MACC Questions and Answers 4.pdf

MACC Questions and Answers IV

FA4814-08-R-0019

16 Apr 2009

Below are the final questions submitted prior to the cutoff for questions/clarifications, which is 10 days prior to the RFP closing date. (13 Apr 09 was the last day for questions, See Section L, 1.3)

Also as a reminder; for offerors planning to hand deliver their proposal, you must coordinate with Mr. Jeremy Starrett (jeremy.starrett@macdill.af.mil) prior to the day you plan to submit your proposal for access to the base. (See Amendment 0003) Preferably coordinate before 12:00pm the day before access is required to ensure enough time for visitor control procedures.

Proposals are to be delivered to the address in block 7 of the Standard Form 1442.

6th Contracting Squadron (Attention Jeremy Starrett) 2606 Brown Pelican Ave. (Bldg 151, Room 200) MacDill AFB FL 33621-5000

Note: The delivery point is located in Bldg 151 second floor, room 200.

Questions and Answers IV

1. Q: The documents for the above referenced project state that the sanitary lines are corroded and will not support new plumbing. Shall we all assume that the sanitary lines underground need to be completely replaced and tie-ing into the 6" at the southern entrance to the hanger? This would encompass cutting and patching the concrete flooring in the hanger. or should we assume to run a new underground sanitary line to the exterior of the building on the east side and then south to the sanitary main running in the road on the southern side of the hanger? or should we assume that the existing lines are good up to the existing bathrooms?

A: Per the SOW, the government believes the piping in these areas has deteriorated and requires replacement. The extent of the project should include all piping related to the project and five feet outside the building foot print. See sheets C2 and P3.

2. Q: In the questions and answers issued with site visit minutes and addendum 002, we are allowed to add line items to the AF 3052 break down.

In addendum 003 section L para. 2.2.2.3 we are asked to show material, labor and equipment quantities subtotaled by the 48 division specification format... . Are the items and units listed, in the AF 3052, to remain even though we are, if needed to add lines?

A: Yes, they are to remain

3. Can we revise the recap and/or tabulation sheets in a 48 div breakdown format, breaking out costs to the lowest practical level for transparency, reflecting the work shown on the drawings to be submitted

A: Yes, you can add additional items to the recapitulation, but you must keep the four items already listed, and you must keep the total.

4. Q: Are the required Subcontractors Consent Letters and the Letters of Authorization part of the 30 page limit for Volume II. If so, please consider exempting these pages as it will greatly limit the pages we have left for the information you have requested.

A: Consent Letters and the Letters of Authorization are not part of the 30 page limit for Volume II . See Q&A III, question 7.

5. Q: On page 58 of the Original Proposal and on page 5 of Amendment 002, it states that all typing (including that on charts, graphs and tables) shall be no smaller than 12 pitch. First, we are assuming that you meant 12 font, as “pitch” refers to the old typewriter print. Second: Using 12 font will be very difficult- even using an 11 x 17 (counted as 2 pages) to meet all the requirements you have listed for the Organizational Chart. The industry standard for such charts is 8 to 10 font. Please consider changing the requirements for charts, graphs and tables to a small font.

A: You are correct; the term pitch refers to font size. Submit as in instructed in Section L 1.14.

This section is not subject to revisions.

6. Q: Offerors are required to prepare an electronic copy (CD) in Word and/or Excel, with only drawings allowed in pdf format. The nature of many proposals is such that charts, graphs, etc are not done in Word, and imported into the final product as a pdf file. Please consider allowing offerors to submit the electronic copy in an pdf format.

A: Submit as in instructed in Section L 1.14. This section is not subject to revisions.

7. Q: Regarding Questionnaires. Many of our projects are with the Corps of Engineers. It is their policy that they will not complete any questionnaires due to the fact that they complete CCASS Evaluations on each completed project. How can we satisfy your requirements for questionnaires if the Corps of Engineers refused to comply with the request. Will you consider the CCASS Evaluations. Also, is it enough for us to state on the past performance record (Attachment 9) that a CCASS is available, or do we need to submit copies. If we are to submit copies, will you exempt these pages from the 30 page limit for this Volume.

A: Submit Volume II as instructed in section L and if the COE will not comply and submit the questionnaire, that in itself will not be evaluated negatively. CCASS is part of the evaluation process and will be utilized in evaluating Volume II. However, it is important to consider, if any of the projects identified in your proposal don’t have projects in CCASS and a questionnaire isn’t submitted, then that part of the past performance will be evaluated with an "Unknown Confidence" rating, which is evaluated as neither positive nor negative. Do not submit copies of pages from CCASS in Volume II.

8. Q: Regarding Amendment # 2. On the SF 30, it lists 2.3.1 as having been revised. However, I have checked the text in Amendment against the Original solicitation, and I cannot find any change. Please point out what was changed.

A: The change in 2.3.1 is following the second bullet point. The term major subcontractor was added. See below for an excerpt to include the change in section L. Paragraph 2.3.1.

• Summary Page describing the role of the offeror and each major subcontractor, teaming partner, and /or joint venture partner that the offeror is required to provide Past Performance Information Sheets on in accordance with paragraph 2.3.2.

9. Q: What is the extent of replacement of sanitary sewers outside the building?

A: As previously stated in SOW addendum, the new line should extend 5 feet outside building footprint.

10. Q: On Sheet P-3 (file P3S120.dwg), it shows a 5” existing sewer line running underneath ‘Office 126’ and perpendicular to the eastern outside wall of Hangar 2. This line is NOT shown on Sheet C-2 (file C2S120.dwg). Please clarify.

A: The information is the most current available.

11. Q: Are there other connections to this 5” line, upstream of the connection of the first floor bathroom, that may have to be rerouted or newly established in the course of this project?

A: Possibly. More accurate information is not available.

12. Q: On Sheet P-3, it is indicated that the discharge for the first floor bathroom is connected to this 5” line. The discharge from the second floor bathrooms is indicated to be connected to the ‘existing sewer line’. Which line is this, the 5” sewer line shown in this sheet, or the 6” sewer line shown in C-2?

A: We believe the 5 inch line connects to the 6 inch line.

13. Q: The grease trap from the kitchen is connected to the same discharge line as the second floor bathroom. Will the discharge from the second floor bathroom be abandoned upstream of the connection of the kitchen waste lines, or will the kitchen waste lines be connected to a new discharge line?

A: No work is projected on the kitchen sewer lines.

14. Q: What are the materials of construction, and approximate age, of the sanitary sewer lines along the east side of Hangar 2?

A: We believe it to be clay tile pipe.

15. Q: Presumably there is a sanitary sewer manhole at the 90-degree bend in the 6” sanitary sewer line just off the north-east corner of Hangar No. 2. Please provide the inverts for the upstream and downstream connecting sewer lines.

A: The sanitary manhole is shown on sheet C2.

16. Q: With the expansion of the bathrooms, the usage of water may go up. There is currently no way to evaluate the capacity of the receiving sanitary sewer line to ensure that the additional usage will not negatively impact the receiving sanitary sewers. Please provide pipe sizing, slopes, inverts and measured/estimated/design usage and capacity of the receiving system, both upstream of the proposed improvements and downstream, up to and including the receiving sanitary sewer pump station.

A: The receiving pump station is at 50 percent capacity, and has adequate capacity for this project.

17. Q: Please provide average daily runtimes, pump capacity, wet well dimensions and control elevations for the pump station.

A: See Question 16

18. Q: The configuration of the sanitary sewers on the west side of Hangar 2 is confusing, at least at first sight. It seems an 8” sanitary sewer line discharges on a 6” line, while several other lines (4” and 6”) also discharge on the 6” line. Would redesigning / upgrading this system be part of the contract too?

A: No