QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 320 -339.docx

Solicitation No.: FA4800-11-R-0002 Attachment 20

AMENDMENT 0005

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

320 – 339

320. In the most recent posting of questions (9/24/11) for the Langley / Eustis MACC RFP, there is a reference made to several specification sections tailored for LAFB (Sections 27 10 10, 28 31 65 and 28 31 66). Would you please forward a copy of these sections (have them posted to the RFP website) or let me know where I can find them. They are not available on the UFGS website. If these sections are available, please forward / post them in the SEC format, otherwise, DOC / DOCX will be fine.

Also, I would like to have a copy of the three sections attached to the original solicitation (01 06 00, 01 10 00 and 01 12 00) in the SEC format so that I can include them in all three formats, as required by the RFP. Are these sections available in this format?

I believe I am following protocol by asking you for this information. If not, please let me know who I should forward these questions to.

A. The specification sections we use (except for sections 01 11 00, 01 06 00, 01 12 00, “FORT EUSTIS – SPECIFIC”) are Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS). They are available from the National Institute of Building Sciences (http://www.wbdg.org/) at http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/browse_org.php?o=70.

321. Question and Answer #313 states” “that building 351 is not a part of the seed project – however, once the MACC contract is awarded, this water project in its entirety will be awarded for execution. At that time, facility 351 and the other facilities contained in the project drawings will apply.”

Please answer the following questions plainly:

· Is the price to include all of the buildings contained in the RFP drawings?

A. Yes, the price is to include all the buildings contained in the RFP drawings.

· Is the number of buildings to be tied-in to the new waterline 27?

A. For the cost proposal, the number of buildings to be tied to the new waterline is 27.

322. Bid item 0001 contained on the bid form in amendment 0002 states “Repair by replacement the water service connections and tie-ins to twenty-five facilities in the Shellbank area of Langley AFB as indicated on the drawings.”

Is the current number of facilities in the seed project now 25 or has it changed? If it has changed, what is the latest count on the number of facilities to be included in the pricing for Bid item 0001? Please provide a corrected bid form if necessary.

A. For the purpose of preparing the pricing submittal, 27 facilities. Please refer to the answer to question 242 (amendment 0004).

323. The plans for Building 325 included in the amendment are insufficient to complete the plans for the 90% submittal. We respectfully request the following plans be provided.

1. Plumbing plans showing the piping within the mechanical room.

1. Fire plans showing the fire piping lines within the mechanical room.

1. Structural plans showing the concrete foundation within the mechanical room.

1. Typical wall section of the mechanical room showing the concrete floor and foundation as it relates to the existing grade.

A. Field investigation must be performed to obtain requested information on piping layout within the mechanical room. We provided all we have available relative to the wall and slab cross-section of facility 325.

324. Response to Question #305 indicates that the government will provide an electronic copy of the Langley Special Conditions upon request.

A. Specification Sections 01 11 00 and 01 12 00 were submitted with the Solicitation Attachment 10 and 12. Sections 27 10 10, 28 31 65 and 238 31 66 will be posted with Amendment 05.

325. As shown on the 35% drawings, the post indicator valve (PIV) for facility 333 is approximately 30’ from the building. Per Section 6.3.3.1 of NFPA 24, post indicator valves shall be located not less than 40’ from buildings. They shall be permitted to be closer where approved by the authority having jurisdiction. Has the fire chief reviewed the 35% drawings and approved of the PIV location at building 333?

A. The location shown for the PIV is its approved location.

326. Based on the response to question #278, there are now twenty-seven facilities which are to receive new water service connections and tie-ins. Bid Item No. 0001 on the revised Bid Schedule is for twenty-five facilities. Will a new Bid Schedule by provided which will include the two additional buildings in the description of work for this Bid Item?

A. A new bid schedule will not be provided. The contractor can strike out the number of facilities in line item 1 when submitting the bid.

327. Bid Item No. 0002 on the revised Bid Schedule reads, “Demo Shellbank Hydrants on the old water distribution system as indicated on the drawings.” The project includes demolition of 16 hydrants and demolition and replacement of 6 hydrants. Are the costs for the 6 new hydrants to be included in this Bid Item No.?

A. The six new hydrants are to be included in line item 1 of the bid schedule.

328. Good morning, per the changes added to FedBizOpps on 9/17. When we open the drawing it directs us to Sheet 1 (5). Is this the only sheet we need per the change? Also it references 4 other pages which we are un able to locate?

A. The pdf version of the drawings will be posted with Amendment 0005.

329. The addendum changed the design percentage to 90% for sheet 3. Does that mean the rest of the seep project are still at 30%, 60%, 90% sequence originally described in the solicitation?

A. The intent was to reduce the 90% effort to page 3 of the drawings. The awardee will have to take this project to 100% contingent upon availability of funds.

330. The instructions for the Technical Proposals states that there are an unlimited number of pages for the 90% design and 20 pages for the rest of the seed project. Are you requiring two separate Technical proposals?

A. No.

331. Amendment 0004, page 7 of 12, changed Volume I, paragraph a, to require a 90% design for a portion of the seed project, specifically the work described on sheet 3 (work at Facilities 325-329 and the removal of one fire hydrant).

Paragraph b on page 7 of 12 of Amendment 0004 requires that we “Provide description of procedures…for tracing the progress of the project…Description shall include, but not limited to a discussion of the overall performance time for the design and construction phases…Include a filled out Attachment 08, AF Form 3064, Contract Progress Schedule, and a Schedule of Values for the project.”

Question: Does the paragraph b requirement, including the progress schedule and schedule of values, apply only to the portion of the seed project for which we are providing a 90% design (as described above), or does paragraph b, including the progress schedule and schedule of values, apply to the entire scope of the seed project?

A. For the entire scope of the seed project.

332. Our designer has reviewed the UFGS and Section 27 10 10 Langley AFB, JBLE Telecommunication Building Cabling System Standards does not exist in the UFGS. Section 27 10 00 Building Telecommunications Cabling System is the closest specification section but is not specific to LAFB. This is also true for Section 28 31 65 Fire Detection and Alarm System, Addressable and Section 28 31 66 Fire Detection and Alarm System. Again, the closest specification section in the UFGS is 28 34 64 00 10.

We cannot develop Langley specific specification sections as requested without the three cited specification sections being provided to us in a editable format such as .SEC version originally requested by email dated 27-Sep-11 or without Langley specific criteria.

A. Specification Sections 27 10 10, 28 31 65, and 28 31 66 are being incorporated with Amendment 0005

333. “Attachment 15 of the subject RFP, General Provisions for MACC” states the following in paragraph 4.3.4: Do not use sections 1090, 1300 and 1305 of the guide specifications. In the submittal paragraph of each section of the specifications, delete submittal number and all references to “GA” and “FIO”. Replace reference to “Section 1300” with “Section 01110, Special Conditions”. Question: We cannot find any references to “GA” or “FIO”: (at least in the half dozen specs we are preparing). In addition, the submittal numbers are linked to the submittal registry at the time of award and we are concerned deleting the numbers will complicate the submittal registry. Please clarify/confirm deletion of submittal numbers.”

A. The attachment 15 general provisions are written to be applicable to “normal” projects awarded during the MACC period of performance. For the purpose of preparing the Volume 1 Technical Proposal, this item may be overlooked; if “GA”, “FIO” or submittal numbers are included, that will not be considered to be a negative strike against the proposal.

334. Page 7 of 12 ¶ a., third bullet. The cited paragraph requires the Offeror to markup the specification sections listed in the RFP Amendment 01 dated 12-Aug-11, that apply to the work described on drawing sheet 3.

0. Please confirm the correct reference should be Amendment 02 effective date 29-Jul-11 (box 3) and date signed 13-Aug-11 (box 16C).

A. Reference the Effective Date, Block #3.

0. Please confirm only the Project Table of Contents was provided via Attachment 17 to Amendment 02.

A. Correct

0. Please provide the specification sections listed in the Project Table of Contents in Specs-in-Tact format to allow the required editing of the specification sections.

A. Only the Langley Specific Sections will be provided all other Sections refer to Question/Answer Number 305.

MACC Question and Answers, Attachment 20:

0. Question 220 addressed if this solicitation was open Nationwide to both small businesses and 8(a) firms. The answer is confusing.

3. Is this solicitation open only to 8(a) firms Nationwide?

A. No. This is open to “ALL” Small Business

3. Can small businesses nationwide submit on this solicitation?

A. Yes.

0. Question 228. In part, the Government’s answer was to provide the Schedule of Values in Volume 1 – Technical. This answer contradicts standard multiple award procurement practices wherein the Source Selection Board reviews and ranks the technical qualifications of each Offeror separate and apart from any consideration of price. Please reconsider your direction.

A. The Answer to Question 228 is to be Tab’ed out in Volume 3 – Price Proposal

335. We must acknowledge all amendments on the SF 1442. There was not a SF 30 for the building drawings posted on FBO on September 14th, the “Responses to Questions” posted September 17th, or “Questions & Answers with Test How drwgs” on September 24th. Should each of these be listed as amendments with the dates they were posted? For example: the building drawings would be Amendment 4, the Responses to Questions would be Amendment 5 and “Questions & Answers with Test How drwgs” would be Amendment 6th.

A. Only three Amendments (0001 – dated 22 July 2011, 0002 – dated 29 July 2011 and 0004 – dated 09 Sep 2011 (there is not Amendment 0003)) have been posted so far. Refer to Block 3 as the effective date. All the drawings and Q&As will be posted with Amendment 0005.

336. May you provide me with the Wage Scale for our bid?

A. The Wage Rate posted with Attachment 17 is the correct rate, however on the RFP it’s listed wrong. This will be corrected with Amendment to be posted sometime today.

337. Would greatly appreciate some clarification on several items found in the above RFP.

In Amendment 4, page 7, the fourth (4th) bullet point states:

1. For the purpose of the preparation of the technical volume, the appropriate requirements contained in sections 01 06 00, 01 11 00 and 01 12 00 apply. A working knowledge of Langley AFB is needed in order to effectively edit these sections; it is not our intent to penalize a designer who may be less familiar with Langley AFB. It is not necessary to edit these three sections for your technical volume.

CLARIFICATION: The Langley AFB Special Conditions Sections 01 11 00 and 01 12 00, provided in the solicitation package, are unedited boiler-plate specifications sections that addresses issues unique to Langley AFB. The surveys and drawing format described in paragraph 1.24 of section 01 11 00 describe how these are to be performed and provided when they are required in execution of a project. These and other items are not required in each and every project. Surveys, topographic mapping and many other items contained in the special conditions will not apply to this project. If guidance about a requirement the special conditions sections is needed, please direct your question to the contracting officer for clarification.

We’re uncertain as to whether we need to comply with some aspect of the sections listed in the above paragraph, or should they should be completely ignored? If they’re , in fact, to be ignored, on what does the Air Force want us to base that portion of our design?

In addition, bullet point five (5) states:

1. Drawing sheets will be provided to detail the mechanical room layout and wall cross-section of facility 325.

Are we to provide those Drawing Sheets or is Air Force?

A. What we have provided is the details that we have showing the existing cross-section. If the 90 percent design for the technical submittal includes wall sectional detail, they will need to include it in their drawing – they certainly should use the information that we provided them.

338. Response in Question #111 lists 27 buildings that are part of this solicitation. Question #278 added Building #276 and deleted #330, #331, #362 & #367, question #279 added Building #327, question #280 added Building #324 and question #281 added Building #349 to the scope of work for the solicitation. Question #243 deleted the scope of work for Building #351. By our count that is a total of 27 buildings to have work performed on them:

1. 324

1. 325

1. 326

1. 327

1. 328

1. 329

1. 333

1. 337

1. 338

1. 339

1. 340

1. 342

1. 349

1. 355

1. 361

1. 366

1. 368

1. 369

1. 371

1. 372

1. 373

1. 374

1. 376

1. 378

1. 379

1. 380

1. 381 Please verify this the correct buildings that are included in the statement of work

If Building #342 is part of the scope of work, there is no reference to the work on Sheet 4 for the water line service to this building. Please clarify if there is work associated to this building or if it is excluded from the project.

A. There is no work at facility 342 and the list does not include facility 351.

339. Question and Answer #313 states” “that building 351 is not a part of the seed project – however, once the MACC contract is awarded, this water project in its entirety will be awarded for execution. At that time, facility 351 and the other facilities contained in the project drawings will apply.”

Please answer the following questions plainly:

Is the price to include all of the buildings contained in the RFP drawings?

A. YES.

Is the number of buildings to be tied-in to the new waterline 27?

A. YES.

340. With regards to the existing drawings provided for Bldg 325; can you provide the As-Built Fire Protection drawings for the building, particularly the service entrance for the existing sprinkler riser.

A.