RFP_Q A.pdf
PDF 71 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Add/Repair Small Arms Range for Health/Safety
- Solicitation number
- FA4659-15-R-0009
About this file
RFP Q A.pdf
View the file
Other files
Show all 13
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP: FA4659-15-R-0009, Add/Repair Small Arms Range for Health/Safety
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - Date: 16 July 2015
1. Q. The existing fixtures in this building, appear to be exterior use type fixtures only. By code they have to be listed for indoor/outdoor use, so we will need to know what type the existing fixtures are to proceed (manufacture , make and model # ) If contracting says its ok (in writing ) we can proceed as per drawings.
1. A. Air Force technical experts have determined that the existing fixtures can continue to be used in the facility. Outdoor fixtures typically have better construction for a wider range of operating conditions and there are no unique conditions created in the newly enclosed space that would require a special interior fixture.
2. Q. A potential offeror requested approval of a substitution.
2. A. Products do not require explicit testing and approval by the Air Force. The Air Force recognizes product tests performed by other DoD and federal agencies.
The base does not approve alternative products during the bidding phase. The government will entertain alternative products after contract award, but the burden of proof lies with the contractor along with any additional or different work resulting from the use of the product.
The scope of work has been identified and approved. Proposals from contractors to add work to the scope cannot be accepted at this time.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - Date: 20 July 2015
3. Q. After looking into this some more and asking different contractors some questions, there seems to be a lot of confusion on what to do with the contaminated soils with regards to pricing. We interpret the paragraph below to read, General Contractor is to provide the testing and results to contracting and contracting directs us what to do in regards to the fixing/removing the soil. With contracting directing us what to do, this would be a modification to the contract. Please advise.
“7.1.15. Contaminated Soils: Work requested of the contractor may include removal and/or dumping of contaminated soils. Contaminated soils are defined as “soils that contain hazardous materials such as aircraft fuel, heating fuel oil, solvents, and other materials as identified by the base environmental coordinator.” The contractor shall report any material suspected of containing contaminants to the CO or his/her designated representative. If contaminated soils are discovered, the contractor shall NOT use the contaminated soil/debris for backfill or removed from the base without written approval from the CO, or his/her designated representative. The contractor shall store this soil on an impervious liner, compatible with the contaminant, and covered with the same impervious material. These contaminants shall be tested by the contractor and coordinated with the applicable base environmental program manager (319 CEIE) as necessary. After determining the soil status, the contractor may move the soil as directed by the 319 CEIE through the CO or the appropriate agency (ND State Health Dept, EPA).”
Also, in section 026000 – contaminated site soils removed, section 1.1, 2 – it states “as soon as possible after contract award, complete a pilot study to determine a procedure for screening the berm soils and treating with blastox to render the disposed soils non-hazardous”. We interpret this as to the general contractor provides testing and a plan to remedy the contaminated soils but not to remove soils. To remove the soils would result in a modification.
Our concerns are that other general contractors are interpreting this just to include testing not removal of the contained soil. The drawings indicate to remove the berm but the specifications are conflicting.
So there could potentially be a large difference in pricing.
Please advise if possible.
3. A. Part 7.1.15 quoted in the e-mail is part of our section 01000 under the main heading of “CONTRACTOR USE OF PREMISES” and it a general requirement for what to do when soil suspected of containing contaminants is discovered unexpectedly. It does not apply to contaminated soil that is already identified in the contract documents.
In section 026000 Part 3.2 GENERAL, under the main heading of EXECUTION are the instructions for treating and disposing of the soil and contaminates.
Section 003126 has data from hazmat testing done for the design.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .