Atch_56-_19RA001_MACC_RFI.pdf

FA486119RA001 MACC RFI’s

1. In the Section L released with Amendment 1, on page 13, paragraph F.3, the requirement states “Offerors shall complete Section 1 of the Past Performance Questionnaire and distribute it along with Performance Questionnaire Letter to the customer's project manager.” The Performance Questionnaire Letter was not in the list of attachments released 1 July. To maximize the time for project managers to respond to the Past Performance Questionnaire, will the government release the Performance Questionnaire Letter prior to posting answers to questions on 30 July?

Government Response: See Attachment 44 for, Past Performance Questionnaire. Please note that per the solicitation, “Offeror's shall only submit Past Performance Questionnaires for those projects that do not have completed reports in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).”

2. Section L, Volume 2 - Past Performance - Recent & Relevant Contracts. Please consider extending the definition of recent for projects to 5 years from the date of the solicitation instead of 3 years. A majority of other DOD solicitations allow project experience to go out to 5 years which provides a wider timeframe for small businesses to show a range of projects that would be similar to this MACC contract.

Government Response: The Government has considered the request, however, the Recency Assessment requirement for 3 years remains unchanged.

3. Section L, Volume 2 - Past Performance - Recent & Relevant Contracts. Please confirm that $350,000 or greater is the construction value of the project and not contract value for professional fees (i.e design fees, etc.).

Government Response: Per the solicitation, the Magnitude portion of the Relevancy Assessment calls for efforts/projects valued at $350,000 or greater.

4. Section L. Volume 2 - Past Performance - Adverse Information. Please confirm whether or not this section can include a narrative discussion of project challenges and resolutions or if that should be included with the project profiles.

Government Response: Per Vol 2, Para 5 “Offerors shall provide any adverse information they or the teaming partner received in the past 3 years, such as Letters of Concern, Cure and or Show Cause Notices, Terminations for Cause/Default and a narrative explaining the circumstances resulting from its receipt and corrective actions taken, if applicable. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the Offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk.”

5. Section L. Volume 3 - Cost/Price Proposal. Please confirm if the Excel file along with a PDF of the full volume should be submitted on the CD for the electronic copy.

Government Response: Yes, the Excel spreadsheet shall be submitted electronically as well as the required amount of hard copies.

6. Section L. Volume 4 - Administrative - Financial Responsibility. Please review the wording of this section and confirm whether the Prime is to submit a letter addressed to the Contracting Officer from the financial institution that addresses items A-C or if we are to submit a letter addressed to our financial institution that authorizes them to release information on items A-C directly to the Contracting Officer.

Government Response: Per the solicitation, the Offeror shall submit a letter from the Offeror’s financial institution(s) that authorizes the Contracting Officer to verify the Offeror’s financial responsibility. The letter will give the Contracting Officer authority to verify items A-C from the Offeror’s financial institution. However, for the sake of expediency, Offerors may provide the letter directly from the financial institution which contains the requesting information.

7. The Past Performance Information Sheet #G Primary Customer Points of Contact requires a minimum of 2 POCs for each contract. It further notes that questionnaires should be sent to these individual(s). Section L, Volume 2, Past Performance #3 notes that the Past Performance Questionnaire is completed by the customer's project manager. Please confirm if only one PPQ from the Project Manager should be completed and submitted with the proposal or if PPQs need to be completed by all POCs listed on the Past Performance Information Sheet and submitted with the proposal.

Government Response: The solicitation only requires a PPQ be completed by the customer’s project manager.

8. Many of our customers are federal agencies that utilize the CPARS System and are not authorized to complete additional PPQ's and/or our commercial clients have already completed PPQ's for other proposals and have difficulty completing PPQs in a repetitious manner. Can you please allow the use of official CPAR evaluations or previously completed PPQ's for the past performance documentation in lieu of new PPQ forms?”

Government Response: Per Section L, Volume 2, “Offeror's shall only submit Past Performance Questionnaires for those projects that do not have completed reports in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).”

9. May we request the government provide any existing CAD files for the Visitor Center Building (seed project).

Government Response: CAD drawings are unavailable.

10. Would a SBA approved 8a joint venture, where one member of the JV holds a bona fide office in

Region 9 qualify the joint venture to respond to the MACC?

Government Response: Please consult Amendment 01, Section M, E. Evaluation Factors, Subfactor 3- Bonding and 8(a) Status. At the time of submission, “the Offeror shall provide a copy of the letter from the Small Business Administration showing proof they are a SBA Region 8 or SBA Region 9 8(a) small business concern and that they have a bona-fide place of business within either SBA Region 8 or SBA Region 9 within the assigned NAICS code.”

Additionally, per the SBA, the 8(a) participant of the joint venture must have an approved bona-fide office in SBA Region 8 or 9 in order for the joint venture to qualify for the Region 8 or 9 status. 8(a) participants are advised to reach out to their servicing SBA Business Opportunity Specialist to discuss the process of establishing a bona-fide office.

11. Is there/ will there be a geo technical report published in relation to this solicitation, and if so, can we expect to have access to it/ by what means?

Government Response. We do not have a geotechnical report for project site.

12. Amendment 0001, section E2b calls for a 35% Design with the proposal; Attachment 53, Para 1.5.1 calls for the 35% Design after award. At what stage is the 35% Design required?

Government Response: Please see Amendment 02 to this solicitation.

13. If the 35% Design is required for the proposal effort, would that include all disciplines (Civil, Structural, MEP, Fire Protection) for this proposal or would Architectural suffice? Since this is an 8(a) Set-Aside a Full Disciplined 35% would be a large undertaking for a small business.

Government Response: 35% Design requirements shall be in accordance with Solicitation Attachment 01

– MACC Statement of Work.

14. In advance of an RFI, our Design Build Team, wanted clarification on the 8a requirement for this contract. Our Design Build Team is currently pending 8a approval from the SBA. Is our Team’s 8a pending approval with the SBA sufficient for proposal submission, if the 8a is approved by the SBA thereafter and possibly after the contract award?

Government Response: A letter from the Small Business Administration certifying an Offeror has 8(a) status shall be submitted as part of an Offeror’s proposal. Per the solicitation Amendment 1 Section L, Volume 1, Subfactor 3, the Offeror shall provide a copy of the letter from the Small Business Administration showing proof of Small Business Administration (SBA) 8(a) status and having a bona fide place of business within SBA Region 8 or SBA Region 9 within the assigned NAICS code (NAICS: 236220/ Size Std: $36.5M).

15. We noticed a discrepancy between the FBO notice for this project and the solicitation. In the FBO notice, it states that the MACC is limited to “qualified/eligible 8(a) firms in the Small Business Administration Regions 8 & 9.” However, the solicitation states that offerors must have a bona fide place of business within Region 9 only. We’d just like to confirm whether or not an 8(a) firm within Region 8 would eligible to bid this MACC.

Government Response: Please see Amendment 01 to this solicitation as posted on FBO.

16. Will the government be able to provide any information from the Site Visit via an amendment?

Government Response: Please see Amendment 3 for Attachment 55 from the Site Visit.

17. For the requirement L.F.4, we would like to request clarification. The requirement reads: Offerors shall submit information on up to six (6) recent contracts from the prime contractor considered most relevant in demonstrating performance abilities on the MACC. In addition, Offerors shall include up to three (3) recent contracts performed by each teaming partner and/or joint venture partner considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the MACC.

As a joint venture all past performance becomes unilateral between the two companies, therefore there should be no distinction between the two companies providing separate examples. We would like to clarify that we can submit all projects from just one of the companies and that this would satisfy the requirement for 6 recent examples of contracts from the Prime Contractor.

Government Response: Per 13 CFR § 127.513(f) “When evaluating the past performance and experience of an entity submitting an offer for an 8(a) contract as a joint venture approved by SBA pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously.”

Therefore, past performance of both entities will be considered in the overall past performance rating of the JV.

18. Page 48 of 59, paragraph F.4 states that Past Performance projects shall consist of work currently being performed for at least six (6) months, or has been performed with the past three (3) years. We have many past projects that have CPAR Evaluation reports, however they are 4 and 5 years old. Will you consider to change the three (3) years to five (5) years for past performance projects for the proposal? Please let me know as soon as possible.

Government Response: The Government has considered the request, however, the Recency Assessment requirement for 3 years remains unchanged.

19. Based upon Amendment 0001, can the Government provide AutoCad files of the Concept Drawings and Project Site?

Government Response: CAD Drawings are unavailable.

20. What is meant by the assigned NAICS code 236220? Does this mean the 8(a) firm must have the

Primary NAICS code of 236220 in order to respond?

Government Response: Please see Amendment 01 of this solicitation. Eligible firms are 8(a) firms with a bona fide place of business located within the geographic area serviced by the Small Business Administration Region 8 or Small Business Administration Region 9 within the assigned NAICS code (NAICS: 236220/ Size Std: $36.5M). For any additional information, please contact your SBA representative.

21. Do all projects submitted for Past Performance need to be completed under NAICS code 236220 in order to be considered relevant?

Government Response: Please see Section L, Volume 2- Past Performance (Factor 2), paragraph 4. Please also see Section M, Factor 2- Past Performance (Volume 2) for an expansion on past performance considered relevant to the MACC.

22. Volume I – Technical (Factor 1) has a page limit of 40 pages, excluding 35% Design. Factor 1 includes Subfactor 1, Subfactor 2, and Subfactor 3. Subfactor 1(c) requires AF Form 3064 Progress Schedule (Atch 30) and Schedule of Values (Atch 32). Seeing that Atch 30 is a total of 53 pages and Atch 32 is total of 5 pages, is it safe to assume these forms are not included in the 40-page limit? If not, would the Government consider removing them from the 40-page limit?

Government Response: Per the Solicitation, page limitation is unlimited for the 35% design. Page limitation for Volume 1 is 40 pages for all else. A completed AF 3064 and Schedule of Values should only be 2-3 pages.

23. Volume I – Technical (Factor 1) has a page limit of 40 pages, excluding 35% Design. Factor 1 includes

Subfactor 1, Subfactor 2, and Subfactor 3. Subfactor 3 requires payment and Performance Bonds, Surety Information (letter of bondability, etc.), and a SBA letter verifying bona fide business location in Region 9. Is it safe to assume these requirements are not included in the 40-page limit? If not, would the Government consider removing them from the 40-page limit?

Government Response: Per the Solicitation, page limitation is unlimited for the 35% design. Page limitation for Volume 1 is 40 pages for all else. A completed AF 3064 and Schedule of Values should only be 2-3 pages.

24. If available, we request that the Government provide an existing site utility plan.

Government Response: Please review Attachment 50 of this solicitation.

25. Volume 1, Subfactor 1 - Completeness of the Demonstration Project requires a 35% design submission. Attachment #1 contains all the requirements for a 35% design submission which is fairly extensive for an initial proposal. Given the limited time and information available it would be very difficult to submit all of the required 35% design elements.

Between the site visit and the proposal due date there is less than 30 days. Typically for a 35% design submission we need to complete a more extensive site visit, have design charrettes with stakeholders, meet with the government representative so that we can provide a list of Government-furnished equipment, be provided existing/area utility location/capacity information, and engage other professionals for such items as Topographical Survey, Soils Test and Reports, etc. We are respectfully requesting that for Subfactor 1 the requirement for the proposal be changed to the 10% design submission standards of Attachment #1.

Government Response: The solicitation requires a 35% design proposal.

26. If the requirement for the proposal remains at 35% we request that the government provide a specific list of the items in Attachment #1, paragraph 1.4.3 that are required to be submitted with the proposal, including copy requirements that are outlined in paragraph 1.4.3.

Government Response: Please see Attachment 1, paragraph 1.4.3. Please also see Section L of the solicitation for all copy requirements.

27. If an offeror is a joint venture, is it the Government’s intent for the joint venture to submit “up to six

(6) recent contracts”, and each venturer of the joint venture to submit “up to three (3) recent contracts”?

Government Response: Please see Section L, Volume 2- Past Performance. Offerors (applicable to those proposing as a single entity) shall submit information on up to six (6) recent contracts from the prime contractor considered most relevant in demonstrating performance abilities on the MACC.

In addition (applicable to Teaming Arrangements/Joint Ventures), Offerors shall include up to three (3) recent contracts performed by each teaming partner and/or joint venture partner considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the MACC.

28. If an offeror’s A&E design team partner enters into a teaming agreement with the offeror, is it the Government’s intent for the offeror’s A&E design team to also submit “up to three (3) recent contracts”?

Government Response: Offerors shall include up to three (3) recent contracts performed by each teaming partner and/or joint venture partner considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the MACC.

29. Attachment 30, Schedule, is a protected file. How do we open this file so that we can start the schedule? Please advise.

Government Response: This attachment can be opened with Microsoft Excel. Please ensure all features are enabled out of protected view or download attachment rather than viewing attachment only.

30. Regarding project submittal – it is our understanding that we, as the prime contractor / offeror, would be submitting 6 projects and the design firm we intend to work with, being a teaming partner, would submit 3 projects (for a total of 9 projects). Please confirm this is correct. If not, please clearly indicate how many projects are desired and from what parties.

Government Response: Please see Section L, Volume 2- Past Performance. Offerors (applicable to those proposing as a single entity) shall submit information on up to six (6) recent contracts from the prime contractor considered most relevant in demonstrating performance abilities on the MACC.

In addition (applicable to Teaming Arrangements/Joint Ventures), Offerors shall include up to three (3) recent contracts performed by each teaming partner and/or joint venture partner considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the MACC.

31. Please confirm that, no matter the number of copies requested, each VOLUME/Factor is to be bound separately in all cases.

Government Response: Please see Section L, C.2. The proposal shall consist of four (4) separate volumes, Volume 1- Technical Proposal, Volume 2- Past Performance Information, Volume 3- Cost/Price Proposal, and Volume 4- Administrative.

32. Request that the Gov’t consider expanding page limitations for Volume 1 Technical – 40 pages “for all else” is insufficient for appropriately detailed Construction Narrative (subfactor 1) as well as Program Management plan (subfactor 2) with the heavy emphasis on “detailed measures” and procedures.

limitation for Volume 1 is 40 pages for all else. A completed AF 3064 and Schedule of Values should only be 2-3 pages.

33. Amendment #2 is dated 7/3/2019 and was posted to FBO on 7/15/2019. Please advise which date to utilize when acknowledging this amendment on the SF1442.

Government Response: Please utilize the date when proposer is acknowledging and signing the amendment.

34. Will the government clarify the page limit for the Executive Summary? [Solicitation Section L, Amendment 1]

Government Response: Per the solicitation (Section L, H. Volume 4- Administrative), each Offeror shall submit an Executive Summary of no more than four (4) pages total which summarizes the key points from the Offeror’s Technical, Past Performance, and Price areas.

35. Will the government specify which sections of each volume and each subfactor (as applicable) that need to be submitted as separate files on the CD copy? [Solicitation Section L, Amendment 1]

Government Response: Per the Solicitation Section L, The offer/proposal and other information shall be submitted in hard copies and electronic copy (standard CD) format. The proposal shall consist of the following volumes: Volume 1 – Technical, Volume 2 - Past Performance, Volume 3 - Cost/Price, and Volume 4 – Administrative. Separate CDs are not required for each volume. Each Volume identifies the number of hard copies and electronic copy.

36. Will the government confirm the AF Form 3064 Progress Schedule and Schedule of Values are excluded from the Volume 1 page limit of 40 pages? [Solicitation Section L, Amendment 1] limitation for Volume 1 is 40 pages for all else. A completed AF 3064 and Schedule of Values should only be 2-3 pages.

37. Will the government be providing a template for the Performance Questionnaire Letter?

[Solicitation Section L, Amendment 1]

Government Response: Please see Attachment 44, Past Performance Questionnaire. Please note that per the solicitation, “Offeror's shall only submit Past Performance Questionnaires for those projects that do not have completed reports in the Contractor Performance.”

38. Provide Nellis AFB Installation Facilities Standards (IFS)

Government Response: Please see Attachments 2-7 for IFS standards.

39. Please confirm that the Government will allow proposers a minimum of seven (7) days to respond to the RFP starting from the date that the Government responds to 100% of the RFIs received.

Government Response: The Government will provide a reasonable time from upload of RFI responses to due date for proposals.

40. The RFP describes the VCC as a “Demonstration Project”. What is the project meant to demonstrate?

Government Response: The demonstration project is Subfactor 1 of the Technical Volume and will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.

41. Referencing Amendment -001, Section L, Part E-2(b), bidders are required to provide a 35% design as part of Technical (Factor1). Upon review of the RFP of all information required for a 35% design, our design team is reluctant to engage in the project, particularly if this requirement will be mandatory on all task order RFP under this program. 35% designs are typically compensated products delivered to the Government. Suggest the requirements for the RFP response be revised to be consistent with what is required by Navy and USACE Requests for Proposal on Phase II MACC submittals, such as a site plan, building floor plan, elevations, & narratives of systems.

Government Response: Per MACC SOW (Attachment 1) para 1.3.3, the maximum design level requirement during future proposal submissions will be limited to 10%. For the purposes of determining technical acceptability on this solicitation, the Government requires a 35% design.

42. Is CLIN 0001 just the design fee & CLIN 0002 just the construction fee with the total being $2,178,000?

Government Response: CLIN 0001 is the design fee which includes furnishing all labor, supervision, equipment, tools, materials and incidental works and professional design as necessary to perform all work to complete the design portion of the Design-Build contract for RKMF 17-0097, Construct Visitor Control Center B697 at Nellis AFB, NV. Note that this design cost does not count towards the localized minor construction limit of $2,140,000. CLIN 0002 is the construction which includes furnishing all plant, labor, equipment, materials and supervision necessary to perform all work to complete the construction and all else, excluding the design portion under CLIN 0001 of the Design-Build contract for RKMF 17- 0097, Construct Visitor Control Center B697 at Nellis AFB, NV. CLIN 0002 fee is not to exceed the localized minor construction limit of $2,140,000. Please see Amendment 04.

43. Will the Visitor Center have any flagpoles with lighting? And if so, how many flags/flagpoles.

Government Response: Flagpoles are not in project scope.

44. Refer to the “NELLIS & CREECH AIR FORCE BASES INSTALLATION FACILITIES STANDARDS (IFS)”, G.

Appendix – References - states that “the Nellis-Creech Fire Protection Requirements are to be provided by the Base Civil Engineer office or Contracting Officer”. We are requesting a copy of the requirements as they relate to VCC Building 697.

Government Response: The 6 referenced documents listed in Nellis Installation Facilities Standards (IFS) Section G are provided in Solicitation’s attachments and are project/MACC requirements.

45. Exit path (side walk) illumination is not noted in the SOW. NFPA 101 article 7.8.1.2 requires illumination “…during the time that the conditions of occupancy require that the means of egress be available for use….? Will the facility be open during hours of darkness and does the Installation require/desire the exit path (side walk) illumination.

Government Response: Project includes all exterior lighting and this includes exit path lighting. Facility will be occupied 24 hours/day. Provide appropriate exterior lighting to meet all UFC, code, and Nellis IFS requirements. Interior and exterior lighting shall be appropriate for a “Group 1” type facility per Nellis

IFS.

46. The Nellis AFB standard drawing sheet border was not included in solicitation. Will the D/B team standard sheet border be acceptable?

Government Response: Bidders are to use their own appropriate drawing title block/border for demonstration project design.

47. Will the specification format requirement be Masterspec or will the requirement be SpecsIntact?

Government Response: Per MACC SOW (Attachment 1), Para 1.3.6.2, MasterSpec is the required specification format.

48. The scope of work states that the requirements of UFC 1-200-02, High Performance and Sustainable

Building Requirements be met, however many of the requirements described in UFC 1-200-02 exceed the requirements included in the scope of work. Please clarify the applicable sections of UFC 1-200-02 for RKMF 17-0097 Construct Visitor Control Center Building 697.

Government Response: Project Statement of Work does not list all requirements stated in all UFCs. All UFC 1-200-02 requirements shall be met unless otherwise stated in project Statement of Work or Nellis

IFS.

49. What is the size of the sewer line in Swaab that the visitor center will connect to and what is the approximate invert elevation at this location? If this is unknown, can we assume there is sufficient depth to accommodate the new visitor’s center?

Government Response: Existing concrete sewer manhole has 8 inch diameter clay sewer pipe inlet/outlet.

Depth is unknown but depth is likely adequate to accommodate existing VCC facility.

50. What is the size of the water line and available pressure at the proposed point of connection?

Government Response: Existing cast iron water pipe is 6 inches diameter and water pressure is unknown.

51. Are there any fire flow tests available at nearby hydrants or a City water model with information near the proposed point of connection?

Government Response: Fire flow tests are not available. Fire sprinkler system for facility is not required.

52. Per Atch 04 par 4 Service Entrance cables shall be installed in conduits and encased in 300PSI concrete slurry when routed under parking areas, roads sidewalks and other traffic areas. Please confirm that the intent is to provide conduits in 3000PSI and not 300PSI.

Government Response: Per Atch 04, Para 4, All Low Voltage Underground circuits OTHER THAN Service Entrance cables shall be installed in conduits and encased in 300 PSI concrete slurry when routed under parking areas, roads, sidewalks and other traffic areas.

53. Per Atch 05 par 2.5 Ballasts and lamps shall have a minimum rated life of 50,000hours. Since fluorescent fixtures (lamps and ballasts) will not be used, please confirm that is acceptable to provide LED fixtures with rated life of L70=50,000hrs.

Government Response: LED light fixtures shall have a minimum rated life of 50,000 hours.

54. What is the overall capacity of the existing 15kV feeder that will be used to feed the building?

Current load?

Government Response: Capacity is adequate to support VCC facility.

55. SOW section 1.3.4.4 discusses the use of LED but also mentions parabolic 2x4 troffers which is typically used with T8 fluorescent lamps. Are LED recessed indirect or flat panel luminaires acceptable?

Government Response: Provide 2’ x 4’ recessed indirect LED light fixtures.

56. Attachment 04- Electrical: item 12- is an astronomical time clock acceptable in lieu of photocell?

Government Response: Provide photocell.

57. Attachment 07- Utility Meter: section 1.2- in reference to the compliant meter list, is there a preferred manufacturer/model?

Government Response: No.

58. What portion of the new VCC will be the determining factor for the 86’ set-back? Eaves? Exterior Wall? [SOW 1.3.1.2, SOW states New VCC shall be a minimum of 86’ from the existing parking lot]

Government Response: Exterior face of exterior wall of occupied portion of facility.

59. SOW 1.3.1.3 states demolish security boulders as required. Should this read “Relocate Large Security

Borders”?

Government Response: Existing boulders shall be appropriately relocated as required to accommodate project work. See revised project Scope of Work dated 29 Jul 19 (Attachment 53).

60. What is the preferred location for construction worker vehicle parking and lay down yard?

Government Response: Laydown area is shown on site plan. Contractor POV parking can be within construction site or in parking lot south of Swaab Blvd.

61. Will all truck deliveries be required to enter through the Area II gate or can smaller deliveries be received at the Main Gate side of the construction area?

Government Response: All construction deliveries shall be through Area II gate.

62. Please verify gage of roof decking. [SOW 1.3.2.2 Metal Roof Decking]

Government Response: Project is design-build. Contractor shall design roof structure.

63. Will a continuous vent be required? [SOW 1.3.2.2 Soffit]

Government Response: Project is design-build. Contractor shall design roof overhang ventilation if required by wall/roof design.

64. Please verify metal stud size for interior framing. [SOW 1.3.2.6 Metal Stud Size for Interior Framing]

Government Response: Project is design-build. Contractor shall design interior wall and ceiling systems.

65. Is the removable carpeted entrance mat in vestibule to be a walk-off (recessed) mat? [SOW 1.3.2.20

Carpeted entrance mat]

Government Response: Mat is not recessed.

66. Verify power to be dedicated circuits. [SOW 1.3.4.5]

Government Response: Provide dedicated circuits. See revised project Scope of Work dated 29 Jul 19 (Attachment 53).

67. Verify end point within building 625 [SOW 1.3.5.2 SMFO Cable from new VCC into Bldg 625]

Government Response: SMFO cable length is 1800 linear feet.

68. Will the service loop for the SMFO be at the VCC, Service Vault or within Bldg 625? [SOW 1.3.5 Rack located in the VCC Comm Room]

Government Response: Service loop location(s) will be determined during design.

69. What is the height and width of the preferred rack? [SOW 1.3.5]

Government Response: Telecommunications system design determines rack size.

70. Will the structure be required to have lighting protection? [SOW 1.3.4.6 Provide lighting protection if required]

Government Response: Contractor shall determine/calculate using referenced requirements.

71. Will a ground rod be allowed inside the Comm’s room and located next to the Comm’s rack?

72. Comm’s, will a 48 port patch panel be sufficient?

Government Response: Telecommunications system design determines patch panel size.

73. Is it required for the contractor to have separate individuals for superintendent, quality control manager, and safety officer for this project?

74. Will the Owner be responsible for all testing and inspection costs?

Government Response: No. Contractor is responsible for all testing and inspection costs.

75. Will the Owner be responsible for all commissioning costs?

Government Response: No. Contractor is responsible for all commissioning costs.

76. Is commissioning required, and if so, fundamental or enhanced?

Government Response: Contractor shall perform fundamental commissioning practices appropriate to the size and complexity of the system components. Reference UFC 1-200-02.

77. Provide soils report for this site.

Government Response: Soils report for project site is not available.

78. SOW Section 1.3.2.17 Door Schedule: “Cipher Lock”

a. Are these to be standalone locks or will they be tied into a network?

b. If stand alone, are they to be mechanical push button or battery operated digital? If digital, what type of credential method is desired – Card Reader, FOB, PIN Code, etc.?

c. If networked, is the access credential method to be integral to the lock? If so, what type of credential method – Card Reader, FOB, PIN Code, etc.? Or, are the locks simply to be electrified and tied into an access control system with wall mounted credential readers?

Government Response: Cipher locks shall be standalone commercial-grade mechanical push button type.

79. SOW Section 1.3.2.17 Door Schedule: “Door B” Inner Vestibule 100 Pair of Aluminum Doors

a. Does this pair of doors need to be lockable?

Government Response: Yes.

80. Please provide the firm and point of contact for the mechanical controls system at the existing VCC.

Government Response: Reference Nellis IFS and its Mechanical and Plumbing Requirements Appendix for information on base EMCS.

81. Will professional certification requiring licensure in Nevada as defined in the SOW, section 1.1.1.7, be required to submit on the Solicitation if the certification is in process?

82. The RFP does not provide any geotechnical information. What should be the basis of design for the foundations and slab on grade for the demonstration project?

Government Response: See revised project Scope of Work dated 29 Jul 19 (Attachment 53).

83. Attachment 50 and the provided demonstration project design documents show utility POC’s. Are alternate POC’s acceptable or available? Rather than sewer POC in Swaab road, can this be moved to the NW corner of Swaab and Mountain Home Rd. intersection? There seems to be an alternative electrical duct bank running along north side of Swaab road, can this be used? There is also water line west of the proposed site near building 5557-319, can this be used rather than crossing Mountain Home Road? Please provide information on these existing utilities.

Government Response: Utility POCs shall be as stated/shown in RFP documents.

84. Please provide more information on the temporary perimeter fence. Is there a more detailed specification for what will make this fence secure, such as post spacing, depth, embedding, cross members, number and type and number of raised l bard-wires for protection, etc? Are there any details on how it needs to be connected to the existing perimeter fence? Can the 99th Security Forces provide direction on what is acceptable?

Government Response: Project is design-build. Contractor shall design fence to prevent unauthorized personnel from accessing the base. Please see Revised SOW (Attachment 53), Civil and Landscape, 1.3.1.1.

85. It appears the site is located too close to Swaab road to comply the standoff distances as shown in the concept drawings, please confirm we are to address this.

Government Response: Facility Site Plan accurately shows required standoff distances.

86. Please provide the CAD files for the demonstration project concept design.

Government Response: CAD drawings of the SOW’s floor plan and elevations will not be provided.

Contractors shall demonstrate their ability to provide a 35% design that meets RFP requirements.

87. Will the government expect the contractor to provide the commissioning agent for the demonstration project?

Government Response: The Government expects the contractor to provide the commissioning agent for the demonstration project after systems are installed and prior to being turned over to the Government for use. Reference UFC 1-200-02.

88. Regarding the demonstration project, is there an order of precedence for the UFC’s for the ATFP, Entry Control Facilities, High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements, and the Nellis/Creech IFS and other details outlined in the SOW narrative?

Government Response: If there is a conflict, requirements stated in project SOW/drawings supersede Nellis IFS.

89. Will the AF provide CADD files of the Floor Plan, Sections, Elevations, other CADD-based drawings?

Government Response: CAD drawings will not be provided. Contractors shall demonstrate their ability to provide a 35% design that meets RFP requirements.

90. UFC 4-010-01 (2018) requires that inhabited buildings outside the installation perimeter be assessed per UFC 4-020-01 to establish Design Basis Threats and applicable Level of Protection. Please provide the DBT and level of protection determined for this facility. [Reference: Solicitation SOW

1.3.1.9 and UFC 4-010-01 (2018)].

Government Response: Project’s Design Basis Threat/Level of Protection is “LOW”.