Attach 28 Solicitation Questions and Answers 28 Oct 2020.pdf

Solicitation: FA469020R0005 Attachment 28

Ellsworth AFB FY21 MACC Solicitation

Questions and Answers

28 Oct 2020

1. SOW 2.3.7 states SDDOT grade fill to be placed below spread footings. What depth of imported SDDOT fill shall be assumed below footings?

Answer: Assume 4’ below spread footings for proposal preparation and evaluation purposes. Final design to be dependent on soil testing mentioned in the Seed Project

SOW 2.3.7.

2. 2.3.25: What depth, if any, of imported SDDOT fill shall be assumed below the interior slab on grade (over-excavation and structural fill)?

Answer: Assume 4’ below slab on grade for proposal preparation and evaluation purposes. Final design to be dependent on soil testing mentioned in the Seed Project

SOW 2.3.7.

3. What is the anticipated wash cycle of a trailer (time) and what quantity of washes are anticipated in a typical day?

Answer: It takes about 10-20 minutes to wash a trailer and 15-30 minutes to wash other equipment/vehicles. It is estimated that 2-4 trailers will be washed per day.

4. Do any requirements from UFC 4-214-03 Central Vehicle Wash Facilities apply to this project?

Answer: No.

5. Does the Government have a preference of location of sand oil interceptor? Interior or exterior? Interior would not require extended risers thus would be easier to clean and pump out.

Answer: Interior is preferred.

6. The SOW includes a statement (2.4.6) to have wall mounted hose reels. SOW line 2.4.4 asks for ceiling booms, but the booms are not compatible with hose reels. Does the Government want both hose reels and ceiling booms for a total of 4 pressure wands?

Answer: The ceiling boom requirement is removed. Only two pressure wands are required with wall mounted hose reels. Hose reels shall be centrally located in the wash bay. The hose reels shall be mounted on each of the long, 72’ sides of the wash bay so users have access to a pressure wand on either side of the wash bay. See Attachment 19, Seed Project SOW, Revision 2.

7. Will detergent tanks be required as part of this proposal?

Answer: No, detergent tanks are not required on this proposal. Provide space for the 55 gallon drum next to the pressure washer for the system to pull detergent from. Detergent drum will be provided by the government.

8. What options does the Government want for the pressure wash system remote panel?

Stop, High Pressure Wash, High Pressure Rinse, and will there be a requirement for others such as Low Pressure Rinse?

Answer: The Aaladin equipment has a 24V controller and is the preferred means of control and options.

9. Will a water reclaim system be required or will there be a requirement to provide provisions for a future reclaim system?

Answer: A water reclamation system is not required, nor will provisions for a future system be required.

10. Will the building be heated year-round?

Answer: Yes, to prevent freezing in the wash rack.

11. Does the Government desire CO/NO2 detection and associated control installed in the wash bay to start the exhaust fan?

Answer: No.

12. Attachment 23 – Addendum #1 page 6 Electrical – power is anticipated to come from the primary pad mounted transformer just south of MUNS building 7154. Can EAFB confirm that secondary connections are available from that Transformer? If so, is a separate meter required at the MUNS Wash Rack Building?

Answer: There is room on the secondary paddles of the pad mounted transformer for another service. A separate meter at the MUNS wash rack is required.

13. If connections are not available from the transformer, can power be connected at the primary switch near just south of MUNS building 7154?

Answer: There are feedthrough capabilities available on the primary side if it is needed to run to another transformer.

14. What are the transformer primary and secondary voltages, KVA rating, Impedance (Z%) and available fault current (AFC)?

Answer: 300KVA, primary voltages 4160x12470, secondary voltages 480Y/277.

Impedance and AFC will have to be confirmed as a part of the investigative phase after award.

15. Attachment 23 – Addendum #1 page 7 Communications – The information provided indicates a communications conduit coming out of the MUNS building 7154 and running south toward Tyndale Rd. It appears to dead-end in the greenspace, prior to any connections to the adjacent communications lines near Tyndale Rd. Is this comms conduit condition known? Is the conduit abandoned? In a duct bank? Can this conduit be used as a path for new communications to the new MUNS Wash Rack Building? Does it tie directly into the Data Closet in 7154?

Answer: None of the lines shown should be abandoned. The line running straight south out of B7154 that stops suddenly is also not abandoned and could be a GIS error. It is unknown if the conduit can be used as a path for new communications. For proposal preparation and evaluation purposes, assume that it cannot be used. Utilities shall be surveyed and confirmed as part of the investigative submittal after award, see Attachment 19, Seed Project SOW, Revision 2.

16. Can/should the communications to the new Wash Rack Building be interconnected to the campus at MUNS building 7154? If so, does EAFB have a drawing showing the location of the data closet in 7154? The SOW para 2.3.16 identifies water proof of the building panels to protect from water spray. Is all electrical within the wash area to be NEMA 4?

Can the electrical conduit and boxes be surface installed?

Answer: The communications for the wash rack can be connected to B7154. For the electrical conduit and NEMA 4 in the wash bay see questions 63 and 64.

17. The SOW para 3.4 requires electrical load calculations. Is it desired to use a specific form or calculation to be used for the Electrical Load Analysis?

Answer: No specific form or calculation is required.

18. Will a fire alarm system be required? If so, will the building fire alarm control panel (FACP) connect to another facility FACP with a staffed constantly attended location?

Answer: No, fire alarm system is not required.

19. Section L, Paragraph 2.4.1, "The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any Joint Venture member, Teaming/Partnering member and Mentor-Protege, all referred to as Teaming members for this section..." Is the intent of this paragraph for us to submit information for the Prime Contractor, Teaming/Partnering member(s) and the Designer of Record?

Answer: The intent of this paragraph is to provide information on the submission of past performance information so it can be evaluated. As specified further in Section L, 2.4.1, relevant past performance information must demonstrate design/build and/or bid-build construction experience with multiple projects, such as new construction, renovation, alteration and repair, with associated architectural and engineering work, with multiple disciplines, such as carpentry, roofing, excavation, interior finishes, to include remodeling and interior modifications on real property facilities, electrical, plumbing, sheet metal, painting, demolition, masonry, HVAC, fire suppression, fire alarm, and other major trades. It is not the intent of this source selection to evaluate the past performance of the Designer of Record unless they were also responsible for the construction work.

20. We intend to submit relevant project experience in Volume III - Past Performance for our Teaming/Partnering member, as allowed in Section L, Paragraph 2.4.1. Section L, Paragraph 2.4.2 states, "Each offeror/joint venture/teaming/partnering/mentor-protégé member shall complete a separate FACTS Sheet (Attachment 13) for active or completed contracts in the past three (3) years from the issuance date of the RFP, that the offeror considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort.". It seems reasonable that in order to demonstrate an ability to perform the proposed effort, that each team member would submit projects in which they performed in the same role (i.e.

Prime Contractor, Teaming/Partnering member, etc.); however, Section M, Paragraph

3.4.4 Relevancy states that in order for a project to be considered VERY RELEVANT, it must have been performed by the contractor as the prime contractor. How will projects be evaluated for Teaming/Partnering members?

Answer: All past performance will be evaluated the same regardless which teaming member is responsible for the performance. Past performance as a prime contractor is more relevant than that performed as a subcontractor because the prime contractor is responsible for the overall project, not the subcontractors.

21. Section M, Paragraph 3.4.4 Relevancy states that in order for a project to be considered VERY RELEVANT, it must have been performed by the contractor as the prime contractor. How will projects be evaluated for the Designer of Record?

Answer: The Technical factor is comprised of the drawings and specifications and the technical rating reflects the evaluation of the adequacy of the offeror’s proposal in response to the requirements indicated in the Seed Project and is the method of evaluating the design. See also answer to Question 19.

22. Section L, Paragraph 2.4.5 states, "The offeror/joint venture member or critical subcontractor, if applicable, shall focus its FACTS Sheet responses so that they clearly correlate present and past performance with the requirements of the RFP. However, Section M, Paragraph 3.4.2.3 states, "The evaluation of the offeror's/teaming members' present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s) even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement. Can you please clarify?

Answer: As stated in Attachment 12, Section M, paragraph 3.4.2.3., the evaluation of the offeror’s/teaming members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s) even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.’. Attachment 11, Section L, paragraph 2.4.5 has been revised to remove reference to critical subcontractors.

23. SOW (2.3.3.9). Please identify the type of boom desired for the wash rack. If this is a drive-through type wash facility, will the boom be required to swivel and accommodate the wash hoses? Is it desired to be metal?

Answer: See question 6. A boom is not required.

24. SOW (2.3.45). The SOW identifies electrical outlets only for wash rack equipment.

Please list the equipment that will need to be powered. It is understood that the power washer will require power. Please provide any additional power requirements for the building.

Answer: This is to be determined by the designer. The water softener requires power and 4 additional 120v courtesy receptacles shall be placed around the perimeter of the wash bay.

25. SOW (2.3.57). The turning radius for the MHU-110 is identified as the degree the wheels will turn, 45. Please provide the approximate turning radius in feet for the trailers. How many trailers will be sent through the wash rack at once? Does this change the turning radius? Will the trucks/tractors pulling trailers be washed? Will other equipment/vehicles be washed in this wash bay facility? If so, what can we anticipate?

Answer: The turning radius for the MHU-110 is 200ft. There will be 2 trailers max being washed at once. Although the bobtail will be washed as well. This will not change the turning radius. Yes, tractors pulling the 40’ trailers will be washed together. Forklifts and other similar equipment will also be washed, but the SOW requirements of the wash bay and doors will accommodate this equipment.

26. SOW (2.4). Hose reels are to be attached to the walls per the SOW. Are there any other equipment items that are to be attached to the PEMB?

Answer: Not at this time, any others can be at the recommendation of your Designer of Record.

27. SOW (2.4.1). Is there only one power washer unit required for this facility?

Answer: Yes, only one power washer unit is required.

28. SOW (3.14) Paragraph 3.14 indicates that the contractor laydown area will be provided at the preconstruction meeting. Can this location be identified and provided now so that it can be identified on the 65% drawings?

Answer: The location will be provided at the Pre-Construction meeting held after award of the task order. We usually discuss the laydown area in design as well, however, it is too early to tell which areas will be available.

29. SOW (3.2.3) Due to the fact that elements of a typical 65% design (survey, geotechnical evaluation, conceptual design conference) cannot be accomplished during the solicitation process, will the government consider changing the 21 calendar days to 45 days from receipt of the 65% design to the 95% design?

Answer: We have clarified the submittal process and changed due dates to realistic time frames. See Attachment 19, Seed Project SOW, Revision 2, Section 3 for details.

30. At what depth are the existing communication conduits located?

Answer: Communication lines are typically installed 3’ deep on EAFB, but can vary.

Utilities shall be surveyed and confirmed as part of the investigative submittal after award, see Attachment 19, Seed Project SOW, Revision 2, Section 3 for details.

31. Do we need to relocate the existing communications conduits if they fall under the building?

Answer: Yes, also see question 32.

32. Should the building be oriented to avoid the communications conduits?

Answer: Yes, where possible.

33. The communication utility plan indicates abandoned communication lines; however, none appear to be on the plan. Are any of the lines shown abandoned?

Answer: None of the lines shown should be abandoned. The line running straight south out of B7154 that stops suddenly is also not abandoned and could be a GIS error. Utilities shall be surveyed and confirmed as part of the investigative submittal after award, see Attachment 19, Seed Project SOW, Revision 2.

34. Does the existing building 7154 have enough electrical capacity to accommodate the new building or will power need to come from another source? If the existing power capacity of building 7154 is not adequate to support the new building, where will power for the new building come from? Is it to come from the pad-mounted transformer or the pole-mounted transformer? If so, what are the rated capacity of these and current usage?

Answer: See questions 12, 13, and 14.

35. Can you please provide the bury depth of the current water lines?

Answer: Bury depth is estimated at 6 feet. Utilities shall be surveyed and confirmed as part of the investigative submittal after award, see Attachment 19, Seed Project SOW, Revision 2, Section 3.2.

36. Are there any storm drain lines nearby?

Answer: No

37. Is the desire that the downspouts will empty into storm drains, splash blocks or bioswales?

Answer: Provide splash blocks.

38. Can you please provide the depth of the gas lines?

Answer: Gas line depth is estimated to be around 48”. Utilities shall be surveyed and confirmed as part of the investigative submittal after award, see Attachment 19, Seed Project SOW, Revision 2, Section 3.

39. Can you please provide the size and bury depth of the gravity sewer line?

Answer: As-builts show the gravity sewer line coming out of B7154 at about 5 feet.

Utilities shall be surveyed and confirmed as part of the investigative submittal after award, see Attachment 19, Seed Project SOW, Revision 2, Section 3.

40. Can you please provide the size and bury depth of the force main?

Answer: According to the as-builts the bury depth is at least 6 feet. Utilities shall be surveyed and confirmed as part of the investigative submittal after award, see Attachment 19, Seed Project SOW, Revision 2, Section 3.

41. The Solicitation questions and answers (attachment 23) question 20 identifies no blast requirements for this building. Please indicate any provisions of UFC 4-010-01 ATFP that will apply to this building.

Answer: The wash rack is considered low occupancy by the UFC and is therefore exempt from the standards.

42. Are Insulated Metal Panels (IMP) acceptable for the metal building skin? It appears from the Installation Facility Standards (IFS) requirements for the base that they are not. Is batt insulation desired for this facility or is it the contractor's discretion on how to insulate the building to reach the required minimum R value?

Answer: Insulated metal panels are acceptable for the metal building skin. The exterior of the panels shall resemble ribbed metal sheeting. Fiberglass insulation, batt or blow in, will not be accepted. Rigid insulation or spray in foam insulation is preferred.

43. Can you please provide a graphical indication of the haul and construction routes for the base?

Answer: A basic map of the base with the anticipated haul route for this project is included as Attachment 29. The haul route for this project will be discussed in more detail at the Pre-Construction meeting after award of the task order.

44. Will this wash rack be dedicated to MUNS 7154, or will it be used for all MUNS buildings in the area?

Answer: It will be used for all of MUNS. The two primary uses are their trailers and vehicles.

45. (4.a.2). An Ellsworth specific cover sheet and title block are required per paragraph 4.a.2. Can you please provide these documents in CAD?

Answer: CAD documents are provided as Attachments 30-35.

46. (4.b.4). Paragraph 4.b.4 requires the 01000 Specifications (Ellsworth Special Provisions) to be edited to meet project specifics. Can this document be provided in a Microsoft Word format?

Answer: The word document is provided as Attachment 36.

47. (4.b.5). If the format of information desired to be placed at the bottom of the page is not available in SpecsIntact is another format acceptable?

Answer: The format in Section 4.b.5 of the General Provisions is the desired format. If the format cannot be followed then the information in section 4.b.5 shall be presented elsewhere on the page that is easy to find and standardized across all pages.

48. (5.a). Is the AF3000 form required during design? Or will this be provided at the start of construction?

Answer: The AF3000 form is required for all items described by the General Provisions Section 5.a. While the form is not required during design, the AF3000(s) must be approved before the items requiring approval can be used in construction and will be provided at the Pre-Construction meeting after award of task order.

49. (6.b.4). CAD is listed as a requirement for submittals. Is it acceptable to complete the design in Revit and convert the drawings to CAD for submission? Or is the desire to have the project completed in CAD?

Answer: Converting the drawings from Revit to CAD is acceptable as long as the drawings meet the requirements of the General Provisions.

50. Capacity information of existing sanitary lift station and force main?

Answer: The lift station has two 2hp grinder pumps. Each pump has an estimated capacity of 50gpm at 35ft of head. The lift station should be able to handle the wash bay waste water as the lift station frequently needs more water to help function and keep solids from settling. Lift station capacity shall be confirmed as part of the investigative submittal after award, see Attachment 19, Seed Project SOW, Revision 2, Section 3.2.

51. Are any of the existing communications lines shown on previous addendum abandoned?

Answer: See question 33.

52. Our latest background drawing/Revit Model has the building being 82' long. Four 20' wide bays with end wall material thicknesses of 1'. Is this additional length over the program 72' minimum a problem?

Answer: Additional length over the 72’ minimum is not a problem. However, there may be some confusion on the number of bays. There is only one bay (minimum 72’ x 18’ area defined by the Seed Project SOW 2.3.5), which is sized to accommodate the user’s requirement of washing a bobtail/truck while towing two MHU-110 trailers. This bay would also allow them to wash their other vehicles and larger trailers as described in some the above and previous questions.

53. Is the Brit/Sand/Oil interceptor required to be at the exterior of the building?

Answer: See answer to question 5.

54. What is the water pressure at building 7154?

Answer: The existing 3” water service has an estimated pressure of 45-50psi. Utilities shall be surveyed and confirmed as part of the investigative submittal after award, see Attachment 19, Seed Project SOW, Revision 2, Section 3.2.

55. Are the soap tanks owner-provided and are they required to be located in the mechanical room?

Answer: See answer to question 7.

56. Can you provide an approximate number of vehicles washed per day?

Answer: There are 65 vehicles assigned to the unit that have to be washed weekly.

Usually the shops wash their vehicles on Friday so the number of vehicles washed a day could be up to 65, depending on time available.

57. Will there be any requirements for water reclamation now or in the future?

Answer: See answer to question 9.

58. Is UFC 4-214-03 applicable for this building?

Answer: See answer to question 4.

59. Is fire sprinkler required for the building?

Answer: Fire sprinklers are not required for the building.

60. Approximate gas pressure on site?

Answer: 5 psi. Utilities shall be surveyed and confirmed as part of the investigative submittal after award, see Attachment 19, Seed Project SOW, Revision 2, Section 3.2.

61. Should the ventilation system also be controlled by a carbon monoxide detection system?

(building codes are not clear for this type of facility)

Answer: See question 11.

62. The building and overhead doors will be insulated, so it is assumed the wash cycle will occur with the doors closed. Is there a desired temperature to be maintained within the facility during winter months?

Answer: Design to maintain 65 degrees.

63. Is NEMA 4 rating required for electrical equipment in the wash bay?

Answer: Yes.

64. Will surface mounted conduit and boxes be allowed within the wash bay area?

Answer: Yes.

65. Since the building will generally be unoccupied, will a fire alarm system be required? If so, is it acceptable to connect the building fire alarm panel to the MUNS Building 7154 fire alarm control panel?

Answer: See answer to question 18.

66. What is the depth of the 10" water utility that is currently located near the sanitary lift station?

Answer: Unknown at this time, assume 6 feet. Utilities shall be surveyed and confirmed as part of the investigative submittal after award, see Attachment 19, Seed Project SOW, Revision 2, Section 3.2.

67. The SOW section 2.4.1. specifies an Aaladin Series 71-530 heated power washer. Based on the cutsheet and our inquiry with the manufacturer, these units are primarily designed for single gun/wand operation. The RFP section 2.4.3. states “Provide 2 washer pressure wands/guns for simultaneous use.”; and section 2.4.4. requires “Ceiling Boom for pressure washer hoses and 2 pressure washer wands/guns.” Following questions pertain to wash system: Dual guns will cut flow/GPM in half (PSI remains the same). Is this ok?

Answer: This is acceptable.

68. Voltage/phase requirements?

Answer: For the pressure washer equipment, 3-phase is preferred.

69. NG or LP?

Answer: Natural gas.

70. What are current water conditions (i.e. pH and harness)?

Answer: The Rapid City Water Quality Report describes the water hardness as moderately hard. They estimate the water hardness for EAFB as 13-17 grains per gallons.

The water conditions shall be confirmed by the contractor as part of the investigative submittal after award, see Attachment 19, Seed Project SOW, Revision 2, Section 3.2.

71. How many "X" is expected to be washed daily? How many hours per day is machine expected to be in use?

Answer: See answers to questions 3, 25, and 57 above. The system is estimated to be in use about an hour or two a day and up to a full day on Friday.

72. How do they plan to use hose reels in conjunction with an overhead boom?

Answer: See question 6.

73. In reference to above, there is no boom that will cover that amount of area. Please advise.

Answer: See question 6.

74. Dual gun does not mean completely independent washing at same time. If hot water w/soap is on, then both users will have hot soapy water. Is this ok?

Answer: Yes, this is acceptable.

75. If burner is turned off, then both users will have cold water. Is this ok?

Answer: Yes, this is acceptable.

76. Would they consider installing two smaller units instead of one? Would also make sure they have washing ability, in case one machine went down. Please advise.

Answer: Only one is required.

77. Is there a specific preferred entrance route into the existing adjacent facility from the new proposed wash facility, East or West side?

Answer: The preferred entrance route into B7154 is from the East side.

78. Please clarify if the geo-tech soil testing required after award should be included in the pricing of this project?

Answer: Yes geo-tech soil testing shall be included in the pricing of this project.

79. Is the 65% design package requested in the FOPR required to include color boards as stated in the General Provisions Section 1.a.?

Answer: A color board is not required for the 65% Design Submittal Package, but as stated in the Seed Project SOW, colors shall be approved by the government.

80. Project Design Requirements references various design calculations to be included as part of the design, is this information to be presented in a narrative format or on the drawings?

Answer: Narrative format is preferred.

81. In the General Provisions Section 1.b states “Any updated or corrected design analyses of architectural, structural, civil, electric, mechanical, and utility systems shall be included.” The FOPR does not specifically request a design analysis as part of the 65% package. Please clarify if a design analysis is required as part of the 65% design package for the seed project.

Answer: The required calculations in the Seed Project SOW Section 3.4 are part of what is considered a design analysis in Section 4.c of the General Provisions.

82. Does the ceiling require the plastic paneling or just the walls?

Answer: Paneling is required on the ceiling and walls. See Attachment 19, Seed Project SOW, Revision 2, para. 2.3.17.

83. The Seed Project SOW (Attachment 19 of the RFP) states that the following items are required as part of the 65% Design and are required at the time proposals are due (see attached excerpt from this section, specifically paragraphs 3.3 to 3.5):

- Para 3.3.2 Site Survey

- Para 3.3.4 Existing/Final Site and Grading Plans

- Para 3.3.6 Underground Utility Plan

- Para 3.3.7 Utility Details

- Para 3.5.13 Earthwork (Specs)

- Para 3.5.17 Water Utility (Specs)

- Para 3.5.18 Sewer Utility (Specs)

- Para 3.5.19 Gas Utility (Specs) Is the intent of the RFP to have the Designers and Surveyors perform the above work prior to award of the project? (As this is a Cost Expense that the Contractor will have to incur before any award)

Answer: See Seed Project SOW, Revision 2, Section 3.2. Topographic maps were provided as Attachment 23 in amendment 0002. These maps should be used for the above required drawings. After award of the seed project, the drawings shall be modified based on result of the investigative submittal.

84. Can these requirements be completed after award of the project? (In reference to Question 83)

Answer: Yes, see Attachment 19, Seed Project SOW, Revision 2, Section 3.2.

85. Will the Government Consider a 35% Conception Design? (In reference to Question 83)

(As this is a Normal Practice)

Answer: No, a 65% design is required for the technical evaluation.