Mission Partner Responses FINAL - Fitness Track Project - Request for Information (RFI) Log.pdf

RFI #1

• Reference Section: C3.2.2 Task 2 (Transition Strip)

• Contractor Context: The documents direct paving an 18-inch strip of unknown material around the track's outside edge. In our experience, we typically use track surfacing in these areas for ADA compliance.

• Question: Is it the government's intention to use track surfacing material for this 18-inch transition strip?

• Mission Partner Response: We are requesting that both the inside and outside transitions be constructed of concrete. This is to protect the edge of the rubberized track from breaking away due to user traffic.

RFI #2

• Reference Section: C3.3.2 Task 2 (Signage)

• Contractor Context: The documents direct providing durable start/stop signage for fitness testing and installing them in the correct locations.

• Question: Is the intent for the contractor to replace physical signs, or should this be included as part of the line striping updates?

• Mission Partner Response: The government's intent is for the contractor to provide and install new, physical, and durable start/stop signage in the locations designated by the Contracting Officer Representative (COR), as specified in PWS Section C3.3.2. This work is in addition to the athletic striping required in PWS Section C3.3.1. For clarity, the line striping shall include, but is not limited to: all lane lines, lane numbers, 40-yard dash, 100-yard dash, 2.0-mile start/finish, 2km start/finish, multiple 20m lines for the HAMR test at each corner meeting the straightaways, and all other standard NCAA track markings

IAW PWS.

RFI #3

• Reference Section: C3.1.1 Task 1 (Demolition & Disposal)

• Contractor Context: The asphalt base is showing signs of deterioration and appears fused to the track surface. Full demolition risks damaging the asphalt, which would require an expensive 2"–4" asphalt lift replacement, heavily increasing project cost and timeline. A 5-6mm rubberized "re-topping" layer would refresh the track without requiring demo.

• Question: Would the government consider a "re-topping" layer over the existing surface instead of a full tear-out and replacement?

• Mission Partner Response: The Performance Work Statement (PWS) requires a full removal and replacement of the track surface, not a re-topping. The current surface was installed in 2005 with a maintenance coat in 2014 and has reached the end of its service life.

RFI #4

• Reference Section: C3.2.1 Task 1 (Surface Installation)

• Contractor Context: As-builts show the original construction was in 2004.

Contractors need to understand the substrate profile to price their proposals accurately.

• Question: Has the existing running track ever been re-topped or resurfaced before?

If so, please provide details regarding the previous resurfacing, including the system type and the approximate thickness of the existing track surface.

• Mission Partner Response: Yes, the original surface was applied in 2004.

Maintenance coating was subsequently installed in 2014. The total existing thickness is approximately 1/2 inch (13mm).

RFI #5

• Contractor Context: The PWS does not currently identify the repair or replacement of the existing asphalt base as part of the required scope. Demolition of the track surface carries a high risk of damaging the aged asphalt substrate beneath it.

• Question: Please confirm how the contractor should proceed if the asphalt base is found to be damaged/deteriorated upon track removal. Will repairs required due to pre-existing substrate deterioration discovered after removal be treated as out-of-scope, additional work?

• Mission Partner Response: The current scope of work is for removal and replacement of the rubberized track surface only. If the asphalt substrate is found to be damaged upon removal of the track surface, the contractor shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer (CO). Any necessary asphalt repairs will be addressed as additional work, potentially through contract modification.

RFI #6

• Contractor Context: Demolition and disposal require proper environmental profiling of the debris.

• Question: Has the existing track surface, adhesive, or underlying material been tested for hazardous or regulated materials (e.g., lead or heavy metals)? If so, can the government provide these test reports?

• Mission Partner Response: Please defer this to CE for clarification as the Fitness Dept. respectfully does not have that information. (Contact CES or Bio for any historical data)