Generators RFI.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 14 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Design and Build Back Up Generator
- Solicitation number
- FA489726Q0005
About this file
This is a Request for Information (RFI) document providing responses to contractor inquiries regarding a design-build backup generator installation project at Building 1293 on Mountain Home Air Force Base (MHAFB) in Idaho. The RFI addresses 30 specific questions covering site conditions, design requirements, environmental testing protocols, and project execution.
Key site and facility details include: Building 1293 is 28 years old with a 200-ampere electrical panel; no noise restrictions apply during normal work hours, though noise-critical work must comply with local, state, and federal standards; and no security requirements will disrupt the schedule. The Government will accept a generator sized to service the entire building as currently configured using an automatic transfer switch (ATS), which may be located outside the building if it meets NEMA enclosure and NEC/NFPA requirements. Environmental and soil management requirements mandate testing of all excess excavated soil for TCLP RCRA metals and chlorinated pesticides—one ten-point composite sample per 100 cubic yards—to determine if material qualifies for on-base reuse or must be disposed of at permitted landfills within 90 days; no baseline hazardous materials survey has been conducted, but any suspect materials must be tested before disturbance. Design and construction will proceed from 100% design drawings with as-builts required for final record drawings; the contractor is responsible for providing the submittal schedule and must allow 14 calendar days for Government review of construction submittals per the Statement of Work. The Government is receptive to a phasing plan accommodating long lead times (such as Cummins Onan's 24-week procurement timeline), allowing contractors to propose design, material acquisition, and construction phases totaling approximately 365 calendar days. Site visits may be arranged with Yan V. Hampp at MHAFB during normal duty hours.
View the file
Other files
Show all 15
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
| RFI Generators Install | |
| Question | Answer |
| What size panel (Electrical) are in the building 200 or 400? | 200A panel |
| The deliverables for GIS are spelled out and reference a CD-Rom, is that correct, or digital files on a thumb drive will suffice as well? | CD-ROM |
| Are there any noise restrictions for building 1293 during normal work hours? If so, please define the noise limitations and allowable hours to complete work that exceed the noise limits. | There are no noise restrictions. However, noise critical work shall comply with local, state, and federal noise standards and timelines shall be communicated to the facility manager. |
| How old is building 1293? | 28 years |
| Does the government suspect any hazardous materials are located at building 1293 that may be disturbed? | There are no lead-based paint concerns. Asbestos is always a concern, no matter what the age of the building. Any suspect materials to be disturbed shall be tested prior to work being performed. |
| Has a hazardous material survey been performed for the affected areas? If so, please provide. | NO |
| Will the contractor be responsible for performing a hazardous material survey if one hasn’t been conducted? | Any suspect materials to be disturbed shall be tested for asbestos prior to work being performed. |
| If hazardous materials are found after performing a hazardous material survey, will this be seen as a differing site condition per FAR Clause 52.236-2? | This will need to be determined at time of occurrence. |
| Is it the Government’s intent that the contractor will construct from of the 90% drawings and submit as-builts for final record drawings? | The project will be constructed from the 100% design. |
| Please confirm if it’s the responsibility of the contractor to provide the submittal schedule, or if the Government will provide the submittal schedule. | The contractor is responsible to provide the submittal schedule. |
| How many days of review time will the government take at each design phase? | The design review timeline is indicated in the SOW. |
| Please clarify if there are any phasing requirements for this project. | Phasing is not a |
requirement. However, the contractor can propose a phasing plan during the design process.
| Does the government suspect pesticides in the vicinity of building 1293? If so, how far away from the building and how deep should the contractor assume to be contaminated? | Pesticides are not suspected, but always a concern. |
| Has a Geotech report been conducted at the projected work area? If so, please provide. | A Geotech report has not been conducted. |
| Is a topographical survey required for the design of this project? | This project does not require a topographical survey. However, the design shall be accomplished to ensure proper drainage is acquired for any runoff to flow away from the facility. |
| Are the excess soils generated from excavation to be hauled off base, or will the government provide a location on base for disposal/stockpiling? | Excess soil can either be hauled off base to a permitted landfill (if deemed nonhazardous) |
or reused on base (if testing indicates material is reusable). The requirements for either are as follows:
1. Any excess soil or base course at B1293 shall be analyzed to determine disposal and/or reuse on MHAFB. Soil cannot be moved around the work site or taken from the work site until analysis is complete and approval is provided.
2. One ten-point composite sample shall be taken for every 100 cubic yards of material and tested for TCLP RCRA Metals and TCLP for Chlorinated Pesticides (for a hazardous waste determination).
3. One ten-point composite sample shall also be taken for every 100 cubic yards of material and analyzed for TOTAL RCRA Metals and TOTAL for Chlorinated Pesticides (for a reuse determination). This testing only needs to be completed if soil is to remain on base and reused.
4. Test results shall be submitted to the CO for evaluation.
5. If the material is tested after excavation and stockpiling, the soil shall be placed on an impermeable membrane, covered, and labeled as hazardous waste pending analysis.
6. The soil shall be tested and disposed of within 90 days of excavation.
7. The soil is expected to be suitable for reuse on base (approval is required), please coordinate with the project PM for the exact location. If testing indicates the soil is considered non-hazardous, but not suitable for reuse, the soil shall be disposed of at a permitted subtitle D landfill. If testing indicates the material is considered hazardous waste, the soil shall be disposed of at a permitted subtitle C landfill. In either case, a modification to the contract shall be required.
| Are there any additional soil testing requirements that are not listed in the specification section 01 57 19 Temporary Environmental Controls MHAFB Env Spec? | See answer to No. 14. | |
| Does the government have a list of approved waste disposal and hazardous waste disposal sites? | No, but the landfill shall be properly permitted for the type of waste to be disposed. | |
| Can the superintendent also perform the functions and duties of the QCM, SSHO and Environmental Manager? | Yes, however, the individual must meet all of the functional duty requirements and have the necessary training and qualifications to perform the duties for each of the positions. | |
| Is a GIS survey required as an as-built deliverable? | The GIS is required for closeout per the SOW. | |
| For bidding purposes, will base environmental require a SWPPP Plan? | No | |
| Will a Sample analysis plan be required? | Yes, for pesticide testing. | |
| What types of soil testing will be required? | See answer to No. 14. | |
| Please outline any security requirements/restrictions for this building that may disrupt the schedule or delay the project. | There are no security requirements for this building. | |
| With this project being design-build, there is a lot of investigative work to be done to provide a design and create a bid based off the design. Without doing investigative work prior to bidding, will the government issue change orders for additional scope that isn’t currently being requested in this Solicitation? Or issue change orders for additional scope that would require destructive investigation to provide enough design to bring buildings up to proper code requirements? | It is the contractors responsibility to gather all relevant details pertaining to this project prior to submitting a bid. | |
| The current past performance example window is 3 years. Would the government consider changing this window to 5 years? | This shall be determined by the Contracting officer. Past performance will remain 3 years. | |
| The existing electrical system in building 1293 is fed from a single 200a service. This size of service can easily be fed entirely from a single 50-75kW generator (depending on the outcome of the load study). If there is a desire to have only the essential rooms, restrooms, lighting, and HVAC equipment supported by an emergency backup generator, the contractor would need to install an “emergency” panel with an interlock switch, rewire multiple circuits, isolate the HVAC system for the new panel, and spend countless hours researching and tracking down existing wiring configurations. This could result in a slightly smaller generator, but I believe the labor and additional equipment cost would be substantially more than the cost to supply an adequately sized generator that services the entire building electrical system as it is currently configured. There would be a substantial time and cost savings to the government if they were to consider the use of a generator with an ATS to serve the existing electrical system. Question: Would it be acceptable for the contractor to size the emergency backup generator to service the entire building as it is currently configured? | Yes, it is acceptable to size the generator to service the whole building as it is currently configured. | |
| Is it the requirement of the government that the site superintendent is always on-site during construction? | During construction, the site superintendent shall be dedicated to the project. | |
| During the site walk, it was mentioned that the government will require 30 days to review each submittal. In the SOW, page 9; 2. Submittals, B. 4; it states, “The Government shall be allotted 14 calendar days after the date the Government receives the submittal to complete reviews.” | How many days will the government have to review each submittal? The section referenced above is for construction submittals and per the SOW the USG will be allotted a 14 day review timeline. | |
| Upon initial investigation of the mechanical/electrical room, it does not appear that there will be ample space to install the ATS within the room. | ||
| Question: Will it be acceptable to locate the ATS and ancillary gear outside the building if it meets current NEC/NFPA requirements? Yes, this is acceptable | Yes, this is acceptable as long as it meets NEMA enclosure requirements for outdoor use and is weather resistant to rain, ice, snow, and dust. | |
| It’s been brought to our attention that Cummins Onan requires 8-12 weeks to put together submittals and an approximate 24-week lead time upon receipt of approved submittals. | ||
| Question: Would the government consider having a separate design submittal/material acquisition phase and construction phase totaling roughly 365 calendar days to account for each phase of design review, submittal review and material procurement? | The USG takes no exception to a phasing plan based upon long lead time items. The contractor can propose a phasing plan during the design process with firm material procurement timelines. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .