion Control / Fuel Cell Maintenance Hangar Facility Standard Design document indicates the facility is to feature two separate Hangar Bays separated by a fire wall. All other Request for Proposal documentation indicates that this is a single hangar that would not have a fire wall to divide that hangar in half. Please confirm that the fire wall mentioned in this reference does not apply to this project.

Answer #196: Follow Tab A.1 Course of Action Option 3A Floor Plan notional concept with single aircraft hanger; however, per Tab A. Planning Charette Report, Comparative Analysis (page 49/59), north/west wall near B2036 must be upgraded to 2-hr rating, while support spaces require a 1-hour rated separation from the hangar area by a CMU wall a minimum of 10 feet high as well as being raised above the floor of the hangar a minimum of eighteen inches. Must comply with specific fire separation of UFC 4-211-01 Question #197: Unified Facilities Criteria (U.F.C.) 3-600-01 requires electrical fire pump drivers where electric power is economically available from a reliable single source of adequate capacity or from two independent sources each of adequate capacity, otherwise diesel driven fire pumps are required. Does the Fairchild AFB deem the electrical power service to be Reliable or would a back-up generator or diesel driven driver be required?

Answer #197: See Amendment 0005 Answer 242 Question #201: UFC 1-200-02 para 1-7 requires an LCCA for systems contributing to the energy footprint of the building, including the building envelope. The Seed project does not define the type of insulation, or R-values for retrofitting the exterior walls, roof and hangar doors. Without knowledge of existing energy consumption, or the usage of hangar doors in the winter, its very difficult to determine the life cycle cost benefit of adding insulation systems. Questions: How often is the hangar door opened/closed during a 24-hour operation or (3) consecutive 8-hr shifts? How many LCCAs will be required after award of contract? What are the anticipated insulation assemblies for the wall and roof? Extruded polystyrene? Closed cell Spray foam? Batt insulation? With the high level of ventilation air required and the air exchanges as a result of opening/closing the hangar doors several times during an 8-hour shift, the added snow load on the roof structure as a result of the insulation, the expected remaining life of the facility, different LCCAs may have varied results. Please consider clarifying the roof/wall insulation systems and quantify the anticipated LCCAs required after award.

Answer #201: This is a 100% D/B project.

Question #205: Tab A Planning Charrette Report, Page 13 of 59: Requirements for Correction of Architectural

Barriers Act (ABA) Deficiencies under Remarks states Improvements to the hangar shall be designed to be ADA compliant. However, Option 3A Floor Plan provides no provision/location for ramps or stairs outside of the aircraft clearance line to Admin areas. Tab A, Page 33 of 59 requires raising the floor of the support facilities eighteen inches above the hangar floor. Attachment 6 states Provisions for the physically handicapped will be included in this design in accordance with the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) FED-STD-795 to the maximum extent possible. Are ABA/ADA compliant alterations in this facility considered to be technically infeasible, or shall ramps be provided between the aircraft clearance line and the Admin areas, as well as all locations where stairs are shown, to be ABA/ADA compliant?

Answer #205: This is a 100% D/B project; ABA/ADA compliance not required.

Question #206: Tab A Planning Charrette Report, Page 33 of 59. In lieu of raising the floor of the support facilities eighteen inches above the hangar floor, would it be permissible to provide 18 curbs and ramps / stairs where appropriate to separate the aircraft area from the admin areas?

Answer #206: This is a 100% D/B project; ABA/ADA compliance not required; must comply with the UFC and

NFPA 409

Question #207: SOW item 2.0-A.1 refers to CLIN 0002. Price Schedule shows only CLIN 0001 and 0001AA.

Will the Price Schedule be revised, or is the abatement work to be completed as part of CLIN 001?

Answer #207: CLIN 0002 removed from original SOW. See updated SOW 27 April 2020 in Amendment 0005.

Question #208: Other than the hangar floor receiving epoxy coating and the restrooms receiving tile, what floor coverings if any will be required in the support spaces and eye wash station areas?

Answer #208: This is a 100% D/B project; must comply with UFC, BDS, and Standard Design for AF Corrosion Control/Fuel Cell Maintenance Hangar Facility.

Question #209: Is there any requirement for cabinetry/countertops in the support rooms? Please describe and quantify.

Answer #209: This is a 100% D/B project; must comply with UFC, BDS, and Standard Design for AF Corrosion Control/Fuel Cell Maintenance Hangar Facility Question #210: Please clarify the new height of the exterior CMU walls. SOW states the low walls are to be extended up to the eave line (approx. 30ft), but Tab A Charette states the low walls are to be extended up to 10ft.

Answer #210: The new 10-ft interior wall, which separates aircraft from support facilities, is separated/adjacent to the existing, exterior 54 1/2 CMU walls Question #211: What is the height of the existing purlins above the exterior low CMU walls? If it is below 10ft it will need to be relocated to accommodate the new CMU wall.

Answer #211: Refer to Tab A.5 As-Built Drawing Submittal.

Question #212: Please confirm the existing and new CMU exterior walls will need to be grout filled to meet the 2hr fire rating.

Answer #212: Yes; per Tab A. Planning Charette Report, Comparative Analysis (page 49/59), north/west wall near B2036 must be upgraded to 2-hr rating, while support spaces require a 1-hour rated separation from the hangar area by a CMU wall a minimum of 10 feet high as well as being raised above the floor of the hangar a minimum of eighteen inches. Must comply with specific fire separation of UFC 4-211-01.

Question #213: The existing low wall CMU is built around the structural steel members. In order to maintain 8inch block the siding of the building would need to be notched at each structural member. Can 6inch block be used at these locations?

Answer #213: This is a 100% D/B project.

Question #214: Page 33 of the Tab A Planning Charrette Report States The floors of the support facilities spaces are to be eighteen inches above the hangar floor. Is it acceptable to raise possible ignition sources to above 18inch or is the raised floor a requirement for this project?

Answer #214: See answer #226 of Amendment 0005.

Question #215: Will all interior steel, metal panels and CMU need to be painted white as shown in the photo on page 28 of the Tab A Charette Report? Will the fall protection steel need to be painted yellow? Will fire suppression piping need to be painted?

Answer #215: This is a 100% D/B project; must comply with UFC, NFPA, and Standard Design for AF Corrosion Control/Fuel Cell Maintenance Hangar Facility

Question #217: For bidding purposes, can the government tell us how many LF of joints to repair in the concrete slab, including the width and depth? Can the government describe what floor prep is required at the slab for the new epoxy flooring?

Answer #217: See answer #265 Amendment 0005.

Question #218: Please confirm we are building to the Fuel Shop standards rather than the Corrosion Control standards for restroom areas.

Answer #218 Please see attachment TAB D - Corrosion Control Fuel Cell Mx Hangar Facility Standards.

Question #219: Tab D Standard Designs describe many items that are not mentioned in either the SOW or on the Drawings. Please confirm any items not shown in the SOW or Drawings is to be excluded from our proposal. For example, high density storage rack system in the CTK, showers in the restrooms, systems furniture in the Training Room, etc.

Answer #219 Items mentioned in Tab D Standard Designs is stated for reference; storage systems/furniture are user-furnished; however, emergency shower only.

Question #227: In reference to the Tab A1 Floor Plan, Item 12. - Are explosion-proof devices only required in the Cell Room as described, or are they required in all rooms/areas?

Answer #227: This is a 100% D/B project; must comply with the UFC and NFPA.

Question #252:BACKGROUND: Per UFC 4-211-01, Aircraft Maintenance Hangars, Para 3-7.1 Hazardous (Classified) Locations; as shown in Figure 3-12: Adjacent Space Electrical Hazardous Classifications. States, Two normally closed (self-closing) doors in series with a minimum separation of 5 ft. (1.5 m). Classify the space between these doors as Class I Division 2 up to 18 inches (460 mm) above the floor of the hangar bay adjacent to the space. This describes a vestibule separation between the Class I Division 2 Hazardous location and a Non-Hazardous classified space.

a) Please confirm that based on this information, this appears to allow the separation between the Class 1 Division 2and a Non-Hazardous space, without the need to elevate the floors 18 within the Non-Hazardous space.

b) Due to the requirements for the entire facility to be ADA/ABA compliant. Will there be a requirement for automatic door operators at each of the two doors at each vestibule location?

Answer #252: This is a 100% D/B project; ADA/ABA is not required; refer to latest UFC 4-211-01 and NFPA 70.

Question #271:TAB A Planning Charrette and TAB A2 Site Plan Map indicates exterior work such as: New asphalt paving, remove concrete walk, new concrete walk, add curbs, add 28 R curb and paving, relocate 7 parking spaces and new security gate. The SOW does not include these tasks. Please confirm the exterior work requirements.

Answer #271: Exterior pavement work are not required Question #278: TAB A, states to provide bird intrusion protection. SOW does not include this requirement.

Please confirm.

Answer #278: This is a 100% D/B project; refer to UFC.

Question #380 Please confirm that the applicable DOD Building Code version for this project is UFC 1-200-01, dated 8 October 2019. If not, please indicate the applicable overarching document.

Answer #380: Answer #380 Design and construction shall comply with the latest version of UFC at the time of bidding.

Question #381 The SOW does not establish the Risk Category for this project, as defined in UFC 3-301-01, dated 1 October 2019 Table 2-2. Please provide the applicable Risk Category for this project. The SOW says to tie into an existing 16inch water main for the fire suppression system. The Tab_A4 utility plan shows a 12inch water main on the west side of the building. Is there a plan that shows the larger 16inch main or are we to utilize the 12inch main on the west side of the building?

Answer #381: Answer#381 Category II confirmed.

Question 385: The SOW says to tie into an existing 16inch water main for the fire suppression system. The Tab_A4 utility plan shows a 12inch water main on the west side of the building. Is there a plan that shows the larger 16inch main or are we to utilize the 12inch main on the west side of the building?

Answer #385: See Answer #194 Amendment 0004 Question #386: The Tab_A4 utility plan shows to tap existing 6inch water main for building service. Is this domestic or fire service to the building? If its for fire 6inch supply main is not adequate for the +/- 3,000 GPM required for the fire suppression system.

Answer #386: See Answer #194 Amendment 0004.

Question #387 The Tab A planning charette states that a hydraulic water analysis was completed for the fire suppression system. The SOW states a flow test is to be performed by the design build contractor to verify available water flow. Currently the existing hydrants are shown to be tied into the existing 6 inch underground water main. There will not be adequate flow from that hydrant to verify for this system. Are there any hydrants on the larger diameter main that could be used for verification?

Answer #387: Per Tab A (page 49/59), existing fire hydrants located B1007 and B1005 as well as between B1007 and B1009, back of B1007; 16 inch water main does in fact run parallel along west face of B1007.

Question # 388 The SOW states process water is not to be allowed to enter the storm drain system. Is the water used for initial performance testing of the fire pump considered process water? This test will be performed well before any foam solutions are introduced to the system.

Answer #388: Must comply with NFPA.

Question # 389 The PAT and FAT foam test will produce roughly 6,000 gal of water foam mix per test. There are no local disposal sites for this liquid. Will the foam solution produced during the PAT and FAT tests need to be disposed of off base or can it be disposed of in the sanitary sewer?

Answer #389 Refer to current NFPA and ETL.

Question # 390: Is there a requirement for a floor drain to the sanitary sewer be installed in the fire suppression equipment room sized to handle the water discharge while the fire pump is running?

Answer #390: This is a 100% D/B project; must comply with the UFC and NFPA Question # 391: Does 100% of the 1.7 cfm/sf ventilation air requirement need to be supplied to the hangar through a mechanical ventilation unit OR may un-tempered makeup air serve as part of the 1.7 cfm/sf ventilation air to be introduced to the hangar during the fuel vapor exhaust mode?

Answer #391: See Answer#290 in Amendment 0005.

Question #392: Is humidification control a requirement as defined Corrosion Control / Fuel Cell Maintenance Hangar Facility Standards.

Answer#392:Per Tab A. Planning Charette Report (page 14/59), Support spaces require standard temperature control. No cooling required for the maintenance bay area, but the purge ventilation systems must supply conditioned air. The maintenance bay area must be maintained above 40 degrees while occupied.

Question #393: Please confirm that this facility is to be a Fuel Cell Maintenance Hangar and not a Corrosion Control Maintenance Hangar.

Answer #393 Please see attachment TAB D - Corrosion Control Fuel Cell Mx Hangar Facility Standards Question #394: Please confirm that all components exposed to hanger work are or fuel cell storage area shall be explosion proof construction.

Answer #394: This is a 100% D/B project; must comply with the UFC and NFPA Question #395: Please confirm that purge exhaust/ventilation system is not required to be zone controlled.

Answer #395: This is a 100% D/B project; Per Tab A. Planning Charette Report (page 14/59), The maintenance bay requires emergency exhaust in addition to the required minimum ventilation supply and exhaust, as well as 3 purge ventilation systems for the aircrafts fuel tanks. The fuel cell repair room requires its own dedicated purge ventilation system Question #396: Please provide example images of the radiant heating solution for the rolling door system.

Answer #396: This is a 100% D/B project.

Question #397: Please provide air volume requirement for each wing purge cell outlet and confirm that 6 are connection points are required in total (3 per wing).

Answer #397: This is a 100% D/B project.

Question #398: Does the upper roll-up or trolley door require radiant heat?

Answer #398: Radiant heating for roll-up door not required.

Question #399: Confirm that indirect gas burners are an acceptable heating source.

Answer #399: Refer to UFC and NFPA Question #400: Confirm that VRF multi-head cooling/heating units are acceptable for the following spaces (CTK, Cell rm, Training Rm., Offices, Breakroom, and Restrooms).

Answer #400: This is a 100% D/B project; refer to Tab A. Planning Charette Report (page 14/59) Question #401: May condensing units be placed outside of the building on equipment pad?

Answer #401: This is a 100% D/B project.

Question #402: Are there temperature control requirements that would preclude the use of single-zone cooling equipment serving multiple areas?

Answer #402: This is a 100% D/B project.

Question #403: Does the Government consider the existing B1007 hanger to be a Risk Category I or Risk Category II type of structure per UFC 3-301-01 table 2-2.

Answer #403: Category II confirmed.

Question #404: Our assumption is that the Fuel Cell Maintenance Facility is a Risk Category II structure per UFC 3-301-01 table 2-2. Please confirm.

Answer #404: Category II confirmed.

Question #407: In the virtual walkthrough it shows fiber and copper cable in the building. Are these cables to be used or does new fiber and/or copper backbone cabling need to be installed?

Answer #407: See answer #235 Amendment 0005 Question #408: Attachment 3, SOW section 4.0 identifies the need to repair or replace damaged roofing and siding panels. As there is not a known quantity of damage and the price could vary substantially, could the RFP be revised to either identify an assumed quantity of wall and roof panels to replace and/or add two additional CLINS? One to add a unit a unit price for wall panel replacement per square foot and another to add a unit price to replace roof panels per square foot.

Answer #408: See Answer #14 Amendment 0003.

Question #409: The last sentence on page 44 of the Planning Charette Report states Structural scope on this project will also include design of independent masonry walls supporting a steel and concrete deck framed mezzanine, and the structure of associated steel handrails and stairs. Also, the Option A - Floor Plan indicates three sets of stairs adjacent to support areas. The statement of work does not mention mezzanine areas or requirements for 2nd floor areas. Are mezzanines required for this facility?

Answer #409: Yes; SOW amended in 4.5 A. Design and construct CMU wall separation and non-CMU partitions for interior support space as indicated in COA Option 3A Floor Plan Layout and Comparative Analysis of Attachment A, including but not limited to, the following components:

Independent CMU walls supporting a steel and concrete deck framed mezzanine for excess Plumbing, HVAC, electrical, communications, fire suppression equipment use Associated steel handrails and stairs.

Question #410: At the exterior location of the proposed Tug Route, is the government expecting a complete removal/new construction of the existing area or just where the proposed asphalt route is going?

Answer #410: Exterior pavement work are not required Question #411: At the location of the fire hammerhead parking lot, is the government expecting 100% new construction or just modifications to existing to accommodate hammerhead?

Answer #411: Exterior pavement work are not required Question #412: Can pictures/video of the exterior improvements areas be made available please, with detail to existing slopes, catch basins, valves, etc.?

Answer #412: All relevant graphics has been already provided via Virtual Site Visit and SOW attachments Question #413: Can we use the base GIS as a base file for design?

Answer #413: This is a 100% D/B project.

Question #415: Do the interior wall hydrants/hose bibbs require freeze protection? Building will be heated, however if the large hangar doors are left open there could be risk of freezing.

Answer #415: This is a 100% D/B project; must comply with UFC, NFPA, ETL.

Question #417: Please confirm if furnishings, equipment and casework is furnished by the Government. If we are to supply and install cabinets what is desired; Dimensions? Layout?

Answer #417: storage systems/furniture are government/user-furnished.

Question #418: Are we to provide striping on the hangar floor?

Answer #418: No.

Question #419: Confirm that the existing hangar bay doors are on a separate and dedicated power supply from the facility transformer or ahead of the main service disconnecting means and meets the requirements of Paragraph 3-7.2 of UFC 4-211-01. If not, will compliance with Paragraph 3-7.2 of UFC 4-211-01 be required?

Answer #419: Existing hangar bay doors are manually operated by users.

Question #425: Compressed air: a. Please provide locations for desired air drops. b. What are the system demand needs, both volume and pressures?

Answer #425: This is a 100% D/B Project; refer to UFC and TAB D - Corrosion Control_Fuel Cell Mx Hangar Facility Standard Designs Question #426: In order to determine the hazard classification of the hangar, please clarify if re-fueling/de-fueling will occur inside the hangar.

Answer #426: This is a 100% D/B Project; refer to UFC and TAB D - Corrosion Control_Fuel Cell Mx Hangar Facility Standard Designs