Contractor questions 12-101.pdf

12. The proposal due date on SAM.gov changed from September 23, 2022 to October 6, 2022, but no documentation (i.e. – amendment, updated SF1442, etc.) was posted to reflect this change in due date. Please confirm that proposals are now due on October 6, 2022 at 2pm CDT.

Answer: Proposals are due on 10/6/2022.

13. Section B and Attachment 3 don’t seem to list any coefficients that would apply to task orders less than $250,000. Please clarify which coefficient(s) will be applied to task orders less than $250,000.

Answer: The SABER will not be doing task orders below $250,000.

14. Offerors are to provide eight coefficients for each contract year. Section 2.2.2. in Section L states “The Government will evaluate the proposed pricing schedule coefficients in order to determine which offerors’ total coefficient represents the best value to the Government.” What weightings will be applied to each coefficient to calculate each offeror’s “total coefficient”?

Answer: The contractor is to provide the coefficients. We will evaluate what you submit. Please see 2.4.1 of section M for balanced pricing.

15. The last paragraph of Section 2.2.2 in Section L states “The evaluation of the breakdown will document for the offers evaluated, the completeness and reasonableness of the proposed coefficients.” Please confirm no further pricing breakdown beyond Attachment 3 is required for the pricing submission.

Answer: You are to provide coefficients for us to evaluate, along with pricing using said coefficients for the seed project.

16. Please confirm that Attachment 3 is not to include the proposed price for the seed project.

Answer: Attachment 3 is for the coefficient pricing. The seed pricing is separate using said coefficients.

17. The Proposal Evaluation Approach in Section 1.5 of Section M does not indicate that Attachment 3 – which is the only pricing submitted in Volume III, Price and Administrative Documents – will be part of the proposal evaluation. Please clarify what the price evaluation is based on.

Answer: As stated above, the pricing is what you submit for the seed project, as well as attachment 3, the coefficients that you submit.

18. In Section M, the first paragraph of 2.4.1 states that the price for the seed project will be used to determine which offeror’s total price represents the best value to the Government. The second paragraph of 2.4.1 states that the proposed pricing schedule coefficients will be evaluated to determine which offerors’ total coefficient represents the best value to the Government. Please clarify whether the seed project price or the coefficients will be used to evaluate price and determine best value.

Answer: As stated above, the pricing is what you submit for the seed project, as well as attachment 3, the coefficients that you submit

19. Statement of Work paragraph C 302.3.8 states “Non-priced work to be included in each delivery order may be proposed by the Contractor or Government.” Under what circumstances will the Government propose the use of non-priced items?

Answer: Non-priced work may be presented by the Government during unquantified line item negotiations if the Government believes the proposed line item does not correctly reflect the actual cost or performance / specification of the required item.

20. Statement of Work paragraph C 302.3.9 seems to have a different method of calculating NPI pricing than paragraph C 303. Please clarify which paragraph applies.

Answer: The only requested pricing is proposed coefficients, attachment 3.

21. What percentage of work has been non-priced items on the current SABER?

Answer: Unknown. Non-priced items are only utilized in very limited situations. The majority of the line items are priced items.

22. Please confirm that tabs and divider pages, provided they contain no text other than section identifiers, are excluded from Technical Volume’s 30-page limit.

Answer: Tabs and dividers do not count as pages for the limitation.

23. Our Quality Control Plan used for IDIQ contracts exceeds the 30-page limit of the Technical Volume. Please confirm it will be acceptable to submit a narrative describing the Contractor’s approach to quality control in Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan rather than a formal draft QCP.

Answer: We are asking for a formal draft. If it’s awarded, we would ask for a finalized one within 10 business days.

24. If a draft QC Plan is required, please remove it from the page limitation for the Technical Volume.

Answer: This is part of your technical volume. The technical volume page limit has been updated to 45 pages.

25. Will Consent Letters be included in the 35-page limit of the Past Performance Volume?

Answer: If you choose to add them, yes they are part of the page limit.

26. Will Client Authorization Letters be included in the 35-page limit of the Past Performance Volume?

Answer: If you choose to add them, yes they are part of the page limit.

27. May Offerors submit a past performance narrative in addition to Attachment 10 submissions as part of the Past Performance Volume (Section L, paragraph 5.2)?

Answer: No, this is for previous contracts.

28. Please clarify the number of contracts that may be listed on Attachment 10. Are Offerors permitted to submit up to three recent contracts performed by each teaming partner, Joint Venture, and/or significant subcontractor in addition to the five most recent contracts on Attachment 10? (Section L, paragraph 5.2)

Answer: Section M clarifies under 2.3.4 Relevancy on what to submit on Attachment 10.

29. Please confirm that Offerors may submit master IDIQ contracts (e.g. JOC, SABER) as evidence of relevant past performance on Attachment 10 to be included in Past Performance Volume.

Answer: Please see Section M which clarifies what were looking for on attachment 10.

30. Please confirm that demonstrating three or more task orders performed simultaneously under a master IDIQ contract, not three simultaneous IDIQ contracts, is acceptable as relevant past performance for Past Performance Volume (Section L, paragraph 5.2).

Answer: Demonstrating three or more task orders simultaneously, not three IDIQ contracts.

31. The PPQ cover letter provided by the Government states that PPQs are due September 7.

Section L states that PPQs completed by the Offeror’s reference sources are due no later than the proposal due date (September 23), but the SF 1442 states that PPQs are due at 2pm CST on September 12, 2022. Please confirm that the Government’s preference is for PPQs to be received by September 12, 2022, but you will accept PPQs through the due date and time of the proposal, 2pm CST on September 23, 2022.

Answer: The response date was September 12th 2022.Proposals are due 6 October 2022.

32. The table in 2.1 of Section L indicates Attachment 3, Excel SABER Pricing, as the limit for pages to be included in Volume III, however 6.0 Volume III - Price and Administrative Documents of Section L indicates that Volume III should include: Solicitation/Contract Form SF1442 Pages, Section K - Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors, and Attachment 3, Excel SABER Pricing – collectively.

a. Please clarify the page limit, if there is one, for Volume III, Price and Administrative Documents.

b. Please confirm all required inclusions for Volume III, Price and Administrative Documents.

Answer:

a. Page limitations are in section L. Technical – 30 pages. We have updated the page limit for technical to 45 pages. Past Performance 35 pages. Price and Admin Docs which is your excel document as well as what’s broken down in section L under 5.0 for Volume III Price and Administrative Documents.

b. Please see Section L 5.0 for this answer.

33. The table in 2.1 of Section L indicates that one redacted version of the Technical Volume should be submitted in additional to the original version of the Technical Volume, but it does not indicate a redacted version of the Past Performance or Price and Administrative Documents Volumes is required. However, 6.2.2 of Section L indicates information that needs to be redacted from Volume III, Price and Administrative Volume. Please clarify if Volumes II and III are to be submitted in both an original and redacted format.

Answer: The only redacted copy that is required is technical.

34. What information from Volume I, Technical Proposal should be redacted? Is it only the name of the company, or, for example, should names of key personnel also be redacted?

Answer: Any indication of the company that is being evaluated should be redacted.

35. Will the Government accept a .zip file for proposal submission?

Answer: As stated in 2.3 Electronic Offers, it needs to be a Microsoft system.

36. Will the Government accept a .pdf file(s) for proposal submission? (Section L, paragraph 2.3) Answer: As stated in 2.3 Electronic Offers, it needs to be a Microsoft system. We will accept PDF as well.

37. If .pdf files are allowed, will Attachment 3, SABER Pricing be submitted in .pdf format, or is it required to be submitted in its original Excel format, or both?

Answer: Attachment 3 needs to be submitted in the Microsoft excel format we’ve provided.

38. Please confirm that each Volume/Part of this proposal submission shall be submitted as an individual file.

Answer: We would prefer this be in one email. If the email is too large, please annotate as 1 of 2 emails.

39. Although the SF1442 indicates no bond is required, clause 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee has been included with the solicitation and appears to indicate otherwise. Please confirm that no bid guarantee is required for this IDIQ SABER.

Answer: A bid guarantee is not required because we’re asking for a performance and payment bond.

Please see FAR 28.101-1(a).

40. Please confirm that no bid guarantee is required for the Seed Project.

Answer: A bid guarantee is not required because we’re asking for a performance and payment bond.

Please see FAR 28.101-1(a).

41. Our letter of bonding capacity from our Surety, inclusive of our powers of attorney, is typically 6 pages in length. Would the Government consider removing the evidence of bonding capacity from the 30-page limit of the Technical Volume?

Answer: The technical page limit has been updated to 45 pages.

42. If offerors include a Cover Letter to address the requirements of FAR Clause 52.215-1, will that letter be excluded from the page limitation?

43. The required submissions for Subfactor 4 – Seed Project will easily exceed the 30-page limit of the Technical Volume. Will the Government exclude Subfactor 4 – Seed Project, in its entirety, from the page count.

44. Subfactor 1 of the Technical Volume, Item (1) requests a block diagram including three items numbered (i), (ii), and (iii). However, both (ii) and (iii) appear to be narrative responses that would not align with the block diagram requirement. Please confirm that the information in the block diagram in Subfactor 1(1) is intended to include only the information in 1(1)(i).

Answer: Yes, all of the requested information needs to be provided. If the information is left out, you would be deemed unacceptable for not meeting the criteria requested.

45. The Government requests within the Technical Volume Subfactor 1(1)(ii) a description of policies and procedures for coordinating and executing multiple simultaneous construction projects. Subfactor 1(1)(iii) requests a description of approach to multiple worksites on separate task orders concurrently. Offeror’s policies and procedures for these two items will likely be very similar. Due to the restrictive page limitation on the Technical Volume, will the Government allow offerors to address this information only once, provided it is a comprehensive response?

Answer: Yes, you only need to provide the information once.

46. Section L indicates a response to Subfactor 1(1)(iii), but does not include this response in the identification of evaluation of the section in Section M. Please clarify if Section 1(1)(iii) will be part of the evaluation of Subfactor 1.

Answer: we will modify Section M to reflect what shows in Section L.

47. Will it be acceptable for members of the team to function in more than one role among the roles of Superintendent, QA/foreman, and Safety (for example, may the Superintendent also serve in a QC capacity, or may the same individual perform both QA/QC and Safety management roles?

Answer: Yes, a person can hold multiple roles.

48. There are references in the solicitation and SOW to a QA/Foreman, a CQC Manager, and a QCP Manager. Are these intended to indicate the same personnel? If not, would the Government please clarify the specifications for the Quality Assurance/Quality Control team for the SABER contract?

Answer: yes, this can be the same person.

49. If CQC and/or QCP Manager is an independent role from QA/Foreman, would the Government consider removing the requirement that the CQC System Manager be onsite?

Answer: This is not independent. It can be the same person.

50. As this is in IDIQ contract with no work yet identified, please confirm that the Project Management Plan (required for Subfactor 1 of the Technical Volume) is intended to be specific to the Seed project?

a. If not, please clarify how the management approach used for design, site clearing and demolition, construction, completion/turn-over of project, and overall management shall be discussed for the SABER program without identified work.

Answer: The project management plan is intended for the main SABER IDIQ. Please see subfactor 1 in Section L.

51. Section M says that the PMP in Subfactor 1(i)(ii) is to include project planning approach (inclusive of the design/technical documentation for the seed project, Attachment 7), is this different than the Work Performance Plan required in Subfactor 4 of the Technical Volume?

a. If yes, will the Government accept cross-referencing in lieu of repeated content to comply with the 30-page limitation of the Technical Volume.

b. If no, please clarify the difference between the required Project Management Plan in Subfactor 1 and the required Work Performance Plan in Subfactor 4.

Answer: a. It would be for both the main SABER IDIQ and the seed project.

52. Will the Government consider providing an evaluation coefficient to be used for the seed project pricing submitted in Volume I to avoid revealing offeror’s proposed coefficients in the Technical Volume?

Answer: You are to provide the coefficients based off of the Excel document, attachment 3.

53. Please confirm that the Seed Project is intended to be issued as a task order under this SABER contract.

Answer: The intention is to award the seed once funds become available. At this time, as stated in the solicitation, funding is not available.

54. Will the Government accept previously acquired contract-level PPQs provided they contain substantially the same information and can be submitted in hard copy and not only by reference?

Answer: Yes, we requested electronic copies be emailed into the source selection email.

55. Will the Government accept contract-level CPARs in lieu of PPQs?

Answer: You can submit CPARS information on Attachment 10 in lieu of PPQs.

56. Pg 12 of Section L states “The offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the completed solicitation, completed Attachment 4, Excel SABER Pricing, and Section K, Representations, Certifications, and other Statements.”

a. Please confirm that Attachment 3, Excel SABER Pricing was meant to be listed and that Attachment 4, Wage Determination does not need to be submitted.

b. Please confirm that the signed copy of the completed solicitation refers to the SF1442 and not the entirety of the solicitation

Answer:

a. Yes, the pricing is attachment 3.

b. We are asking for a signed copy of the solicitation, SF1442 pages 1 and 2.

57. Section M, 1. Source Selection states “A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR Part 9.1.” Is the Offeror required to submit any additional documentation to demonstrate its responsible status? If so, please provide the information requested.

Answer: The offeror is to submit the requested information for this solicitation to be deemed acceptable.

58. Please confirm that the evaluation of the Seed Project Price to be fair and reasonable is part of Technical Volume.

Answer: Yes, this is subfactor 4.

59. Subfactor 4, Seed Project requires surge management to be included as part of the comprehensive work plan. Please clarify how surge management be discussed in relation to the Seed Project if not performed simultaneously with other task orders.

Answer: surge management meaning how you’re going to handle multiple projects at one time.

60. Neither the solicitation nor the SOW provide guidance on a typical task order proposal submission. The requirements for Subfactor 4 indicate that offerors are to submit ”Design/documentation for Seed Project”? Is there an established minimum documentation or are offerors to make their own determination of the documentation required to provide an understanding of the project’s scope and direction?

Answer: The company is to decide on how to submit the design documentation for the seed project within the page limit established. For a typical task order proposal submission, it is expected the proposal will outline work to be accomplished in a narrative form responding to the SOO, a set of drawings indicating existing/demo, new work, etc in enough detail to clearly indicate the planned work.

Once accepted, The contractor will provide unquantified line items for negotiation, and once accepted, the quantified line items shall be delivered.

61. If drawings are required, please indicate the level of design needed for task order negotiation purposes. Are offerors required to provide full, stamped drawings, or will line drawings / annotated shop drawings, etc. be acceptable?

Answer: The design should represent a 35% design effort, with a set of drawings detailed enough to clearly indicate the planned work. A description of the work to be completed that respond to the SOO and is descriptive enough to provide a complete overview of the project. See also the response to question #20.

62. Please provide the specifications governing the contract.

Answer: I’m not sure which specifications you’re referring to. As-builts and asbestos reports have been submitted. Is there something else you’re requesting?

63. Section L, Subfactor 1 states “The offeror must provide design/documentation for the overall SABER IDIQ provided in Attachment 1.” Please clarify what design/documentation is required for the overall SABER IDIQ.

Answer: There is no design for the overall SABER IDIQ, we are requesting design for the seed project.

The design in accordance with Attachment 1 is for individual task orders after award of IDIQ.

64. Reference Section L, Table 2.1 – Proposal Organization:

a. Volume II and Volume III indicate 2 electronic copies must be submitted and specify 1 Original. A Redacted copy is not specified for these two volumes. Please confirm that the second copy for both of these volumes must be Redacted.

b. The 30-page limit for the Technical volume seems low for adequately addressing all Seed Project, Management Plan, and Quality Control Plan requirements. The seed project documentation alone may be 15-20 pages. Would the government please consider raising the page limit for the Technical Proposal to 45 pages?

Answer:

a. we are requesting only a redacted copy for the technical volume, removing any indication of your company.

b. we have updated technical page limit to 45 pages.

65. Reference Section L, 5.1.2 Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices:

Please confirm that the Excel SABER Pricing Spreadsheet (Attachment 3) must be submitted electronically in its native (Excel) format. If emailing the proposal, this would mean attaching the Excel SABER Pricing spreadsheet as a separate file from the Volume III Administrative documents.

Answer: we are asking for Attachment 3 to be filled out as a separate file, and then the rest of the documentation requested in section 5.0.

66. Reference Section L, 5.1 Representation and Certifications:

This paragraph states that the offeror’s proposal should include completed Attachment 4, Excel SABER pricing. However, Attachment 4 appears to be the Wage Determination. Please confirm that the Excel SABER pricing is Attachment 3.

Answer: Pricing is attachment 3. Wage Determination is attachment 4.

67. Reference Section L, 2.3 – Electronic Offers:

PDF is not listed as an acceptable format for the electronic proposal. Would PDF be an acceptable format for all proposal volumes (with the exception of the Excel SABER Pricing spreadsheet)? Please note that most of Volume III will need to contain PDF files (solicitation, bid bond, Section K, etc.).

Answer: As stated in 2.3 Electronic Offers, it needs to be a Microsoft system. We will accept PDF as well.

68. Reference Section L, 5.1.1 – Solicitation/Contract Form SF1442:

The last sentence states: “The ‘original’ copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided along with any issued amendments”. If an offeror submits its proposal by email, is an electronic signature acceptable for the “original” copy?

Answer: Yes, an electronic signature would be considered an original copy. We do not want a “wet” signature mailed into the office.

69. Please confirm that the stated page limitations do not include the Table of Contents, List of

Tables or Figures, List of Appendices, and Index pages.

Answer: Page limits do not include the table of contents.

70. Would the government consider the use of DoD SAFE, PIEE, or other file transfer/drop-off system for offeror proposal submissions? This would be a better option to ensure successful transmission of files, as email attachments (even if small in size) aren’t always received.

Answer: Yes, you can send it through DoD Safe/PIEE. Ensure that you receive a confirmation and that they are to the contracting office by the time proposals are due.

71. The fill-in sections on the government-provided Relevant Contract Fact Sheets (Attachment 10) are pre-set to size 11 font. Please provide clarification on whether this font size is acceptable for this document since it is a reproduced section of the solicitation or if offeror responses on this form must be in 12 point font.

Answer: since it’s a pre-set size of 11 font, this will be acceptable.

72. When is the deadline for questions to be received for clarification by the Government?

Answer: Question deadline is 20 September 2022.

73. On Attachment 7, the project summary states “Building 5201 requires renovation due to multiple flooding events.” Has a mold inspection survey been performed on the flooded areas of the existing building? Mold remediation is not listed in the description of work. Will mold remediation be required as project work?

Answer: No, a mold survey has not been performed, nor is mold expected to be part of the scope of this project.

74. On Attachment 7, 3.b.i states to “Excavate area to establish proper drainage and provide positive drainage from Building 5201 via new trench drain to or other means to route water to the storm water system away from the building.” Existing main storm drain piping system was not observed in the project area. Is there an existing storm drain main piping system available to tie in the new trench drain and new piping? If so, please provide the location of the connection point. A surface drainage swale ditch was observed on the west side of the building along the fence of the airstrip. Is this surface drainage ditch an approved location to discharge storm drainage piping from Building 5201 trench drains? The south side of Building 5201 should only require regrading backfill away from the building edge and lowering elevation of existing backfill to below existing EIFS edge. Please confirm this is the design intent.

Answer: No storm drainage system currently exists in the area. The intent of this statement is to move storm water away from the building by regrading and/or trench drains and remove it to existing drainage swales. Currently storm water ponds at the north side of the building, and infiltrates into the building

75. Re: Attachment 7, 3.b.i - Are excess soils from excavation and grading activities required to be hauled off the base site?

Answer: excess soils should be disposed of off-base

76. Re: Attachment 7, 3.b.i - Is there a topographic survey available for areas around Building 5201 exterior for drainage planning?

Answer: A topo survey is in the works, but likely will not be ready prior to proposal due dates.

77. Attachment 7, 3.b.ii states “Replace sidewalk around facility to ensure main entrance is in compliance with ABA regulations and handicapped parking (see Attachment 1). Is the concrete to be replaced on just the areas shown as highlighted on Attachment 1 or all concrete sidewalk around building perimeter? Shall the parking lot be restriped with ADA stalls / layout and signage?

Answer: The expectation is upon award and NTP, the winning offeror will provide whatever work is required to bring B5201 up to ABA standards as a part of this renovation. Concrete will need to be replaced as required by SOO 3.b.ii. Parking will need to be restriped to meet ABA requirements. Signage will need to be provided on new posts (not painted on the pavement), etc.

78. Attachment 7, 3.b.iv.2 states “Any damaged wood blocking / nailers shall be replaced with treated, same sized wood materials prior to placing new roofing.” What percentage shall the contractor assume be replaced?

Answer: Refer to SOO 3.b.iv.2 25% deck replacement is allowed for pricing purposes. 100% of damaged wood blocking or nailers should be replaced.

79. Re: Attachment 7, 3.b.iv.6 - Shall the entire exterior of the building be re-painted or just the new Fascia and Soffit components?

Answer: EFIS repairs will match adjacent in color and texture as per SOO 3.b.v, fasica and soffit should be repainted.

80. Attachment 7, 3.b.v. states “Repair damages of EIFS to match existing insulation/texture on facility.” What percentage shall the contractor assume be replaced?

Answer: 100% of the damaged areas. Damaged area shall be considered to be any crack or impact to the exterior finish that penetrated beyond the EFIS coating and exposes the substrate beneath to weather.

The EFIS was available for inspection during the pre-proposal site visit.

81. Re: Attachment 7, 3.b.v - Shall the entire exterior of the building be repainted or just the repaired damage spots of EIFS?

Answer: Refer to response to question #7

82. Attachment 7, 3.c.ii.1 states “Provide new outlets and switches as required to meet current code and design requirements.” Shall all existing power outlet receptacles and light switches be replaced in building work areas in their current locations? Can the existing conductors be reused for each power outlet and lighting circuits?

Answer: Due to the age of the facility, conductors and switches/outlets should be replaced. If the existing j-box / conduit meets current code and is currently in good repair, and aligns with new layout, they may be reused.

83. Re: Attachment 7, 3.c.iii - Shall the new fire alarm system panel be located in the mechanical room where the existing fire alarm panel is located?

Answer: The primary panel should be located in the mechanical room, while the local operator console (LOC) may be located near the main entrance.

84. Attachment 7, 3.c.v states “Provide a fully automatic fire sprinkler system throughout the entire building.” Shall the new fire riser be installed in the existing mechanical room? Shall the new fire sprinkler main for riser tie into the existing fire hydrant water main approximately 100ft off the Northwest corner of Building 5102? Has a fire hydrant flow test been performed at this fire hydrant to determine adequate pressure and flow requirements for the new fire sprinkler system in Building 5102? Is a booster pump required for the new fire sprinkler system?

Answer: Contractor should determine the location of the fire riser room. This room should have exterior access, and may be located in the mechanical room, or carved out of another space, for example: room 117.

85. Attachment 7, 3.c.vi.2 states “New water supply shall be tapped from water main & run to new distribution box.” Please confirm the new water supply shall be tapped into the existing water main internal to the building in the existing restroom area and run to the new distribution box for fixture supply only and not a new water main from the main base water line to the building.

Answer: SOO 3.c.vi.2 states: “Provide domestic water isolation valves for each restroom. Allow isolation of a single area if a future leak develops. Locate manifold valves behind accessible panels or lay-in ceiling.” Quoted reference is a portion of SOO 3.c.vi.3. This reference requires a “New water supply to be tapped from the water main & run to a new distribution box.” Do not reuse existing water supply line to the building. Provide all-new water line to supply the building.

86. Attachment 7, 3.c.vi.4 states “Save and reuse existing toilets and flush valves.” The existing toilets and flush valves observed were in poor condition. Shall new toilets and flush valves be installed?

Answer: SOO 3.c.vi.4 is in error. Provide all-new fixtures and flush valves.

87. Attachment 7, 3.c.vi.5 states "Waste and Vent Piping: Schedule 40 PVC piping shall be utilized inside building and below ground to a new connection point to existing lines 15 foot from building face.” Are the existing waste and vent piping mains and branch lines in the restroom area to be completely replaced with new main and branch lines from the restroom area to the point of connection 15 from the building face? Can the existing waste and vent line mains be reused and tied into for the new restroom layout configuration for fixtures including new floor drains?

Answer: This building dates from circa 1955. Base-wide, sewer mains of this era have been determined to be beyond end-of-life. Replace the sanitary sewer with new lines, connecting to existing lines 15 feet from the building face.

88. Re: Attachment 7, 3.c.vi.7 - Is termite protection required at the concrete demo/replacement subgrade areas for new waste lines?

Answer: Absolutely. Refer to RFP provided specification 31 31 16.

89. Re: Attachment 7, 3.c.xv - Does new storefront laminated glazing require any ballistic rating?

Answer: All windows and doors are required to meet UFC 4-010-01 Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings, current version, available for review at www.wbdg.org.

90. Re: Attachment 7, 3.c.xvi.2 - Existing tile may not have an exact match available. Is any attic stock available?

Answer: No. Refer to SOO 3.c.x, 3.c.xi, 3.c.xii, & 3.c.xiii. If tile needing to be replaced falls within areas not covered by the referenced SOO sections, provide closest matching option to CO for approval.

91. Re: Attachment 7, 3.c.i - Are we required to test and balance the existing HVAC system after new registers/returns are installed?

Answer: Refer to RFP provided specification section 23 08 10. See also 23 08 00 attached. Contractors should add 23 08 00 to previously provided 2022 SABER Specifications.

92. Attachment 7, 5.a states “Prior to start of construction, clean shop drawings indicating all demo, new equipment manufacture/type/location and all new construction will be submitted to 7 CES/CENMP via 7 CONS/LGCC for review/approval.” Are architectural / engineering full set stamped plans required for the shop drawing submittal?

Answer: The only time sealed drawings are typically required is in the case of structural designs, and these can be delivered as part of the material submittal process, not necessarily during the task order negotiations.

93. Please Reference Section L, 2.2.1.1 Page Size and Format. The last paragraph states that tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall not exceed “11 by 14 inches in size.” Would the government please allow for these displays to be on 11 by 17 inch paper? Typically, project schedules and drawings are provided on 11 x 17 inch paper.

Answer: The above reference to Section L, 2.2.1.1 is for the offeror’s proposal. This requirement does not apply to task orders after award of this solicitation.

94. Section L, 2.2.1.1 states “Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 14 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as a single page.” To our knowledge, there is no paper size that is 11 by 14 inches in size. Please confirm that the Government intended pages not to exceed 11 by 17 inches in size, and that an 11 by 17 page counts as one singular page.

Answer: Refer to response to question #93.

95. Attachment #7 Seed Project SoO, Section C, vi, 6: States to run new Sec. 40 PVC piping above and below grade to existing lines 15’ from the building and install 2 way cleanouts. Question: The existing drain line runs from the bathroom to the North through the building exiting the building on the north wall. There is an existing 2 way cleanout located just outside the building. Are we to cutout the slab from the South side of the building across to the North side of the building passing through the hallway and across room 107 to install a new line? Or are we installing new underground plumbing to facilitate the new bathroom layout?

Answer: SOO C.vi.6 indicates new sanitary sewer lines to be installed below grade and extended to 15’ to connect with the existing sewer. See also response to question #15. If the existing building exit point suits the new layout, the existing lines may be removed, and the new lines pass through the foundation at the same point. New two-way cleanouts are required. New plumbing is required.

96. Regarding the government’s response to questions 1,7, and 8:

Section 3 c. v. of the Statement of Objectives (Attachment 7, page 3 of 8) states to install a fully automatic fire sprinkler system throughout the entire building. This conflicts with the government’s response to questions 1, 7, and 8. Please clarify this requirement.

Answer: The government’s response was incorrect. Please refer to the revised comments that have already been issued.

97. To establish fixture counts in the new restrooms, please provide the number of occupants that will be working in the building.

Answer: Provide fixture counts as required by the most current version of the IBC for a business occupancy.

98. With regards to the Seed Project: The double wood doors in rooms 103, 116A and 116B are not ABA compliant. Should the contractor add replacement of these doors to their SOW?

Answer: Any doors that are on the primary route for accessibility purposes are required to meet ABA.

These doors specifically, should be replaced with 3’0”-7’0” ABA compliant doors, and infill the remaining opening width.

99. Would the Government be willing to switch to 13”13” ceramic floor tile for the bathrooms instead of the Keystones that were listed in the statement of work which are 1”x1” or 2”x2”?

Answer: yes, a larger format porcelain tile which meets the requirements may be substituted for smaller tile, if there are minimal slopes to floor drains that would not require field-cut tiles to accommodate the drains. Cut tile edges in the field of tile are to be avoided.

100. Are pre-formed external corners required for the 4” cove base?

Answer: Yes. External corners are required. Interior corners may be pre-formed, or carefully field cut to remain flat on the wall. Any field cut inside corners that pull away will need to be replaced prior to acceptance.

101. Would the Government prefer to use Parallel 20 mil LVT instead of Radius Vinyl Plank since that is what they have been using recently at Dyess?

Answer: Radius vinyl plank does not meet the specification for LVT and should be removed from the solicitation. Parallel 20 mil LVT is an appropriate substitute that meets specification.