Solicitation Amendment FA462020R00020008 SF 30 (1).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 8

0008 5/4/2020 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, Telephone: 657-4871 Email: heather.rogers.9@us.af.mil

FA462020R0002

3/26/2020

See Section G

The purpose of this amendment is to answer Seed Project and Solicitation 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 #29: Virtual Site Visit Observation - It appeared from the video of the interior and the top of CMU wall looks like its un-grouted. This would indicate the wall is non-structural. Please confirm if the CMU walls are fully grouted.

Answer# 29: As-built drawings coupled with your roofing engineer evaluation; Assume wall is grouted.

Question #38: SUBJECT: Support Spaces and 18 inches above Hangar floor: Adjacent to the Training Room in the plan NE corner of the hangar space there is an arrow, on the hangar side of the area pointing towards the elevated Exit Corridor. QUESTION: Does this ARROW indicate a desired location for a set if stairs (and a ramp per ADA) to access the exit corridor and the offices/train room within that elevated space?

Answer #38: This is a design build project. As-built drawings coupled with your structural engineers evaluation. ADA and ABA do not apply.

Question #39: SUBJECT: Support Spaces and 18 inches above Hangar floor. VERIFY: Please confirm that the window in the CTK space is to be placed UNDER an exit stair assumed to be needed for a mezzanine above and NOT the wall space running north and south on the east side of the CTK interior space.

Answer #39: This is a design build project. As-built drawings coupled with your structural engineers evaluation.

Question#57: Attachment 1.3, the SOW states that we are to provide water and sewer service. However, the depth of these connections is not given. Please provide this information so that the Contractor can verify these points of connection are viable.

Answer # 57: GEO locates and dig permits will be processed post award.

Question#64: Attachment 1.3 SOW, part 4.5 D states Repair existing exterior CMU low walls extended up to the eave line.... As these are low walls, please clarify what is meant by extended up to the eave line.

Answer #64: CMU wall is 56 inch +/- tall, meeting the seam of metal panel wall/siding. See updated SOW 1 May 2020.

Question#68: Page 12 of TAB A Planning Charette states that, In the interior, where improvements are not covering-up the inside face of the wall, the walls will receive thermal insulation with a serviceable finished surface. What defines a serviceable surface?

Answer #68 : The serviceable finished surface must be able to contain and protect the thermal insulation.

Question#76: Reference Attachment 1.3 SOW: Section 2.0 paragraph A directs us to assume for bidding purposes 1500 SF of Asbestos Containing Materials, including pipe insulation, pipe joints, door sealant and cement board. Costs for abatement of these items will vary. Please clarify quantities of ACM for each of these items, to be used for bidding purposes.

Answer #76: See SOW dated 1 May 2020 an TAB E, Fulcrum Environmental Consulting Report dated 26 Apr BACKGROUND: TAB A2_Site_Plan_Map indicates ADD CURB just beyond the 39 ft-0in Standoff Distance North of Building B1007. Question #79: CLARIFICATION: Our understanding of UFC 4-010-01 is that it does NOT recognize a standard curb as being enough deterrent to constitute a secured border delineating a proper standoff safety zone. Please provide sufficient detail, for the purpose of equal bidding that adequately describes the type of curb the government intends to be installed including its desired width, depth and height of such a curb or obstruction meeting the UFC guidelines.

Answer #79: This is a 100% D/B project. Refer to BDS (page 346-350/409) for curb details.

Question #95: Do any support spaces require double doors for access?

Answer #95: This is a 100% D/B project Question #101: To access a work platform around the aircraft?

Answer #101: See Answer #100 Amendment 0004.

FA462020R00020008

Question #128: Questions pertaining to the existing interior slab and epoxy flooring: Building was built in 1958, are there significant cracks over 1/6 inch and if so, how many lineal feet? Question #128a: Is there spall or delamination? If so, please quantify for bidding purposes. Question #128b: Construction joints are to be replaced. How many feet and how wide? Question #128c: Older hangar joint material sometimes contains PCB, has it been tested? The testing report focused only on ACM and LBP. Question #128d: Will perimeter cove base at wall/floor interface be required at epoxy flooring areas?

Answer #128 Unknown. 128a. Unknown. 128b. Assume Slabs grid patterns shown Tab A1 represent existing expansion joints. 128c. No PCB report available. 128 d. Refer BDS Question #134: How are we to quantify and estimate the metal roof and wall panel replacement without being afforded appropriate opportunity to inspect? For bidding purposes would it be possible to provide assumed quantities?

Answer #134: See answer 14 Amendment 0003.

Question #135: How high is the ceramic tile to go on the restroom walls?

Answer #135: Reference the BDS.

Question #140: What is the bottom track width and how far are the bottom tracks apart?

Answer #140: The actual width of track is unknown, however the doors are approximately 5 inches wide.

Question #143: Per the Attachment 1 MACC Seed Project FOPR Letter, Item #8, a separate Superintendent and QC are required. However, it appears that the RFP does not include any requirements for a Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO). Is a full-time SSHO required? Can the SSHO duties be performed by the Superintendent or the QC Manager?

Answer #143: No an SSHO is not required for this project per the FOPR Letter. Yes, if you deemed them required.

Question #144: It doesnt appear that the RFP identifies any requirements for escorts. Is the Contractor required to provide escorts (and the associated e) while working on the Building 1007 seed project (and other task orders on the MACC)?

Answer #144: No escorts are not required. An EAL is required per the FOPR Letter, para 7.

Question #145: Per Attch 1.3 SOW, 4.6, and the Tab A Planning Charette (i.e. section 2.1), an epoxy floor coating is required. That being said, the RFP (including the Attachment 7 Fairchild AFB 2018 Base Design Standards) does not appear to specify the epoxy coating. Is there a base standard epoxy floor coating that must be provided?

Answer #145: There is no Base Standards for epoxy coating. Reference TAB D Finishes.

Question #178: Design references. In order to obtain pricing within the short timeframe allowed for this proposal, a cutoff date of design guidelines needs to be determined. This will establish relevant versions of UFCs and other design references so that our designers and subcontractors can develop their pricing. Using the bid date is not practical.

Answer #178: References must be most current version as of proposal due date.

Question #185: UFC 1-200-02 3rd party certification. The thresholds in Table 1-1 use the ERC values which are listed on the DD1391. Please provide this information so that we can better understand the requirements.

Answer #185: If required, information will be provided post award.

Question #189: Please provide detailed information about the role of AFCEC in the design and construction of this project. What AF entity will oversee AFCECs design comments and weigh them against the bid documents?

Will AFCEC make regular site visits during construction to review the work for compliance? Our concern is that they will only come out very late in the project and miss timely opportunities to review the work in progress. This can result in costly changes that could have been avoided through more frequent inspections.

Answer #189: Project review will be conducted by 92d CES Question #200: Tab A Planning Charrette Report, Page 8 of 59: PRV and ERC information has been retracted. Top of Page 19 of 59: UFC 1-200-02 indicates Tracking / Reporting/ Third Party Certification Required Bottom of Page 19 of 59: To determine whether third-party certification is required, review the thresholds in Table 1-1 of UFC 1-200-02. UFC Table 1-1 states, Third Party Certification is required when: 2.

Each renovation in an existing building \4\10,000 GSF/4/, with \1\total4 /1/cost greater than $3M and 50% ERC (footnote 6), and with comprehensive replacement (include additions that are part of the building renovation).

Footnote 6 states, Estimated Replacement Cost (ERC) is the cost listed in the projects DD1391 Economic Analysis, and is exclusive of the cost to bring the existing building into compliance with all criteria.\2\/2

/ Question: Without knowledge of the ERC, a proposer cannot determine whether the TPC requirement is applicable. Is UFC 1-200-02 Guiding Principles registration, Third Party Certification and all related costs a contract requirement? If so, is the D-B contractor responsible for these costs?

Answer #200: See answer #185 in Amendment 0008.

Question #202: Tab A Planning Charrette Report, Page 9 of 59: As-Built Drawings Remarks indicate the building was designed and constructed in 1956 and original as-built information, while limited, is available. Please provide digital scans of any original as-built drawings FAFB may have in their archives for this facility. Please also provide CAD files of all existing as-builts.

Answer #202: There are no original as-built drawings to provide. Government will provide any existing CAD files post award.

Question #443: Question: Please clarify response given to question #63 and subsequent revised SOW which states to assume 100LF of CMU wall repairs. Existing CMU low wall was not constructed to support the additional weight of the anticipated 10ft+ high perimeter wall required to meet UFC requirements. For bidding purposes are we to assume low wall is sufficient and only needs repairs to 100LF, or are we to follow UFC requirements and provide costs to remove low wall and construct new 10ft+ perimeter walls?

Answer# 443: Clarification: Assume 100 LF of 54 1/2inches tall, exterior CMU wall require repairs; new, 10-ft interior CMU wall, which separates aircraft from support facilities and be adjacent to the exterior CMU wall, is to be constructed.

Question #444: RFP Tab A1, drawing OPT3A-1 shows a layout for the fall protection system. This system graphically does not cover to the nose of the fuselage nor the tail and horizontal stabilizer. Is the DB contractor required to provide only the extent of fall protection provided on this drawing?

Answer# 444: This is an 100% D/B Project; Tab A.1 Course of Action Option 3A Floor Plan only provide a notional concept for vendors to develop/design.

Question #445: The RFP drawings appear to be CAD/BIM documents. Will the Government provide these electronic files to the successful DB contractor after the project is awarded?

Answer# 445: Available files will be provided post-award Question #446: RFP Tab D, Standard Design Air Force Corrosion Control/Fuel Cell Maintenance Hangar Facility, Module E, figure 2-E.1 indicates a vestibule located between the Fuel Cell Maintenance Hangar and the Fuel Shop CTK. RFP Tab A1, drawing OPT3A-1, does not indicate a vestibule at the CTK space. Please confirm that a vestibule is NOT REQUIRED by this RFP since no space is allocated for it in the RFP plans.

Answer# 446: This is a 100% D/B project Question #447: RFP Tab A, Design Charette, section 3.2, Structural Requirements, Foundations states in the 2nd sentence Existing hangar slab is adequate to support CMU wall loads... This contradicts Attachment 7, Fairchild AFB 2018 Base Design Standards Submittal Checklist item D.1 that states Foundations below frost line; minimum 4 feet below grade. Please confirm that the requirements of the Design Charette take precedence over the Fairchild AFB Base Design Standards Answer# 447:The submittal checklist is general in nature. The Charrette is project specific.

Question #448: The as-built drawings provided in amendment 003 do not indicate foundation construction. Is the contractor to assume the hangar slab is supported by the site soils and the hangar superstructure is supported by spread footing foundations?

Answer# 448: 100% D/B project.

Question #449: The scope of work implies that the hangar bay slab will need to be cut for installation of sanitary sewer and water supply lines. Please verify that the replacement slab in the hangar bay can be limited just to the trench width and that an entire panel does not need to be replaced.

Answer# 449: 100% D/B project.

Question #450: The scope of work implies that the former hangar bay slab at the shop and administrative spaces will need to be cut for installation of sanitary sewer and water supply lines. Please verify that the replacement slab at the trenches in these shop and administrative spaces can be reduced in thickness to what is required based on loading and UFC requirements for shop and administrative spaces, and are not required to be the full slab thickness.

Answer# 450: 100% D/B project Question #451: RFP Tab A, Design Charette, section 3.2, Architectural Requirements, Installation Facilities Standards (IFS) - Continued notes that Cell purge systems are located at three convenient positions. We are unable to find any further information on this Cell purge system elsewhere in the RFP. Please confirm that there is no Cell purge system in this project, or provide the necessary information to incorporate it into the project.

Answer# 451: 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; refer to UFC, NFPA and Tab D. Standard Design for AF Corrosion Control/Fuel Cell Maintenance Hangar Facility Question #453: Is a card reader system required for access control?

Answer# 453: See Answer #281 Amendment 0007.

Question #454: If a card reader system is or may be required for access control: a. Will this tie into a base-wide system?

Answer# 454: See Answer #281 Amendment 0007.

Question #455: Where is the tie-in point for communications/data systems?

Answer# 455: See Answer #115 Amendment 0007 Question #456: Compressed air: a. Please provide locations for desired air drops. b. What are the system demand needs, both volume and pressures?

Answer# 456: This is a 100% D/B Project; refer to UFC and TAB D - Corrosion Control_Fuel Cell Mx Hangar Facility Standard Designs Question #457: n order to determine the hazard classification of the hangar, please clarify if re-fueling/de-fueling will occur inside the hangar.

Answer# 457: Refer to Tab D.

Question #458: 4.13 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETYA. Provide Overhead Rails for Fall Protection System in support of personnel working on top of the aircraft wings and fuselage and major ventilation systems per TAB A. It appears that fall protection will be required for employees servicing the aircraft. If that is the case, we would like to request the following clarification: a. How many systems are required? b. The system should be rated for how many users on 1. Fuselage 2. The wing for each side Answer# 458: This is an 100% D/B Project; Tab A.1 Course of Action Option 3A Floor Plan only provide a notional concept for vendors to develop/design; Refer to UFC, NFPA, and Standard Design for AF Corrosion Control/Fuel Cell Maintenance Hangar Facility Question #459: Amendment 0003. We do not see the question for #24 (Fairchild AFB provides the answer;

same answer as question 25), as well as Q and A for 2631, 3839, 57, 64, 68, 75135, 140, 143175, 178202, 204215, 217254, and 259. Will these be addressed in another Addendum?

Answer #459: The listed questions and answers in the amendments are not answered in sequential order. The numbers associated are used as identifiers for tracking purposes. Questions are being answered and disseminated in amendments as soon as batches of them have answers.

Question #461: We read in the Planning Charette on page 50 of the document that the floor slab is sloped at 0.36% with the design to be 0.50%. Please confirm that the existing slab slope of .36% is acceptable for Fuel Cell Operation.

Answer# 461: This is a 100% D/B project; assume slab slope north of high point where aircraft nose is located DOES NOT require adjustment.

Question #462: Is the Fairchild electrical system deemed reliable or will a diesel driven fire pump be required?

Answer# 462: Diesel-driven fire pump not required Question #465: The RFP provided utility plan did not show where the fiber/telecom lines are being fed from that service the building. Please provide manhole locations that provide telecommunications services to the hangar building.

Answer# 465: Service (MH-7) coming from east side of nose-bay; see additional comm utility map TAB H and

TAB I

Question #470: BACKGROUND: Virtual Site Visit; TAB A2 - Site Plan Map. In the site plan map it reflects a new gate to be installed on the south east corner. In the Virtual Site Visit video, it shows a light tower approx.

center between Bldg. 1007s hanger door pocket and the rails and track assemblies for Bldg. 1005.

QUESTION:

a) There appears to be a new trench repair leading to it. What is it and how deep is it?

b) Since its not reflected in the site plan, please provide exact location in relation to the building and the door pocket.

c) Are we to relocate the light pole since it sits within the dedicated path of the new tug route?

Answer# 470: A) Structural concrete pavement on the airfield is typically 16 to 17 inches in this area. Shoulder asphalt is typically about 3 inches. However, the asphalt could be thicker, up to 6 inches, where it is used for structural pavement (for heavy aircraft). There may be isolated spots where that occurs. B) Hangar door pockets are on either sides of the buildings southern facing corners. C) Yes Question #471: BACKGROUND: TAB A2 - Site Plan Map. In the site plan map, it reflects a new 2ft wide curb to be installed along the east side of the site separating the building. There is another curb at the north end of the existing access.

QUESTION:

a) What is the intended use of these curbs?

b) Since it is reflected as a 2ft wide curb, what is the required height?

c) Do they have to be designed as vehicle crash barriers per UFC 4-010-01?

Answer# 471: A) adding concrete curbs as barriers to prevent vehicles from entering the 39-foot clear zone. B) Refer to BDS (page 346-350/409) for curb details. C)No Question #474: TAB A planning charrette states bird intrusion prevention is required to be added and to follow UFC 4-21-01 - 3-3.6 standards; UFC 4-21-01 is incorrectly listed and should be UFC 4-211-01 3.3.6 which states:

Bird Intrusion Prevention Coordinate accepted intrusion prevention measures with environmental office for host facility. Design intrusion prevention systems to not restrict access to building systems. Design all access required as removable panels that can be removed and replaced with the normal means of access and tools used by maintenance personnel.

Are audible devices acceptable means that can be considered in lieu of barriers?

Answer# 474: Corrected UFC reference confirmed; however, per base entomology section, no audible devices or physical barriers are used for intrusion prevention in existing hangars; therefore, intrusion protection are not required and nor will it be included in SOW.

Question #482: Would the Government consider extending the proposal due date to 15 May 2020?

Answer# 482: Not at this time.

Question #483: Attch+1.3+SOW+17+April+2020.pdf page 6 of 10, para 4.5 D. deleted the following:

1. Repair holes in the metal panels and open joints between panels.

2. Panels damaged beyond repair shall be replaced and painted.

3. Metal panels shall be repaired/replaced prior to insulation installation While the statement, Repair existing exterior CMU low walls extended up to the eave line in accordance with comparative analysis of Attachment A remains, Tab A - Planning Charette Report.pdf page 50 of 59 states, New walls are Required Please clarify the intent of new walls since the referenced document paragraph of UFC 4- 211-01 - 3-3.2.3 only states, Provide a masonry or concrete finish up to a minimum 10 ft. (3.0 m) minimum above the finished floor for the interior and exterior face of the entire perimeter of the Aircraft Maintenance Bay, except at hangar doors. There is no mention of what happens above the 10ft height. Tab A - Planning Charette Report.pdf page 35 of 59 states, From inside the building one can see numerous holes in the metal panels, both wall panels and roofing panels. These holes will require patching as with the conversion the building will require thermal insulation. Page 11 of 59 states, he shell is to be made weather tight with thermal insulation added to the exterior walls, hangar doors and to the roof. Page 12 of 59 states, The many holes in the metal panels as well as open joints between panels are to be repaired. Damaged panels are to be replaced and painted. Above the exterior CMU walls, Is exterior wall panel repair / replacement required? If there is a conflict between 2 documents, does one document govern over another? Since this a price only proposal, can the contractor choose the least expensive option?

Answer# 483: The mentioned new, 10-ft interior CMU wall to be built is referred to the separation between aircraft from support facilities and is adjacent to the exterior CMU low walls; Above the exterior CMU low walls, the exterior wall panel is expected/required to be repair/replaced. Additionally, the implementation of daylighting using translucent panels applies to upper portions of the hangars south, east and western walls per Tab A.3 Elevation Model/Notional Concept.

Question #484: Attch+1.3+SOW+17+April+2020.pdf page 7 of 10, para 4.5 G states, Convert existing manually operating hangar doors into an electric powered operating system with independent circuits for power source, heated tracks and portable generator connection per comparative analysis of Attachment A. page 4 of 10, para

4.0 states, suspended hangar door tracks heating System Tab A - Planning Charette Report.pdf page 49 of 59 states, ...heating tracks,... and NFPA 409-5.7.4, which states the following: In areas where freezing temperatures occur, door tracks or the bottom edges of doors shall be protected by heating coils or equivalent means to prevent ice formation that has the potential to prevent or delay operation. Page 5 of this same document states, Deicing of the hangar doors will be by adding suspended infrared tube heaters inside the hangar, along and parallel to the hangar doors. This method of deicing hangar rolling doors has been successful at other installations at Fairchild AFB. Which method of de-icing the hangar doors should contractors bid? If there is a conflict within the documents, what governs? Since this a price only proposal, can the contractor choose the least expensive option?

Answer #484: Intended method for de-icing door tracks is with suspended infrared tube heating per SOW 4.8.B Question #485: In general, If theres a conflict within the documents, is there an order of precedence as to which document governs? Since this a price only proposal, can the contractor choose the least expensive option?

Answer #485: Yes, you can chose the least expensive option as long as it complies with all applicable codes.

Question #487: Attch+1.3+SOW+17+April+2020.pdf page 7 of 10, para 4.8 states HVAC shall be provided in accordance with UFC 3-410-01. Change 6 of this document dated 30 March 2020 states, 3-6.12 General Purpose Aircraft Hangars. \6\ HVAC designs for general purpose aircraft hangars will be in accordance with the current issue of UFC 4-211-01. /6/ Since the RFP SOW was initially dated as 28 Feb 2020, please clarify the HVAC requirements of UFC 4-211-01 are applicable to this project. Tab A - Planning Charette Report.pdf page 57 of 59 has a picture titled Foam Suppression Equipment. However, the photo appears to illustrate the complexity of a hose reel exhaust/ventilation system. UFC 4-211-01, para 3-5.3.1. and 3-5.3.1.5 state, Provide exhaust systems at the heat or contamination sources. Exhaust systems will operate continuously while the building is occupied. ...and... Ventilate the hangar bay at a general rate of 0.5 cubic feet per minute (cfm)/square feet (2.54 liters/sec/m2) when aircraft maintenance activities are being conducted for the purposes of odor and fume mitigation. In order to appropriately size the system, how many hours per day, days per week are aircraft maintenance activities are being conducted?

Answer #487: Maintenance ops: 24 hours a day for 5 weekdays; 12 hours a day for weekend Question #488: UFC 4-211-01 para 3-5.4 Secondary Structural Systems states, Design the walls and partitions of the Aircraft Maintenance Bay to be non-load bearing and not be considered as elements of the lateral load resisting system. The walls of the office/shop portion of the facility may be designed as load-bearing if structurally isolated from the Aircraft Maintenance Bay structure. Limit the use of interior load bearing walls to allow for future reconfiguration of the spaces. Is it acceptable to make the interior walls CMU load bearing walls to support the mezzanine structure above? If so, is it acceptable to cut the slab and provide new footings beneath these walls, or is a steel structure within the perimeter CMU walls desired to support the mezzanine?

Answer# 488: Interior, CMU load-bearing wall to support mezzanine structure and the subsequent slab cutting and new footing construction beneath such wall are ACCEPTABLE; Per SOW 4.5A, steel structure is desired.

Question #489: UFC 4-211-01 indicates air handling units shall be located on the roof or in dedicated mechanical rooms. RFP Appendix A, Sheet OPT 3A-1 calls for air handling units to be located at grade on the exterior of the building. Please confirm the desired location of the air handling units.

Answer# 489: Compliance with UFC 4-211-01 takes precedence over Tab A1 COA notional concepts recommendation when possible.

Question #490: UFC 4-211-01, paragraph 5-12.6.1.3 requires an air purifying system suitable for respirator use or hoses directly to the outside be provided. Is an air purifying system required for this project?

Answer# 490: Air purification system suitable for respirator use is required for this project.

SOLICITATION QUESTIONS

Question #169: Reference Response to Question #4 in Amendment 2: This response directs us to Answer #9 in Amendment 1, which does not really clarify whether design/bid/build projects will be accepted and reviewed.

As the offeror we have a design/build project to submit, but not five of them completed in the last three years.

We would like to supplement this design/build project with otherwise relevant design/bid/build projects, but if they will not be accepted we do not want to include them and take up pages in the 30-page limit (which would otherwise be used for team experience). Please clarify (yes or no) whether design/bid/build projects will be acceptable, and whether they would be rated less favorably than design/build projects.

Answer #169: See Answer #18 in Amendment 0002.

Question #172: Section L para 2.2.4 includes Section 1: Proposal forwarding letter, if any. Is a proposal forwarding letter required and if so, please clarify the information required within this letter.

Answer #172: As per Section L para 2.2.4 Provide forwarding letter, if any.

Question #199: To be clear, Section B already has a Price Schedule in it which asks for Unit Prices for Initial years and Option years. Section 1.2 has Pricing Schedule for the Seed Project. To be clear, the Pricing Schedule in Section B is to be replaced with the Pricing Schedule for the seed project in Attachment 1.2 Section J. You are not asking that we complete the Pricing schedule in Section B. If you are asking we complete the Pricing schedule in Section B your RFP lacks any direction for this section B Pricing Schedule.

Answer#199: The Option Year pricing schedule in Section B is not to be used for the Seed Project Proposal and is to be left blank. Section B Price schedule is not to be replaced with the price schedule Attch 1.2.

Question # 459: Amendment 0003. We do not see the question for #24 (Fairchild AFB provides the answer;

same answer as question 25), as well as Q and A for 2631, 3839, 57, 64, 68, 75135, 140, 143175, 178202, 204215, 217254, and 259. Will these be addressed in another Addendum?

Answer #459: The listed questions and answers in the amendments are not answered in sequential order. The numbers associated are used as identifiers for tracking purposes. Questions are being answered and disseminated in amendments as soon as batches of them have answers.

Question #460: Need Clarification from Question/Answer 6 in Addendum 0001. Question 6: If a Designer participated in the preparation of documents for the MACC solicitation Seed Project, would they be eliminated from competing for that task order and from future task orders under the MACC?Answer 6: AE firms with contracts with Fairchild AFB have agreed to perform their contracts in strict compliance with the clauses and documents which are made part of their contracts to include the following: AVOIDANCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Any contractor, subcontractor associated, affiliated or a consultant to the design contractor who furnishes the design information and/or specifications for the specific project shall not be allowed to furnish such services and/or items as required by the construction contract for that project either as prime contractor, subcontractor, or supplier. This does not preclude the designer from participating on future task orders if they were not part of that projects development process. Follow up to the Government response to Question 6:

Would it be permissible for a design consultant that was engaged in the development of the seed project, to participate in B1007 final design provided they are strictly prohibited from any communication with a contractor on the project until AFTER award? In this case, the design consultant would have written understanding established with any potential teaming partners that they may not engage in dialog or correspondence whatsoever regarding the design, scope, fee, or cost estimate for the B1007 seed project until after all MACC contract awards are finalized by the Government. Similar to work on future task orders, the intent would be to eliminate any real or perceived conflict of interest.

Answer #460: Please refer to Answer #6 Amendment 0001.