Attachment 21-XLWU 21-8120 Honor Questions and Answers Rev C - 30 Aug 2022.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 2 MB Posted
- Attached to
- Construct Honor Guard Facility
- Solicitation number
- FA481922R0032
View the file
Other files
Show all 36
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1 Questions for Honor Guard Facility CES Response CONS Response Project: Honor Guard Facility
| 1 | The solicitation mentions both 270 days and 331 days for the period of performance. Section L, under the project schedule (subfactor 3) paragraph, states 365 days. Which is correct? | See correct SOW - 476 days | ||
| 2 | In Block 10 of the 1442, it says that this design-build project is to repair and restore buildings 7028 & 7042, along with the construction of a perimeter fence around the 7000 area. With attachment 17 stating that the new Honor Guard facility will be constructed next to building 1701, is this note in block 10 referring to the correct project? | Addressed in Amendment 001 | ||
| 3 | Architectural scope of work states exterior locks to be 304 or 306 stainless steel non-ferrous marine grade, these locks are not hurricane rated that your base wind requirement states 165-170 MPH. We can supply locks that can withstand these wind speeds but are not stainless 304-306. We can supply SVR panic devices as marine grade 1 316 but they are not hurricane rated. | Per the Tyndall IFS all exterior hardware to be stainless steel and aluminum where stainless steel is not available. The exterior Hardware will also need to meet the wind speed requirements. We have hardware on our existing buildings that is stainless steel and meets the wind speed requirements. It is possible. | ||
| 4 | Pair of doors leaving the interior drill and training should be equipped with a panic exit device for these doors | These doors will be best used if there is panic exit device hardware. | ||
| 5 | What door hardware is required for interior and exterior doors? | The door hardware core cylinders to be “Best” – the “Best” locks are the base standard. The hardware itseld can be products that meet the TAFB IFS requirements. | ||
| 6 | In the SOW, Page 6 of 82, paragraph H states the facility will be occupied. Please confirm that this project is for new construction and that it will not be occupied until project completion. | Remove (NA) | ||
| 7 | Is a temporary construction fence required? | Yes – a temporary construction fence is required to prevent unwanted entries to the area. | ||
| 8 | SOW references several appendixes, A through P, but none of these seem to be present. Can these Appendixes be provided? | |||
| Appendix C | Tyndall Rebuild Facility Related Control Systems (FRCS) Technology Summary. (see attachment) | |||
| Appendix H | J&A TAFB SIEMENS FRCS (see attachment) | |||
| Appendix N | TAFB Exterior Materials, Finishes and Colors Palette (See www.tyndallifs.com) | |||
| Appendix P | Liquidated Damages Memo |
9 Is Cathodic protection required? I’m not aware of any Cathodic protection for a facility – the facility ground is not part of a Cathodic protection – See page 17. 6.2 “GEOTECHNICAL REPORT” ”Paragraph 4”.
Material and equipment used will have Cathodic protection, ie. paint, corrosion resistance, use of similar metals to prevent corrosion.
| 10 | Does Tyndall have a Monaco Fire alarm requirement? | SEMIENS is the base standard | |
| 11 | Please confirm that the Quality Control Manager can also be the safety officer, but that the Superintendent cannot be either QC or Safety; in other words, this is a “two hat” project. | The Superintendent has to be independent (prime) - QC and Safety manager may be “two-hat” (prime), recommended that all inspections are performed by the license’s contractor that performed the tasks and updating drawings. | |
| 12 | Is masonry required for the exterior? | The exterior finishes should follow the www.tyndallifs.com Exterior Finish Palette. The exterior finishes, most importantly. need to meet the wind speeds. The exterior finish palette includes finishes like masonry, metal panel, precast concrete, see Tyndall IFS website. https://www.tyndallifs.com/design_intent_architecture_colors_materials.php | |
| 13 | Will a pre-engineered metal building (PEMB) be acceptable if it meets the 165 MPH wind requirement? | The exterior finished need to meet the base standards and wind speeds, PEMB is acceptable, see Tyndall IFS website www.tyndallifs.com. | |
| 14 | A 3610 SF concept floor was provided, and a 4200 SF concept floor plan was provided. Attachment 17 states that a 3250 SF facility is desired. Which floor plan/area is the contactor to base its design from? | CONS - See attachment - unofficial “Honor Guard Conceptual Drawing”, this a estimation of 4200 SF | |
| 15 | On page 10 of attachment 1 under article 1.2 paragraph A and D – please clarify if all applicable codes and regulations are to be use at the time of the release of the RFP or at the time of award. If the applicable codes and regulations are based at the time of award, please clarify potential changes or impact to the design and construction as the contractor design team would not be able to bid the RFP without knowing how the codes and regulations would impact the cost. | Yes -- | |
| 16 | On page 11 of attachment 1 under paragraph D – it states that the Design Team shall adhere to the following guidance during design and construction phase of this project: Those section of the Southern Standard Building code is not incorporated in the UBC/International Building for our respective area – please clarify as the southern standard building code is no longer use or printed, neither is the Unified Building Code UBC. The UBC was replaced with the IBC in the year 2000. Please provide clarification | All applicable codes and standards can be found at www.wdbg.org, www.tyndallifs.com, ICC.com and Florida Building Code. (The SBC and the UBC are no longer in use.) | |
| 17 | On page 15 of attachment 1 under section E line e. and p. calls out for the use of Guiding principles for Sustainable Federal Buildings and Associated Installation – Based on the website http://sustainability.gov – it states the following: This guidance is no longer in effect, does not represent current administration positions, and is provided for reference only. Please clarify if this guidance is applicable and if so, which sections are applicable as they relate to line e. use of the Air Force Sustainable Design and Development (SDD) Implementation Guidance? | The sustainability guidance is applicable and required for the project. See www.wbdg.org and www.tyndallifs.com | |
| 18 | On page 13 of attachment 1 under line dddd – it refers to ASHRAE 189.1 Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings – Please clarify if this ASHRAE is applicable and if so which version applies? | ASHRAE 189.1 is applicable. As you read through the current UFCs and building codes – the codes and standards will tell you which version applies. | |
| 19 | On page 13 of attachment 1 under line mmmm – it refers to the International Building Code – Please clarify if the DOR is to use the 2020 Florida Building Code 7th Edition? | The DOR is to use the Florida Building Code for certain parts of the project. Refer to the UFCs for guidance was to whether the FBC applies or the IBC applies. See www.wbdg.org and www.tyndallifs.com | |
| 20 | On page 12 of attachment 1 under line rr – it refers to UFC 3-570-01 Cathodic Protection - Please clarify if there will be any requirements for cathodic protection? | Material and equipment used will have Cathodic protection, ie. paint, corrosion resistance, use of similar metals to prevent corrosion. | |
| 21 | On page 12 of attachment 1 under line ggg – it refers to USAF BIM Minimum requirements version 2.1 – Please clarify if we are to use this guide or as stated on the preceding sections? | If using BIM follow this USAF BIM Minimum requirements version 2.1 . This can be found at www.wbdg.org. https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/AF/AFBIM/AF_Minimum_BIM_Requirements_V2.1.pdf If using CAD follow the CAD requirements in the https://www.wbdg.org/ffc/army-coe/cad-bim-technology-center | |
| 22 | BLANK | ||
| 23 | BLANK | ||
| 24 | 1. Is there a requirement on Tyndall AFB, or for this project, to plant a 10’ tall tree for every 1,000 SF of disturbed area, excluding any retention ponds? If so, what tree(s) is specified? | Yes the UFC 3-201-02 Landscape Architecture https://wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_201_02_2020_c1.pdf requires a certain amount of trees for a certain amount of area of construction. The TAFB IFS has the plant list requirements https://www.tyndallifs.com/images/landscape_master_plan/TAFB_MasterPlantPallette_2020-08-12.pdf | |
| 25 | 2. Is roof access required for this facility and if so, is permanent fall protection also required? | A secured/lockable metal ladder to get up to the roof is required. Permanent Fall protection may be required per the UFCs. Review the UFCS to check if it is required. No equipment or roof hatches are allowed on TAFB roofs. | |
| 26 | 4. On page 76 of attachment 1, paragraph 16.4 roof access – when required roof access will be provided by building mounted external ladder. | ||
| Please clarify if this building will be required to have a ladder access? Based on OSHA regulation high slope roof are not recommended to have roof access. If you’re providing roof access then fall arrest system will need to be provided. As visible on attachment 4 & 5 there is a portion of the roof that is flat with a parapet. Is this the portion of the roof that roof access is required? | A secured/lockable metal ladder to get up to the roof is required. Meet the requirements of the TAFB IFS and the UFCs. The entire roof needs to be accessed but one ladder is only needed to get up to the roof then interstitial access once on the roof can be used. | ||
| 27 | 5. As per UFC 1-200-02 High Performance and sustainable bldg. requirements – Table 1-1 compliance requirements/threshold – Please clarify if this facility is to meet all requirements per the guide? If so, please provide the Air Force Sustainability Requirement scoresheet. We need clear direction on various credit points. |
a. HPSB I – verify during RFP preparation that integrated design was performed
b. HPSB II.2 - please describe which renewable energy is to be used on-site
c. HPSB II.3 please clarify if solar hot water heating is required
d. HPSB II.4 – please clarify metering is being performed via the local utility water meter or other means
e. HPSB III.1 – Please clarify indoor water metering will be required
f. HPSB III.2 – Please clarify outdoor water requirements
g. HPSB III.3 – Please clarify alternative water source is required – harvested rainwater, treated wastewater, air handler condensate capture, etc.
h. HPSB IV.4 – Please clarify how to achieve daylighting requirements
i. HPSB IV.8 – Please clarify how to achieve health and wellness requirements – Active workstations, fitness center, bicycle commuter facilities, etc.
j. HPSB V.2 – Please clarify if Biologically-based product are to be selected for this facility
k. HPSB V.5 – Please clarify if we have to meet the 60% divert of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste materials from landfills.
l. HPSB VI.1 – Please provide information for this point.
| The awarded KTR will need to work with the TAFB representatives to clarify and provide the answers to these Sustainable Package requirements. | |||
| 28 | 6. Are the unit lockers to be provided and installed by the Contractor? If so, what type or style of lockers and is there an example or basis of design? | Equipment items will be provided by the Government - see attachment for list of equipment items | |
| 29 | 7. Is the casket storage to be provided and installed by the Owner or the Contractor? | Equipment items will be provided by the Government - see attachment for list of equipment items | |
| 30 | 8. The project site is directly adjacent to wetlands. The project site itself is very low, and the RFP says to add 4 to 5 feet of dirt in order to raise the elevation. | ||
| Please confirm that the DEP and Corps of Engineers have verified that the project site itself is not wetlands and that adding fill is authorized. | See 813 the site elevation must be above flood plain and at least 1 foot above the road grade | ||
| 31 | 9. Is an archaeologist required during excavation work at this site, and if so, is it provided by the base or the contractor? | The base archaeologist is required with any ground disturbance. | |
| 32 | 10. Is signage required, and if so, what signs and where? | Yes - signs are required - Deparment of Transportation, exterior and interior, see UFCs and TAFB IFS for signage. A freestanding sign at the driveway entry plus all exterior and interior signage is required. | |
| 33 | 11. What types of flooring (base, carpet tile, VCT, etc.) and what type of ceilings (hard, acoustical, exposed, etc.) are needed for each room? | -All entries to building stainless steel walk off matts recessed - non drain type. |
- Corridors/Hallways Heavy Duty Porcelain Tile or Heavy Duty LVT -Bathrooms/Changing Area Porcelain Wall Tile and Porcelain Floor Tile - grout to match tile.
-Drill Area Heavy Duty Porcelain Tile with Porcelain Tile Wall Base
- Mechanical & Electrical Room sealed concrete, -Break Room Equipment/Storage Room. Porcelain Tile or Heavy -Comm Room - Static Dissipative Flooring.
No VCT allowed on project.
Drill Area - Minimum Finished ceiling height of 12’ (at lowest part)exposed painted white, acoustical fabric baffles.
All other areas 9 (preferred) to 8 (minimum)
| 34 | 12. During the site visit, it was mentioned that the fence around Bldg. 1701 will need to be altered or relocated. Can more information and direction be provided? | Fence will be located 8' offset from the northwest side face of the existing pest control facility - the fence relocation and demo is not included in this project | |
| 35 | 13. During the site visit it was mentioned that a water line and comm line would need to be relocated and the utility owners were aware. Can the base provide the utility owners and a point of contact for each? | GCEC - KUEHL, WILLIAM E CIV USAF ACC 325 CES/CEOS <william.kuehl.1@us.af.mil>, (850) 728-1529 (mobile), GCEC Water, Ross Graham rgraham@gcec.com, 334 840-9429, GCEC Electric, Colby Wiggin cwiggins@gcec.com, 850 265-3631, COMM WEBSTER, JILL A CTR USAF ACC 325 CS/SCXP --- <jill.webster.ctr@us.af.mil>, 850 283-2558 -- TECO McGuire, Michael K. <MKMcguire@tecoenergy.com>, 850 258-1223 +++ Gas line will need to be moved too, updated SOW | |
| 36 | 14 The solicitation shows a period of performance of 270 days from the date that notice to proceed is given. | ||
| Paragraph II.c.i.(1) of Attachment 19 refers to completing the SOW within a period of performance as 365 days. Please clarify. | This has been corrected through amendments. All amendments are available on Sam.Gov | ||
| 37 | 15. The SOW refers to a canopy over the paved training area of 4732 SF. No canopy is shown on the concept drawings. | ||
| What is the size (LxWxH) and type of construction preferred for the canopy? Does the canopy need to match the Honor Guard facility? | The canopy needs to follow the requirements of the TAFB IFS. | *this was added as an Option due to customer bringing this to attention at last moment.* | |
| 38 | 16. Paragraph 1.1(b) of the SOW refers to 331 days period of performance after notice to proceed is given. This conflicts with the solicitation and Attachment 19. | ||
| Please clarify the period of performance. | This has been corrected through amendments. All amendments are available on Sam.Gov | ||
| 39 | 17. The SOW states the work includes construction of a new Honor Guard facility. | ||
| Paragraph 1.1(h) of the SOW states that the facility is currently occupied and will remain occupied during construction. Is this a renovation or a new building design? | Not Applicable (SOW) will be changed | ||
| 40 | 18. The SOW does not indicate the type of construction materials for the main building. |
Please resolve discrepancy in SOW so we can provide accurate pricing information. Also, the roof heights are not shown on the concept sketches or in the SOW.
| Please provide the approximate roof heights for pricing. | The construction materials need to follow the requirements of the TAFB IFS. www.tyndallifs.com. Drill and training area finished ceiling height of 12’ (lowest part), exposed - Normal finish ceiling height for administration, bathrooms, equipment rooms, etc. 9 feet (preferred)/ 8 foot minimum acoustical ceiling. | ||
| 41 | 19. Paragraph 3(a) of the SOW reflects a 65% design submittal while no 65% submittal is referenced in Paragraph 4.2. Please resolve discrepancy. | Corrected 35%, then 100% design for construction, government will not approved until design is acceptable , SOW update 476 days, , Table 4.3.1 Estimated Timeline in Calander Days | |
| 42 | 20. Paragraph 3(a) and 3(b) of the SOW reference a 30-day period required for submittal review. Paragraph 4.2.3 indicates that the government has 10 days in which to provide review comments. | ||
| Please resolve discrepancy | Changed to 14 days, SOW update 476 days, , Table 4.3.1 Estimated Timeline in Calander Days | ||
| 43 | 21. Paragraph 4.1 of the SOW indicates that a full 100% design shall be submitted for review to the government. |
Is it the intent for the government to review a 65% design package followed by a 100% final design (usually issued for construction) that incorporates the 65% review comments?
Typically, the 100% final design would serve only as a backcheck of the previous review comments. Note that the initial/preliminary design submittal would occur at 35%.
| Please clarify submittal requirements in the RFP SOW. | 35% and 100% for construction -- review comments / changes must be approved before moving to the next design/construction | ||
| 44 | 22. Paragraph 4.2.3 of SOW. Typically, a 100% submittal is issued for construction and only incorporates the previous submittal review comments. | 35% and 100% for construction -- review comments / changes must be approved before moving to the next design/construction | |
| 45 | 23. Paragraph 4.2.4 of SOW. Please confirm that 5 days is enough time for the government to provide review comments for the final submittal. | Change to 14 days, SOW update, , Table 4.3.1 Estimated Timeline in Calander Days | |
| 46 | 24. Paragraph 4.3, schedule. The schedule for the 35% design review seems to conflict with the time indicated in Paragraph 4.2.2. | ||
| The table shows 42 days after NTP while 4.2.2 reflects 17 days after NTP. | Should be 14 days for government review , See SOW update, Table 4.3.1 Estimated Timeline in Calander Days | ||
| 47 | 25. Table 4.3. Why is a design charette being scheduled after the 35% package will be submitted? | ||
| Please confirm that a design charette is still needed and whether the dates shown in the schedule need to be adjusted. | Added a design charette before the 35% design - SOW update 476 days, , Table 4.3.1 Estimated Timeline in Calander Days | ||
| 48 | 26. Table 4.3. Please see comments above regarding the 100% final submittal. Typically, this is only a backcheck submittal of previous review comments. | 100% need to be the final for construction - once review comments have been included accepted -- the design will be acceptable for construction | |
| 49 | 27. Table 4.3. The schedule indicates a period of performance of 391 days which conflicts with the solicitation period of performance and Attachment 19 period of performance and Paragraph 1.1(b) period of performance of 331 days. | See table 4.3.1 Estimated Time Line in Calender Days, SOW update change 476 | |
| 50 | 28. Table 4.3. No timeline for the 65% submittal shown. Please clarify requirements. | 35% and 100% for construction -- review comments / changes must be approved before moving to the next design/construction | |
| 51 | 29. Paragraph 4.4. Please confirm that the 65% submittal are not included in the deliverables as shown in the table | 35% and 100% for construction -- review comments / changes must be approved before moving to the next design/construction | |
| 52 | 30. Paragraph 4.9 Submittals. Interim 65% submittal requirements are omitted in Table 4.3.1 and elsewhere. | Corrected 35%, then 100% design for construction, government will not approved until design is acceptable - SOW corrected | |
| 53 | 31. Paragraph 4.9 Submittals. This table allocates time for a 95% design, 95% design review and 95% design submission. Previously in the SOW the requirements for a 95% submittal are not provided. | Corrected 35%, then 100% design for construction, government will not approved until design is acceptable - SOW corrected | |
| 54 | 32. Paragraph 6B(a). Is the contractor required to submit a design package for the 35%,65%,95% and 100% level or 35%,65% and 100% level? | Corrected 35%, then 100% design for construction, government will not approved until design is acceptable - SOW corrected | |
| 55 | 33. Paragraph 6B(d). Is a 95% submittal required? | Corrected 35%, then 100% design for construction, government will not approved until design is acceptable - SOW corrected | |
| 56 | 34. Paragraph 6C(b). Is a 95% submittal required? | Corrected 35%, then 100% design for construction, government will not approved until design is acceptable - SOW corrected | |
| 57 | 35. Building group types are shown in Tyndall’s Facility Standards. Is the Honor Guard Facility a group 2, or another? Please advise. | Assembly & Business | |
| BLANK | |||
| BLANK | |||
| 58 | 36. Where will the GCEC transformer be located? | GCEC - KUEHL, WILLIAM E CIV USAF ACC 325 CES/CEOS <william.kuehl.1@us.af.mil>, (850) 728-1529 (mobile), GCEC Water, Ross Graham rgraham@gcec.com, 334 840-9429, GCEC Electric, Colby Wiggin cwiggins@gcec.com, 850 265-3631 | |
| 59 | 37. What are the Telecommunications requirements for the facility? |
a.Provide the Point of Origination for the Communications tie-in. Provide maps indicating the routing through new and existing pathways.
b. Will copper and fiber be required for the facility?
c. Will Maxcell innerduct or Jetted innerduct be required?
d. If fiber optic cabling for the Comm entrance is required, is the government providing the switches for the Comm head-end?
e. Is a cable tray system required for Comm, or can a J-hook cable support system be provided?
| Contact - COMM WEBSTER, JILL A CTR USAF ACC 325 CS/SCXP <jill.webster.ctr@us.af.mil>, 850 283-2558 37. 36 strands of fiber and 25 pair copper are the new IFS standard for all new facilities. a. Point of origin for fiber will be MH-406 see attched for map → b. 36 Strand Fiber and 25 pair copper will be required per the IFS c. Maxcell can be utilized for this as it is extending off a legacy system. d. User is required to provide the equipment. e. J-Hook Cable Support System can be utilized for this small of scope. | ||
| 60 | 38. There is no mention of lightning protection system for the building. Will a lightning protection system be required? | Lightning protect required with lightning surge protection - ground loop not required, see NEC 780 |
| 61 | 39. Will an underground perimeter counterpoise grounding system be required? | Lightning protect required with lightning surge protection - ground loop not required, see NEC 780 |
| 62 | 40. Paragraph 1.0-C of the Scope of Work mentions all required items are to be included including detection and fire suppression system. |
Our understanding of this building is that it is greater than 75 feet from an adjacent building, and that it is not considered a building per code.
| So, NFPA 5 and 99 would not be applicable since this is an open canopy. As the AHJ, the government may elect for higher requirements, so can you confirm fire detection and/or suppression will not be required for this facility. | there is no requirement for sprinklers or fire alarm. A stand-alone mass notification system may be required. See UFC 4-010-01. If compliance with this standard is required for your project, then yes, MNS is required. (UFC 4-010-01) 1-7 The starting point for applying the Standards is based on buildings or portions of buildings being routinely occupied by 11 or more DoD personnel and with a population density of greater than one person per 430 gross square feet (40 gross square meters). The determination of occupancy is usually straightforward but in some cases there are questions on how to calculate occupancies. (maximum occupancy 22) | ||
| 63 | 41. A base architectural standard has been adopted as of late incorporating curved or arched roof lines. However, there is no mention of that architectural standard and in fact verbiage within the SOW would lead to the presumption that strait roof lines will remain and no curves or arches will be facilitated on the rework of the existing canopy nor on the new canopy. Can the government confirm? | The elevations in the RFP show the massing for the roof design of the Honor Guard. For further information -The TAFB IFS massing allows for monoslope/shed roof types. Curved roofs are used on certain buildings. https://www.tyndallifs.com/images/design_intent/IFS_rebuild_design_intent.pdf | |
| 64 | 42. With the documentation there is reference to an elevation of 19’ above sea level. Is that a requirement for both the existing structure as well as the new? There is no mention of the rework of any structural members with the exception of the need for additional purlins to satisfy the wind requirements. Can the government verify that a 19’ above sea level is a requirement and that this dimension is taken from the top of the slab on grade? Additionally, if this elevation requirement is to be met, is it the government’s desire to have the entire area and slab raised so that there is a gradual gradation change from the surrounding pavement to the finished floor or will the government accept a 3-4’ exposed concrete wall stepping up to the 19’ elevation? Also, if this dimension is to be met, will the government empty and relocate the storage tanks currently in place? | the finish grade of the slab has to be at least 19' and a least 1' above road grade, the pavement area has to be below the grade of the finished slab | |
| 65 | 43. The SOW pg. 5 1.0.A.a.ii.1 states "canopy/roofing over pavement" 4732 SF, however nothing in shown or noted in the drawings in Attachment 2 to indicate this is a covered area. |
a) please confirm this is to be a covered area and if it is the whole area, and if yes
b) please indicate is this is to be steel structure, or aluminum or wooden structure
c) if the structure is to be a single sloped roof connected to the building or if it can be a peaked roof
c) type of roof, metal, just a shade fabric, etc.
d) confirm the structure must been wind rating of the building
e) minimum clearance height under the canopy. 43. a. canopy will be over the whole area
b. steel strucuture
c. single sloped/monoslope - no gable or hip roofs.
C. metal
d. The TAFB IFS requires the building strucure to be 165 mph.
| e. based on activity under the building - as part of the design work to be awarded. | CONS = Option | |||
| 66 | 44. The SOW pg. 5 1.0.A.a.ii states Pavement to support training, 4732 SF. Please advise if this should be asphalt pavement or if concrete is required. Please confirm if the pavement should just support standard vehicle weights and no additional loads are required. | either asphalt on concrete | CONS = Option | |
| 67 | 45. The SOW pg. 5 1.0.A.a.iii states parking will be approx. 8192 SF. Please advise: |
a) if this is to be asphalt or concrete pavement
b) if this is to be designed for standard vehicles or provide heaver wheel loading if required
| c) if the pavement area will need to be surrounded by curb/gutter | a. either asphalt or concrete b. see UFC c. not required | |
| 68 | 46. The SOW pg. 5 1.0.A.a.iv states the area is 15-16 ft above sea level, the facilities must be elevated to a 19 ft design elevation. |
a) please confirm the finished floor level is to be a mimum of 19'
b) Please confirm that this does NOT apply to the parking lot or advise if there is a minimum elevation for the parking lot.
| the finish grade of the slab has to be at least 19' and a least 1' above road grade, the pavement area has to be below the grade of the finished slab | |
| 69 | 47. The SOW pg. 5 1.0.A.a.v states: upgrade existing storm water pond and storm water system. Attach 2 show storm water options adjacent to the parking lot and across the roadway, attachments 7 and 8 show a dry swale going to the proposed pond adjacent to the parking lot. |
a) please confirm the dry swale shown in attach 7 and 8 is acceptable and a way to get water to the new pond.
b) Please confirm the pond across the street is not required unless it is needed for additional capacity.
| c) please advise if there is any existing stormwater piping or structures under Mississippi road to allow water to flow this way. | a - dry swale acceptable b. storm water pond across the street not required c. exiting storm water drain under road way | |||
| 70 | 48. The project SOW in this attachment states that storm drainage piping shall be re-enforced concrete pipe - if a dry swale is used, please advise if concrete piping is required. | if concrete pipe is using in the project | ||
| 71 | 49. Attachment 7 Site Plan A and Attachment 8 Site plan B were both provided, please advise which one applies to the project, note they seem to be the same except for different dimensions. | See site plan - "HonorGuard-4000_withSite_2022_0606 C-100 - SITE PLAN Rev A -" | ||
| 72 | 50. This form appears to be an environmental approval form, but has a project description that does not appear to be in the Attach 1 SOW. Please advise if this document scope is to be included in the project or of the Attach 1 SOW supersedes this. | See updated site plan "HonorGuard-4000_withSite_2022_0606 C-100 - SITE PLAN Rev A " and "Conceptual Construct Honor Guard Facility Rev A -", disreguard the 813 site plan and conceptual drawing - | ||
| 73 | 51. The project description in attach 17 states that the utilities under the building need to be relocated. There appears to be an 8" water line running in two directions that needs to be relocated, but there is also a yellow and green line shown on the site plan. Please advise what these are, what they connect to, and what material type they are. | Green - is force main, Blue - water main, Yellow -- Gas Line will be need to be moved too, see attachment "XLWU 21-8120 Site Utilities", contact GCEC for electric/water, TECO for gas | ||
| 74 | 52. Please confirm that the utilities under the parking lot do NOT need to be relocated, or if they do, please provide all utility types, sizes and relocation requirements. | water main has to be relocated, 8", with 4 valves, water line under parking does not need to be moved, see attachment "XLWU 21-8120 Site Utilities", Contact GCEC for electric/water, TECO for gas | ||
| 75 | 53.We did not see a geotechnical report, please provide if available. If there is no geotechnical report, for the basis of bid, please confirm contractors can assume standard 1500 PSF sand conditions and standard spread footings and can exclude over excavation of unsuitable soils or special foundations such a helical piles that may be required if organic layers are discovered during boarding. | GEOTECH report - contractor responsibility | ||
| 76 | 54.The SF 1442 indicates the POP is 331 days from NTP. The SOW Sec 4.3, Pg 20,21 dates the project project is 391 days, please confirm the POP is 391 days. | SEE SOW change - 476 days - added design charette, Table 4.3.1 Estimated Timeline in Calander Days | ||
| 77 | 55.The SF 1442 indicates the POP is from NTP (Notice to Proceed) please advise if this will be issued AFTER design is completed, or when after the award the NTP will be issued | CONS | ||
| 78 | 56.SOW Sec 4.3, Pg 20,21 dates the project project is 391 days and has 186 days for design but list 24 weeks (168 days for construction). SOW 4.1 pg. 18 indicates that the final design must be completed before construction starts (no fast track design). The POP for construction of 168 days does not seem sufficient, please extend to provide at least 270 days for construction. | Acceptable request change period of construction to 245 days - SOW update 476 days, , Table 4.3.1 Estimated Timeline in Calander Days | CONS | |
| 79 | 57. SOW 3.0 and many other places in the document reference (3) design review phases, 35% 65% and 100%, however the SOW Sec 4.3 shows a schedule with a 35% and 100% design only. Please confirm that there will only be (2) design reviews, not (3). If there are (3) please change the schedule to allow for more design time. | SOW change corrected -- | ||
| 80 | 58. SOW 3.0.B pg. 17 says to allow for 30 day govt reviews and no time will be given for delays, contractor schedule should allow for 30 days, however the project schedule SOW 4.3 shows 14 day review periods. Please confirm contractor schedule can show 14 days review per 4.3 or if the POP will be increased to accommodate 30 day review an the contractor should reflect this in the schedule. | SEE SOW change | ||
| 81 | 59. This directs contractor to design exterior finishes to comply with the current Tyndall AFB IFS (tyndallifs.com). However, this IFS provides many different building types and styles. Please advise which style should be used, or confirm that it should follow "Tyndall Heritage" palette which is metal standing seam roof with split face block. | This is a new building NOT a existing building to be renovated (tyndall heritage is for renovated buildings.) New buildings will need to follow the TAFB IFS and Exterior Finish Palette requirements. The building concept massing has been presented in the RFP. | ||
| 82 | 60. Please advise if contractor can assume that the facility exterior walls can be constructed of split face CMU block or provide the type of exterior wall construction is desired. | Exterior construction to specificed - cost driven - contractor decides based upon the TAFB IFS requirements which includes wind speed and other climatic factors. Materials follow the www.tyndallifs.com Exterior Finish Palette requirements. | ||
| 83 | 61. Please confirm that a standing seam roof is desired for all roofs on the facility including the canopy over the exterior practice area | The roof can be standing seam when slope and TPO when, low sloped, at the parapetted area of the roof. Standing seam can also be used for all roofs if the contractor prefere not using TPO. The canopy would be standing seam. | ||
| 84 | 62. These concept drawings seem to show a single slope roof on the front section and a peaked roof that is behind a parapet wall. A peaked roof design with a metal roof behind a parapet wall is not standard, please advise if the section behind the parapet wall can be a low slope roof system (PVC, TPO, mod bid, etc.) and go up the parapet walls | This roof massing is standard per the Tyndall IFS massing requirements. No gable or hip roofs are allowed. The roof can be standing seam when slope and TPO when, low sloped, at the parapetted area of the roof. Standing seam can also be used for all roofs if the contractor prefere not using TPO. The canopy would be standing seam. | ||
| 85 | 63. Please advise if this 3D rendering represents all of the required elements or if any additional architectural elements will need to be added based on the current Tyndall IFS. If so, please provide IFS building type or features that need to be incorporated. | The renderings will be required to be reviewed by the TAFB Architectural Review Board which looks at all of the reuired elements. | ||
| 86 | 64. Please advise of the clear height of the building required to accommodate the stage area | Drill and training area finished ceiling height of 12’ (lowest part), The stage is 1 foot high. | ||
| 87 | 65. Please provide the required height of the stage, if it needs to be portable/relocatable, or if it should be concrete, wood, etc. | Drill and training area finished ceiling height of 12’ (lowest part), The stage is 1 foot high. The awarded contractor can decide/design the best solution for the stage construction type. | ||
| 88 | 66. Please advise of the clear height of the building required to accommodate the stage area, and the height and construction requirements for the stage | Drill and training area finished ceiling height of 12’ (lowest part), The stage is 1 foot high. The awarded contractor can decide/design the best solution for the stage construction type. | ||
| 89 | 67. Please advise if the "WS" areas are for "weapons storage" and advise if these are just to be chain link fencing or the construction requirements, they appear to be a different type than standard walls. | WS = workstation. This is an area for a work station cubicle provided by the government. There is fabric wall/draperies at the stage on either side for the hiding the Flags and Casket Storage. The fabric wall extends floor to ceiling and can extend over the stage. It is non motorized. | ||
| 90 | 68. Please advise what the wall type or construction type is for casket storage and unit lockers | There is fabric wall/draperies at the stage on either side for the hiding the Flags and Casket Storage. The fabric wall extends floor to ceiling and can extend over the stage. It is non motorized. The caskets and flags will be government furnished equipment | ||
| 91 | 69. Please advise if this considered an ERP area that will require testing for contaminated soils every 50 CY or 400 CY | See 813 | ||
| 92 | 70. Please confirm no testing is required if soil is not hauled off site | See 813 - not required to haul soil off site. No soil can leave the base. | ||
| 93 | 71. Please confirm that contractor is not to include cost for removal/disposal of contaminated soil (except for small amount of soil generated by Geotech bording) and that if contaminated soil is discovered, it will be a change order for removal, disposal, and fill. | GEOTECH reqport - contractor responsibility. No soil can leave the base. | ||
| 94 | 72. This area seems to require fire suppression, mass notification, and fire alarm - the facility is less than 5000 SF please confirm fire suppression is required. | there is no requirement for sprinklers or fire alarm. A stand-alone mass notification system may be required. See UFC 4-010-01. If compliance with this standard is required for your project, then yes, MNS is required. (UFC 4-010-01) 1-7 The starting point for applying the Standards is based on buildings or portions of buildings being routinely occupied by 11 or more DoD personnel and with a population density of greater than one person per 430 gross square feet (40 gross square meters). The determination of occupancy is usually straightforward but in some cases there are questions on how to calculate occupancies. (maximum occupancy 22) | ||
| 95 | 73. This section seems to imply that a VAV/DDC type HVAC system will be needed instead of a standard less expensive DX unit with a thermostat. Please advise what type of system is required. | Occupancy maximum 22 people, EMCS (SEMIENS control) HVAC control/monitor -type building assembly and adminstration, See FRCS guide for additional details, DX unit/ with only thermostat is not acceptable | ||
| 96 | 74. These documents appear to show (3) different type of floor plans and facilities - please confirm that Attch 2 is the SOW and Attch 7 and 8 are not applicable. | see "Conceptual Construct Honor Guard Facility Rev A -" | ||
| 97 | 75. Please confirm that full time archeology monorting by a third party firm will be required during all excavation on site. | See 813 | ||
| 98 | 76. Please cofirm that a full SID interior design is required, but FFE is not included in this scope, or advise what FFE the contractor is responsible for. | Contractor is not responsible for FFE - government will provide list for design, see attachment "2022_0630_TAFBHonorGuard_ExEquip". | ||
| 99 | 77. Seem to show 7 different possible building locations, please confirm #7 by B1701 is site that is selected and should be bid, the other locations are not applicable to this project. | see "HonorGuard-4000_withSite_2022_0606 C-100 - SITE PLAN Rev A -" | ||
| 100 | 78. Please provide the location of comms tie in, and what infrastructre is required | water, electric, sewage, and comm - see site plan attachment and "XLWU 21-8120 Site Utilities" | ||
| 101 | 79. Please confirm the facility will require a lift station and will tie in to the 8" forced sewer main shown | a lift station to a force main is required - suggest connecting to the force main behind the building | ||
| 102 | 80. Please advise where the eletrical service is located, and confirm contractor will need a primary transformer. Please advise if the utility is single phase or 3 phase and if the buidling need to have a 3 phase service | GCEC - KUEHL, WILLIAM E CIV USAF ACC 325 CES/CEOS <william.kuehl.1@us.af.mil>, (850) 728-1529 (mobile), GCEC Water, Ross Graham rgraham@gcec.com, 334 840-9429, GCEC Electric, Colby Wiggin cwiggins@gcec.com, 850 265-3631 | ||
| 103 | 81. The SOW states the work includes construction of a new Honor Guard facility. Paragraph 1.1(h) of the SOW states that the facility is currently occupied and will remain occupied during construction. Is this a renovation or a new building design? | Remove (NA) | ||
| 104 | 82 The SOW does not indicate the type of construction materials for the main building. Please resolve discrepancy in SOW so we can provide accurate pricing information. Also, the roof heights are not shown on the concept sketches or in the SOW. Please provide the approximate roof heights for pricing. | Type of construction is determined by the contractor and base standard....Construction material should follw the TAFB IFS Exterior Finish Palette. Construction material also depends upon the wind speed and soils. see www.tyndallifs.com. Masonry, Metal, Glass are the main materials. Drill and training area finished ceiling height of 12’ (lowest part) - Normal finish ceiling height for administration, bathrooms, equipment rooms, etc. 9ft preferred/8 foot minimum acoustical ceiling . | ||
| 105 | 83. Paragraph 3(a) of the SOW reflects a 65% design submittal while no 65% submittal is referenced in Paragraph 4.2. Please resolve discrepancy. | See updated SOW - question answered above | ||
| 106 | 84. Paragraph 3(a) and 3(b) of the SOW reference a 30-day period required for submittal review. Paragraph 4.2.3 indicates that the government has 10 days in which to provide review comments. Please resolve discrepancy. | See updated SOW - question answered above | ||
| 107 | 85. Paragraph 4.1 of the SOW indicates that a full 100% design shall be submitted for review to the government. Is it the intent for the government to review a 65% design package followed by a 100% final design (usually issued for construction) that incorporates the 65% review comments? Typically, the 100% final design would serve only as a backcheck of the previous review comments. Note that the initial/preliminary design submittal would occur at 35%. Please clarify submittal requirements in the RFP SOW. | See updated SOW - question answered above | ||
| 108 | 86. Paragraph 4.2.3 of SOW. Typically, a 100% submittal is issued for construction and only incorporates the previous submittal review comments. | See updated SOW - question answered above | ||
| 109 | 87. Paragraph 4.2.4 of SOW. Please confirm that 5 days is enough time for the government to provide review comments for the final submittal. | See updated SOW - question answered above | ||
| 110 | 88. Paragraph 4.3, schedule. The schedule for the 35% design review seems to conflict with the time indicated in Paragraph 4.2.2. The table shows 42 days after NTP while 4.2.2 reflects 17 days after NTP. | See updated SOW - question answered above | ||
| 111 | 89. Table 4.3. Why is a design charette being scheduled after the 35% package will be submitted? Please confirm that a design charette is still needed and whether the dates shown in the schedule need to be adjusted. | See updated SOW - question answered above | ||
| 112 | 90. Table 4.3. Please see comments above regarding the 100% final submittal. Typically, this is only a backcheck submittal of previous review comments. | See updated SOW - question answered above | ||
| 113 | 91. Table 4.3. The schedule indicates a period of performance of 391 days which conflicts with the solicitation period of performance and Attachment 19 period of performance and Paragraph 1.1(b) period of performance of 331 days. | See updated SOW - question answered above | ||
| 114 | 92. Table 4.3. No timeline for the 65% submittal shown. Please clarify requirements. | See updated SOW - question answered above | ||
| 115 | 93. Paragraph 4.4. Please confirm that the 65% submittal are not included in the deliverables as shown in the table. | See updated SOW - question answered above | ||
| 116 | 94. Paragraph 4.9 Submittals. Interim 65% submittal requirements are omitted in Table 4.3.1 and elsewhere. | See updated SOW - question answered above | ||
| 117 | 95. Paragraph 4.9 Submittals. This table allocates time for a 95% design, 95% design review and 95% design submission. Previously in the SOW the requirements for a 95% submittal are not provided. | See updated SOW - question answered above | ||
| 118 | 96. Paragraph 6B(a). Is the contractor required to submit a design package for the 35%,65%,95% and 100% level or 35%,65% and 100% level? | See updated SOW - question answered above | ||
| 119 | 97. Paragraph 6B(d). Is a 95% submittal required? | See updated SOW - question answered above | ||
| 120 | 98. Paragraph 6C(b). Is a 95% submittal required? | See updated SOW - question answered above | ||
| 121 | Please clarify the floor plan we need to use for estimating purposes? | see "Conceptual Construct Honor Guard Facility Rev A -" | ||
| 122 | Please provide the name of the architect used for floor plan? | Government Employee | ||
| 123 | Please provide final placement of the new transformer? | GCEC - KUEHL, WILLIAM E CIV USAF ACC 325 CES/CEOS <william.kuehl.1@us.af.mil>, (850) 728-1529 (mobile), GCEC Water, Ross Graham rgraham@gcec.com, 334 840-9429, GCEC Electric, Colby Wiggin cwiggins@gcec.com, 850 265-3631 | ||
| 124 | Will a new fire hydrant be required at the new project location? | Not Required | ||
| 125 | Is there partitions separating the workstations the should be included in the bid price? | no partitions required | ||
| 126 | 1) What are the Telecommunications requirements for the facility? | COMM WEBSTER, JILL A CTR USAF ACC 325 CS/SCXP <jill.webster.ctr@us.af.mil>, 850 283-2558. 1) 36 strands of fiber and 25 pair copper are the new IFS standard for all new facilities. | ||
| 127 | a. Provide the Point of Origination for the Communications tie-in. Provide maps indicating the routing through new and existing pathways. | COMM WEBSTER, JILL A CTR USAF ACC 325 CS/SCXP <jill.webster.ctr@us.af.mil>, 850 283-2558 a. See attached map ----------------------------------------------------→ | ||
| 128 | b. Will copper and fiber be required for the facility? | COMM WEBSTER, JILL A CTR USAF ACC 325 CS/SCXP <jill.webster.ctr@us.af.mil>, 850 283-2558 b. 36 Strand Fiber and 25 pair copper will be required per the IFS | ||
| 129 | c. Will Maxcell innerduct or Jetted innerduct be required? | COMM WEBSTER, JILL A CTR USAF ACC 325 CS/SCXP <jill.webster.ctr@us.af.mil>, 850 283-2558 c. Maxcell can be utilized for this as it is extending off a legacy system. | ||
| 130 | d. If fiber optic cabling for the Comm entrance is required, is the government providing the switches for the Comm head-end? | COMM WEBSTER, JILL A CTR USAF ACC 325 CS/SCXP <jill.webster.ctr@us.af.mil>, 850 283-2558 d. User is required to provide the equipment. | ||
| 131 | e. Is a cable tray system required for Comm, or can a J-hook cable support system be provided? | COMM WEBSTER, JILL A CTR USAF ACC 325 CS/SCXP <jill.webster.ctr@us.af.mil>, 850 283-2558 e. J-Hook Cable Support System can be utilized for this small of scope. | ||
| 132 | Will an underground perimeter counterpoise grounding system be required? | Lightning protect required with lightning surge protection - ground loop not required, see NEC 780 | ||
| 133 | Please provide the building elevation height. | the finish grade of the slab has to be at least 19' and a least 1' above road grade, the pavement area has to be below the grade of the finished slab. Drill and training area finished ceiling height of 12’ (lowest part) - Normal finish ceiling height for administration, bathrooms, equipment rooms, etc. 9ft preferred/8 foot minimum acoustical ceiling . | ||
| 134 | Is a lightning protection system required? | Lightning protect required with lightning surge protection - ground loop not required, see NEC 780 | ||
| 135 | Please clarify which is the actual period of performance (POP) for this project, i.e. the following date noted in each of the following sections indicates conflicting pop dates; Please clarify which is the actual period of performance (POP) for this project, i.e. the following date noted in each of the following sections indicates conflicting pop dates; | SOW update 476 days, , Table 4.3.1 Estimated Timeline in Calander Days | ||
| 136 | 1. Page 1 of 56 pages solicitation, line 11 indicates “complete it within 331 calendar days after receiving notice to procced” | SOW update 476 days, , Table 4.3.1 Estimated Timeline in Calander Days | ||
| 137 | 2. Page 14 of 56 pages solicitation |
52.211-10 Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work. Apr 1984 indicates “(c) complete the entire work ready for use not later than 365 * The time stated for completion shall include final cleanup of the premises.”2. Page 14 of 56 pages solicitation 52.211-10 Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work. Apr 1984 indicates
| “(c) complete the entire work ready for use not later than 365 * The time stated for completion shall include final cleanup of the premises.” | SOW update 476 days, , Table 4.3.1 Estimated Timeline in Calander Days | |||
| 138 | 3. Attachment 1 – Scope of Work, page 21 indicates 391 Days Period of Performance | SOW update 476 days, , Table 4.3.1 Estimated Timeline in Calander Days | ||
| 139 | Please confirm the entire period of performance for both design and construction? | SOW update 476 days, , Table 4.3.1 Estimated Timeline in Calander Days | ||
| 140 | Reference section L submission volume makes no reference to past performance requirements. Section M II A. references past performance will be an evaluation factor. Is it the Government's intent that a company's past performance will be part of the Technical Proposal (Sub-Factor 2). Please provide details of requested information for refence and location of placement in volumes? | Addressed in Amendment 001 | ||
| 141 | Information provided in RFP is unclear and provides no direction – Does the user group have any specific furniture and equipment program requirements needed to provide an FF&E package? | Government will provide furniture and equipment, see attachment "2022_0630_TAFBHonorGuard_ExEquip" | ||
| 142 | Information provided in RFP is unclear and provides no direction – Is there a list or description of specific interior finishes and/or materials? Provide approved base color palette. | -All entries to building stainless steel walk off matts recessed - non drain type. |
- Corridors/Hallways Heavy Duty Porcelain Tile or Heavy Duty LVT…
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .