QandA2.pdf

FA4626-19-R-A022: Repair Helicopter Hanger, Bldg. 1440

1 - 8

Questions and Answers:

Q1: The package that was posted on FBO yesterday is missing the RFP with information concerning the due date, site visit date, etc. Will you be posting that document soon?

A1: Please see posted solicitation (SF 1442) at the following clause on page 60 of 62, FAR 52.236-27 Alt 1 Site Visit (Construction).

Q2: I noted in Section L that only one person can attend the site visit for the above subject solicitation. Should I request permission to send more than one person through the RFI process?

A2: PLEASE NOTE. Two (2) individuals per prime contractor and one (1) for any major subcontractor or a maximum of 3 for any prime or joint venture/teaming arrangement are allowed for the site visit.

Q3: If I am a subcontractor, how to I get in contact with prime contractors that will be bidding the job?

A3: After the site visit is held, the site visit attendance sheet will be posted with the contact information for the prime contractors interested in the project.

Q4: Attachment 10, Section L, paragraph 4.2 instructs Offerors to submit information shown in Attachment 12 for each relevant contract five (5) days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals. Is this information to be submitted in hardcopy or via email? If hardcopies are required, how many copies must be submitted early?

A4: Paragraph 4.2 asking for early proposal information was removed.

Q5: Attachment 10, Section L, paragraph 4.1 instructs Offerors to request their clients to complete new PPQs and submit them directly to 341st Contracting Squadron via email? We have found that government clients often refuse to complete new PPQs for projects that have final CPARS evaluations in the government’s PPIRS system, or for projects that they have previously completed PPQS for. Will the government allow Offerors to include CPARS evaluations in their proposals in lieu of sending out new PPQ requests to document past performance? Will the government consider allowing Offerors to include previously completed PPQs in their proposals in lieu of sending out new PPQ requests to document past performance?

A5: The individuals who completes the PPQs on behalf of the offerors must submit the PPQs directly to the government to ensure that the offeror is not manipulating the ratings. The purpose

2 - 8 of a PPQ is to provide the government with additional information that cannot already be found within the CPARS or PPIRS data system. IAW Table 2.2 of Attachment 10, the offeror shall provide Attachment 12 for no more than 3 citations.

Q6: What is the date and time that Requests for Information will no longer be accepted for this solicitation?

A6: “Offerors are requested to submit questions to the Secondary POC above no later than eight

(8) days after the site visit.” However, the government will do its best effort to answer all RFI’s up to the close of the solicitation.

Q7: Proposal Volumes (including Pricing) are to be provided in hardcopy and on a CD.

Historically, some major trade subcontractors hold their pricing until minutes before a solicitation closes. This makes it very difficult to burn CDs complete with the best pricing available.

Q: In an effort to provide the most competitive pricing, will the government allow the price schedule (Section B) to be completed in the hardcopies only, with the blank bid schedule included in the CD copy of that specific Volume?

A7: Please provide all information in accordance with the solicitation.

Q8: Subfactor 3: Project Schedule states: “The schedule shall indicate sequences proposed to accomplish each work element and appropriate interdependencies between various work elements. The schedule shall be as complete, reasonable, and realistic as possible, demonstrating the Offeror’s ability to propose a schedule that identifies all major elements of work for this project, meets the Government’s requirements, and is obtainable.”

The instructions limit the schedule’s graphical representation to a single 11x17 page. The level of detail that must be included to satisfy this requirement will generate a graph that will more than likely cover more than 1 page. In order to maintain the graph’s legibility and still present all of the required information, please consider increasing the graphical representation to four pages.?

A8: The page limit for the schedule’s graphical representation has been updated to four (4) 11” by 17” pages.

Q9: OPTIONAL BID ITEM, CLIN10 (now CLIN 0011): What is the expected usage schedule?

Is there a desired service interval? In other words, how many times a week does the Air Force want the trailer to be cleaned & stocked? How often is septic service desired or required?

3 - 8

A9: It is estimated that 60 individuals will be using the trailers M-F, from 0700-1730. Cleaning should occur once per week, with septic service as needed based on usage.

Q10: The solicitation seems to be locked and the instruction for log in are to log in as a vendor which I have done, but still am unable to see or download the solicitation documents. Can you please advise me on how to properly see this information?

A10: Please see page 42 of 69 of the Vendor User Guide on FBO for instructions on how to access the solicitation documents.

Q11: Section L, Par. 3.2.2 Subfactor 3: Sub-factor 3 Project Schedule notes that there is a 4 Page Maximum for the schedule submittal. It later notes that the Graphic may be one 11x17 page.

Please confirm: is it the government’s intent that the offeror provide a 4 page schedule narrative + 1page (11x17) schedule graphic? Or is the intent that the offeror is allowed 4 pages to provide schedule and they are allowed to use 11x17 pages?

For a project of this scope and complexity we would anticipate that the project schedule to appropriately address the period of performance would require more than a single 11x17 page.

A11: CONFIRMED: is it the government’s intent that the offeror provide a 4 page schedule narrative + 1page (11x17) schedule graphic. However, as noted in Question 8, the page limit for the graphical representation (11”x17”) has been increased to 4 pages.

Please follow all restrictions in accordance with the solicitation.

Q12: Section L & M: Section L requests that the contractor submit past performance using Attachment 8 for each project. Section M notes that the government will evaluated past performance using PPQ's, CPARS, PPIRS ect. Is it acceptable for the contractor to submit CPARS reports or past PPQ's when they exist rather than requesting new project specific PPQ's from past owners. Past owners have been hesitant to repeatedly fill out past performance questioners every time a project is submitted.

A12: Please see the answer to Question 5 above.

Q13: Can the contracting office extend the sealed offer due date to November 11th, 2019?

A13: There is no need to extend the proposal due date at this time.

4 - 8

Q14: Can a contractor utilize an ongoing project that is “less than 80%” complete on a “greater than $3,000,000.00” project for past performance in lieu of 80% complete $3,000,000 project?

A14: Please utilize the definition of relevancy as identified in Section M (Attachment 11).

Q15: AD2.7 – First Floor RCP-Demo: Hatched area states to salvage all ACT for reuse in the project, is this intended for patch work areas if needed since A2.7 calls for new ACT?

A15: Under review.

Q16: A2.1, Keynote 1.049 states to add fire batting per code in room 111. Is the intent to add batting in the walls, ceiling, both? We did not get a look in this room, does GWB need to come down?

A16: Under Review.

Q17: Are the new draft curtains just metal panels attached by angle iron to the structure, similar to existing? What type of metal panel are we to use? Per specification 074213?

A17: Under Review.

Q18: For the work required at offices 201, 202, 203, 204, and 206 (install fire rated wall up to deck, fire seal), what is the height to the structure above? Do we use wall type I-1 for the wall extensions?

A18: Under Review.

Q19: The information in the drawings reflect various features not clearly defined. Will the government provide the as-builts so we can determine the extent of work required?

A19: Under Review.

Q20: Per the “ROOF PLAN” sheet there is a requirement for the structural attachment of the new fall protection anchors. Per sheet S6.0 detail 6, identifies the basis of design as the “Miller- Fusion X10030;

a. The provided detail differs from the from the manufacturer’s attachment detail. Are we to follow the provided detail or comply with the manufacture’s installation requirements?

b. This specific model indicates it is for installation of a Built-up roof assembly not to exceed 5.5” thickness. What is the existing roofing condition?

c. This specific model indicates it is for installation of a Built-up roof assembly not to exceed 5.5” thickness. The indication is that the anchor assembly is surface mounted with the

5 - 8 toggle bolts through the membrane. The detail instructs us to cut, remove and replace the roofing at each location. Can we follow the surface mount detail by the manufacturer?

d. Are the locations depicted schematic? Or can we field adjust locations to mitigate impacts to systems and structure, such as ridge locations?

e. Is there an architectural detail available to depict actual installation requirements?

A20: Under Review.

Q21: Can dimensions be added to the drawings? The only minimal dimensions provided is on the “Striping Plan” sheets.

A21: Under Review.

Q22: Sheet A5.2 reflects 33 photos. None are labeled or referenced in the drawings. What is the information to be derived from them, as many pictures may indicate deficiencies if located in rated assemblies?

A22: Under Review.

Q23: Sheet S3.3; Flag Note “3” tells us that a portion of the fall protection rail may need to be removed between grids D&F. Can we assume the existing fall protection system is being abandoned? Or is there a requirement to design and reinstall the rails so the system remains functional?

A23: Under Review.

Q24: Per the solicitation’s 1442, block 10, states “A potential winter exclusion exists from the period of 22 September through 22 May.”

a. What is this in reference to?

b. Based on the project phasing, if the project has to be complete by March 15, 2021 this winter exclusion would impact 8 months of a 12-month contract, will additional time be added to the contract?

c. What are the potential impacts of the winter exclusion to the project and contractor?

d. Where in the RFP documents can information regarding the winter exclusion be found?

A24: Under Review.

Q25: According to the solicitation the period of performance is 360cd’s and requires us to guarantee our proposal for 247 days. In the phasing plan it states, “This contract will stay in place until September 30, 2021. Construction on the building must be done by March 15, 2021, but temporary facilities must be kept in place until September 30th. The government will be occupying the building immediately after March 15th”.

6 - 8

a. Based on the 247 days of guarantee, and assuming October 28th submission, indicates the award could be as late as July 1, 2020. For scheduling purpose should we assume this date for contract award?

b. If we assume 360cd’s prior to the March 15, 2021 date and include time for administrative efforts prior to NTP, could we assume that the award would be made approx.

March 1, 2020?

c. Based on an assumed NTP date of March 20, 2020, and the 360cd’s for performance, at which time the contract completion date expires on March 15, 2021, how is the time extension until September 30, 2021 to be dealt with?

d. According to Phase 4 when the MXG vacates the temporary facilities, there is all of the work effort in phase 4 that needs to be completed, with extensive efforts needing to be completed prior to the actual epoxy floor applications, and then final testing and acceptance. Based on all of these requirements, should the actual contract duration be 620cd’s?

A25: Under Review.

Q26: Per Attachment 5, Phase 1, 2nd paragraph states, “Immediately, the contractor will install a temporary chain link fence in the Bay 4 nose bay (see drawings in this phasing appendix). The fencing must have a lockable vehicle gate (this fencing will be re-located during later phases).”

a. The reference to “Immediately”, is this a reference to first activity following NTP?

b. Are there any details regarding fence requirement, such as height, anchorage, gate width, etc.?

A26: Under Review.

Q27: There is reference to both adjacent projects, the TRF Site and MMDF Site which border this project. From the Appendix sheets these sites are a schematic reference and doesn’t reflect the actual site plans defining contractor utilization and traffic flows. Since the logistics in having

(3) major construction projects will require extensive planning, will the government provide project civil layout plans and contractor laydown plans for each site?

A27: Under Review.

Q28: Will the government be providing a specification for the high security fencing?

A28: Under Review.

Q29: What are the confines of the contractor laydown? The phasing plan reflects the configuration of the government required temp trailers adjacent to the boundaries of the MMDF site.

a. Where is the contractor laydown area? According to the General Notes on the Electrical Site Plan, 1440 can’t disturb access or progress of the two adjacent sites.

b. Is there a requirement for any temp fencing for this site?

7 - 8

A29: Under Review.

Q30: Phasing Appendix sheet “Office Trailer Site Plan:

a. The sheet reflects (6) Contractor Provided Conex Containers. What are the sizes? and are they for the government’s use?

A30: Under Review.

Q31: Per Attachment 5, 3) SITE ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS, states, “Site poles/structures so they are not installed in concrete apron areas. Hydrovac for utilities prior to installing poles or underground items. Hydrovac full depth of holes required for poles, prior to digging.”

a. With 4 of the 5 poles reflected to be installed in either the concrete approach apron or asphalt. According to this statement we are prohibited from installing where indicated. Please advise.

b. You have a requirement to pothole pole locations with a Hydrovac to identify existing subsurface utilities. Are existing utilities as-builts for the entire site available for coordination?

c. Is the use of Ground Penetrating Radar an acceptable alternative to the Hydrovac?

A31: Under Review.

Q32: Is all the epoxy flooring to be done in Phase 4 or is that just for Bay 6?

A32: Under Review.

Q33: Detail 4/A3.1 shows tile carpet in rooms 122 and room 121 (which is shown as room 119 on the floor plan), please confirm which rooms are to receive tile carpet as I do not see a floor finish schedule.

A33: Under Review.

Q34: What CLIN # should the mechanical and electrical work go into?

A34: PLEASE NOTE: The CLIN structure has been updated to include a new CLIN 0009 for Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing work. The original CLIN 0009 has now become CLIN 0010 and the original Option CLIN 0010 has become Option CLIN 0011.

Q35: Is it possible to get a copy of the Geotech report?

A35: Under Review.

8 - 8

Q36: You say the trailers need to be 2016 or newer, my question is of it is in nice shape would you be able to take 2012,2013,2014 or 2015 unit?

A36: Under Review.