QA2_-_MASTER.pdf

1. Our design teaming partner would also like to know if we can use MasterSpec for the specifications.

Response: MacDill AFB standards call for specifications within the drawings.

2. Please clarify question 106 listed in the Q&A (also below). Is every offeror expected to pay a surveyor to dig up and locate the utilities for this seed project proposal? That means every offeror, roughly 45 will be sending surveyors to survey the site. Shouldn’t this be a requirement for the awardee of the seed project? Per the pre-proposal conference, it was stated that we are not permitted to return to the seed project site. If a survey is required, will the government schedule multiple times and dates for this survey to occur?

Only the awarded contractor will be required to perform the Existing Conditions Investigation. Below is the excerpt copied from the SOW.

1. Existing Conditions Investigation:

a. Obtain site details, topographic and utility survey data to the extent required to complete the project design.

b. Any executed surveys shall be made a part of the plan set.

c. Contractor shall field verify all Government provided distances, dimensions, and elevations.

3. Question 107 states to include teaming agreements in Factor 1 and question 205 states that we don't need to submit a teaming agreement with Designers. Please clarify?

Teaming agreements are required if you are submitting separate construction/design projects to fulfill the experience/past performance requirements. If you are submitting projects where the prime managed the design and construction efforts a teaming arrangement is not required.

4. Attachment 3 asks for a project #(1-14) and I was just checking that this should be (1-16) as we will have to submit 16 projects total in conjunction with our design partner. Please advise. Thank you.

‐ It should be 1-16

5. Please confirm that if a contractor is using this requirement, they only need to provide 8 construction projects, where they were the Prime Contractor and managed both the design and construction efforts, without any additional design consultant experience?

‐ Offer must have acted as the Prime Contractor, and managed both the design and construction efforts. If you are submitting separate projects for construction experience and design experience then a teaming agreement would be required. For example if you acted as the Prime Contractor, and managed both the design and construction efforts 4 of the 8 D-B projects submitted for construction you would need to submit an additional 4 projects for construction and 4 additional projects from the DOR for a total of 12 to meet the requirement listed.

6. If an offeror is submitting eight (8) Design-Build Construction Projects as the Prime

Contractor, and managed both the design and construction under this section of proposal, are DOR qualifications or teaming agreement required for the DOR team proposed for this MACC? Also, is it permissible that all of these eight (8) projects submitted were with different DORs? Please advise.

‐ Offer must have acted as the Prime Contractor, and managed both the design and construction efforts. If you are submitting separate projects for construction experience and design experience then a teaming agreement would be required. For example if you acted as the Prime Contractor, and managed both the design and construction efforts 4 of the 8 D-B projects submitted for construction you would

7. Are offerors allowed to have teaming agreements with more than one design firms and submit each of their projects as DORs totaling eight to meet the design requirements? For example, four projects from an architectural firm and four projects from an MEP engineering firm, within the twelve types of projects. Please advise.

Yes

8. The response to this question is confusing. How are offerors to be aware of the existing condition of the roof? Please confirm offerors are not expected to perform any roofing work on the seed project other than flashing/repairs relative to new roof penetrations or patching of infilled penetrations. We understand the requirement to perform a roof survey to determine other repair needs after award of the seed project.

Response: Correct, ‘offerors are not expected to perform any roofing work on the seed project other than flashing/repairs relative to new roof penetrations or patching of infilled penetrations.”

9. Considering the Section L (L-2.3, Factor II, Sub Factor 1), in part (b), our firm has the 8 projects that meet this requirement and we were the Prime Contractor on all 8 projects and managed both design and construction efforts. However, in the Q&A there seems to be a contradicting answer to the questions, especially on questions 55 and 140. The design firm we are using to produce the 65% design documents is one of the firms that we used on the 8 projects however they were not part of all 8 projects. We understood the Section L to state that if we had the 8 D-B projects on our own, then it didn’t matter if we used different design firms on those past projects as long as we use one of those design firms for the 65% design documents. Please confirm we can submit the 8 D-B projects for part (b) and that these do NOT have to be all with the same design firm as our subcontractor.

‐ Offer must have acted as the Prime Contractor, and managed both the design and construction efforts. If you are submitting separate projects for construction experience and design experience then a teaming agreement would be required. For example if you acted as the Prime Contractor, and managed both the design and construction efforts 4 of the 8 D-B projects submitted for construction you would

10. The border autocad file “x01_ansiB” (we have the attributes file for the titleblock but not the border). Kindly Clarify

Response: Border file x01_ansiB does not have attributes. Block attribute are in the individual sheet files.

11. Arial font file: Autocad compiled shape file for the USAF standard arial font style (don’t have the specific file name). Kindly Clarify

Response: Arial is the current CAD Standard font (arial.shx) which should have been included with the project files in the acad_local\Fonts folder.

12. Confirm that Furniture package (FF&E) is not included as part of this submission.

Response: The furniture will be provided by the user. Contractor will coordinate with the user and their furniture dealer so that electrical connections to the furniture can be provided by the contractor.

13. Confirm that furniture layout is not required to be shown on drawings

Response: The user’s furniture vendor will provide the furniture layout to the user. The user will provide the furniture layout to the construction inspector and contractor.

Contractor will provide electrical connections to the furniture.

14. Per MacDill Design Guidelines Interior signs shall be provided for all interior rooms affected by construction.

a. Confirm if it is part of the scope, or otherwise

Response: Interior signage is part of the scope of work.

15. Confirm that exterior doors are not part of the scope .

Response: No exterior doors are part of the scope of work.

16. Finishes Per the MacDill Design Guide Countertops are to be “Corian, price Group F”. The category does not exist. Corian price Groups are from 1 to 7. Can we assume Corian Solid Surface Price Group 7?

Response: Corian Price Group 4 should be used for this project.

17. Toilet Room Accessories Paper towel holder needs to be sized to fit “Big 8” rolls. We cannot find out what size this is exactly, the holder we used as BOD can hold 8” x 800’ paper towels which seems to be larger rolls. Kindly Clarify.

Response: The item specified as BOD should be provided.

18. In regards to question 106 from Amendment 0001. Requirements to have site survey and geotechnical reporting for this submission is unrealistic with the approval process from MacDill and the time to mobilize and turn over a report. We would ask that this requirement be moved to a later design submission since it does not impact design (structural) or price at this stage.

Only the awarded contractor will be required to perform the Existing Conditions Investigation. Below is the excerpt copied from the SOW.

1. Existing Conditions Investigation:

a. Obtain site details, topographic and utility survey data to the extent required to complete the project design.

b. Any executed surveys shall be made a part of the plan set.

19. Can we edit the AF3052 since not all the line items have been included or some items are not required with our design?

If that is what you feels is appropriate. The 48 Division CSI is still required.

20. Answer to question 90 from the Q&A indicates lump sum pricing is not accepted. Can the Government include the appropriate lines items on the AF 3052 for the visually inspected and assumed ACM, lead and mold?

You can edit the 3052 as appropriate. The 48 Division CSI is still required.

21. AF3052 indicates demo in mold contaminated area but the answer to question #119 indicates a mold survey has not been accomplished. Please clarify mold or no mold. If mold I suggest vacating the building with military personnel currently working in the building.

Response: The building will not be occupied during demolition and construction.

22. The answer to question #9 refers to the answer for question #7 but this does not answer the question. Please clarify.

Response: The answer for question #9 refers to the answer for question #2 (not #7)

23. During the site visit ACM was not visually inspected and was only discussed in the meeting room prior to the site. Can the 35% design drawings that were provided by the government indicate the areas where ACM was visually inspected and assumed?

Response: No, the 35% design drawings cannot be modified to indicate the areas where ACM was visually inspected and assumed. For project bidding purposes the contractor shall use the 1) As-Built drawings, 2) the list of suspect ACM (as listed in the SOW) and

3) an inspection of the building/project (during the bid process), to estimate the quantity of suspect material that will need to be abated. During the project design process (beyond 35%) the contractor can elect to test (at this cost) any identified potential ACM items/materials to verify if they DO or DO NOT contain asbestos, and modify the 65% or 95% design accordingly to address ACM management/requirements during construction.

24. Is FAR clause 52-236-2, differing site conditions part of this solicitation?

‐ Yes, it is in the clauses section

25. Can you confirm the number of amendments? FBO.GOV indicates two amendments and 3 solicitations.

‐ There has been one amendment so far. FBO labeled the posting with additional attachments as an amendment whereas it was just additional attachments included with the original posting. This document and any resulting changes will be considered Amendment 2 and will include a SF 30 for signature just as amendment 1 did.

26. The answer to question #48 indicates to see answer to question #149 but this does not answer the question. Please clarify

Response: Electrical Improvements to the Roof work is not in Scope. Surge Protection should be added.

27. Question #50 indicates to provide a 100% design for the site/civil drawings. Please clarify if in fact 100% is required?

The awarded contractor will be required to provide a 65%, 95% and 100% design submittals during the design phase. Reference SOW section IV. Submittals - for a specifics and section IV. Submittals – J. Submittal Descriptions: for submittal requirements. For the purposes of this solicitation however, only 65% designs are required.

28. Question #54 indicates cut sheets will not be required but question #104 indicates to provide submittals for switches and fixtures. Please clarify if only submittals/cut sheets/shop drawings are only required for question #104.

Response: Refer to AF-66 for submittals.

29. Is a subsurface geo technical survey/report required for the seed project? If so, this is typically done at the 35% design which was provided by the government. Please clarify if required.

Only the awarded contractor will be required to perform the Existing Conditions Investigation. Below is the excerpt copied from the SOW.

1. Existing Conditions Investigation:

a. Obtain site details, topographic and utility survey data to the extent required to complete the project design.

b. Any executed surveys shall be made a part of the plan set.

30. Answer to question #107 indicates that teaming agreement is be in Factor 1. Answer to question #205 indicates teaming agreement does not have to be submitted. Please clarify if a copy of the teaming agreement needs to be submitted with proposal.

‐ - Offer must have acted as the Prime Contractor, and managed both the design and construction efforts. If you are submitting separate projects for construction experience and design experience then a teaming agreement would be required. For example if you acted as the Prime Contractor, and managed both the design and construction efforts 4 of the 8 D-B projects submitted for construction you would need to submit an additional 4 projects for construction and 4 additional projects from the DOR for a total of 12 to meet the requirement listed. A teaming agreement is required when submitting separate projects to fulfill construction efforts and design efforts only.

31. The answer to question #126 indicates to see answer to question #230. This is incorrect please clarify as the answer to question #230 has nothing to do with fiber optics.

Response: Question 230 has everything to do with fiber optics see below: Existing Backbone Cables are to remain and new outside facility cables are not required.

32. The answer to question #130 indicates offeror must be aware of existing roof conditions.

Contractors were not afforded the opportunity to inspect the roof. How can the contractor be made aware of the existing roof conditions? Are we able to utilize FAR 52-236-2, differing site conditions for the roof and ACM, LBP, etc… for differing site conditions since we didn’t have the opportunity to inspect the roof like current incumbents have?

Response: See the response provided to Question # 8.

33. Due to this being a FFP contract and as indicated in the answer to question #135 if the

Fire Marshall changes instructions or rulings will this be considered a change of conditions?

Each task order is FFP. When you propose on task orders you will be proposing under the current conditions so this is not an issue.

34. Answers to questions 145, 154, 155, 158, 178, and 196 references to see answers to other numbers but the numbers referenced do not answer the actual question. Please clarify

35. Question 150 – Our design firm needs information on roof and roof warranty if applicable as we may take the intake thru the roof. Please advise.

Response: The roof was built in 1984 and there is no roof warranty.

36. Answer to question #176 indicates lump sum pricing should not be utilized. How do we price the ACM if we are not able to lump sum pricing and cannot determine quantities?

Do we price what we think was visually inspected ACM and the subsurface assumed ACM (quantity unknown) be treated as differing site condition?

Price as assumed. If there is a significant amount of ACM that could not have been expected between visual inspection and the provided as builts a differing site condition may be entertained.

37. Answer to question #189 indicates offerors are encouraged to visit the site. As with the incumbents visiting the site can the non-incumbents visit as well?

Response: In reference to the generator that is not required. Authorized non-incumbents may be permitted to visit the site. All offerors were already afforded an opportunity to visit the site during the pre-arranged site visit.

38. As per “Statement of Work for RPR HVAC & Reno Comm FAC, Project NVZR 16- 0123, Dec. 14, 2018, Page 11 of 23, Paragraph VIII stated:

“Each telecommunication room shall be designed for a sensible heat load of approx. 20 watts per sq. ft. Communication rooms shall be provided with computer room air conditioning (CRAC) unit …………with humidifier, reheat and condensing pump.”

Contractor: As per 35% Submission, the proposed TRANE, Model 4MYW/4TYK unit is not computer room air conditioning (CRAC) unit and does not provide humidification and dehumidification. Are we keeping the proposed unit?

Response: The proposed Trane model 4MYW/4TYK is sufficient for this application.

39. As per “Statement of Work for RPR HVAC & Reno Comm FAC, Project NVZR 16- 0123, Dec. 14, 2018, Page 12 of 23, Paragraph II (c) stated: “Provide and install a new 4-ton air handler and condensing unit…”

Contractor: Our assumption is that the 4-ton unit is dedicated to the Flight Multi-Purpose Training/Meeting/Conference Room 106. Please confirm.

Response: The 4-ton split system is required to be a dedicated outside air unit.

40. As per 35% Submission, Drawing M-102, Note #6: “Provide and install new VAVs with heat strips...”

Contractor: As per UFC 30410-01, Change 4, 01 Nov. 2017, Paragraph 3-6.6, Page 18:

“Electric resistance heating must NOT be used for heating or reheating…”. However, as per MacDill AFB Design Guide, August 2018, Page 50, Paragraph 8.1 (44): “…Electric heat strips shall only be used as secondary heating.” Are we keeping the VAVs with the heat strips?

Response: Yes, the VAVs with heat strips will remain in the design.

41. The proposed 15-ton and 4-ton units provide cooling only.

Contractor: Confirm that heating for the building is not required and all electric heat strips mounted in VAV boxes are for the reheat purposes only.

Response: All electric heat strips will be in the VAV boxes for reheat purposes.

42. As per Statement of Work (SOW) for RPR HVAC & RENO COMM FAC at MacDill AFB, FL, Project # HVZR 16-0123, Date December 14, 2018, Appendix K, Mechanical

Design Requirements, Paragraph 1 (i-14): “ Variable Air Volume Boxes. By-pass VAV unit for DX air side capacity control. stated to provide a VAV box for air bypass”

Contractor: As per SOW and 35% Submission, the proposed 15-ton air handling unit Trane Model TWE is a constant airflow unit. However, temperature comfort in multiple temperature zones is controlled by multiple variable air volume (VAV) boxes. Each VAV box regulates the volume of the conditioned air supplied to the zone by opening or closing the damper. If space temperature is satisfied in several zones, dampers in the VAV boxes will close. Upon closure of the dampers in the VAVs, air pressure in the main distribution duct will increase above a set point. A by-pass at the air handling unit is utilized to keep air pressure at the set point. The by-pass will open and circulate air from the air handling unit back to the same air handling unit. The proposed system will require operation of the supply fan in the air handling unit at a constant speed which is waste of energy. The proposed HVAC system is obsolete. Requested by-pass VAV unit for DX air side capacity control is not correct for the application.

The correct and energy efficient system is a variable air volume system which utilizes an air handling unit with a variable frequency drive (VFD) fan motor and multiple VAV boxes.

To comply with the Scope of Work, MM will keep the proposed constant air volume air handling unit. However, the unit will be provided with a by-pass motor operated damper and not a by-pass VAV unit.

Response: A VAV must be used so it can be integrated into the control system, a damper is not a proportionally controlled device.

43. As per MacDill AFB Design Guide, August 2018, Page 48, Paragraph 8.1 (19): “Use double wall, insulated air handling units”.

The model TWE air handler is noted just for the basis of design. Follow the MacDill Design Guide and use a double wall insulated AHU.

44. Contractor: The proposed 15-ton air handler Model TWE is not double wall construction unit. Confirm that the single wall unit Model TWE is acceptable.

The model TWE air handler is noted just for the basis of design. Follow the MacDill Design Guide and use a double wall insulated AHU.

45. As per UFC 3-410-01, Change 4, 11/1/2017, Paragraph 4-2-6-2: “Provide ducted return from the occupied space for each zone to the air handler on all HVAC systems.”

Contractor: The proposed 15-ton vertical air handler in the mechanical room, will be mount horizontally. The supply and return ducts will be provided for each temperature zone. Please confirm the supply and return ductwork distribution system.

Response: The EOR must determine if it is more feasible to have a vertical or horizontal 15 ton AHU. A ducted supply and return ductwork distribution system is required.

46. Contractor: The proposed 4-ton HVAC system for Flight Multi-purpose Training/Conference Rm. 106 will be provided with supply and return ducts. The air handling unit will be mounted above the ceiling of the Flight Multi-purpose Training/Conference Rm. 106 RM. Please confirm the proposed system configuration.

Response: See response under question #39.

47. As per UFC 4-010-01, Dec. 12, 2018, Para. 3-17.2, Air intakes shall be 10 feet above the ground.

Contractor: Installation of the air intake openings 10 feet above grade is not feasible due to the limited exterior wall elevation. The outdoor air intakes to each air handler will be delivered through the roof via goosenecks. Please confirm.

Response: The EOR must determine the most feasible location for the outside air intake.

48. CLARIFICATION – Questions 13 and 14 from the previous Q&A reference the Seed project being awarded to the lowest bidder. This is in reference to the lowest priced offeror that is awarded one of the up to ten contracts on the overall MACC IDIQ. The overall MACC is based off of a best value trade off, however once the pool of awardees has been identified the SEED project will be awarded to the lowest priced of the identified pool of awardees.