Attachment 15 - Tank Farms 3 and 4 Questions and Answers.pdf

Repair Tank Farms 3 and 4 Questions and Answers

Q1. Please confirm there is no requirement for the contractor to perform or provide scope and efforts related to, UFC 4-010-06 Cybersecurity of Faclity Related Control Systems? (For example, Spec 25 05 11 Cybersecurity for Faclity-related Control Systems or 25 08 11 Risk Management Framework has been included in similar type projects).

A1. Cybersecurity of Facility Related Control Systems is required for DOD real property systems and with this project as outlined in UFC 4-010-06. Systems that monitor and control equipment are required to meet the UFC requirements. Examples: Utility control systems, building controls, fire alarms, tank monitoring systems, generator monitoring, etc.

Q2. 01 32 01.00 10, 2.1.1, states the Government intends to use Primavera P6 as their scheduling software. Please confirm that is accurate and confirm the USAF has the resources in place to support the efforts involved with managing a P6 project schedule as outlined in the 01 32 01 spec. (The intent of this questions is to ensure the additional contractor costs associated with managing through P6 are justified and required and that the contractors pay applications will be managed IAW P6).

A2. The government does not intend to use Primavara P6 as their scheduling software. The government uses the AF Form 3064 Contractor Progress Schedule that the contractor will be required to fill out showing their schedule and for progress payments the AF 3065 Contract Progress Report. It will be the contractor’s responsibility to provide a schedule that will be reviewed by the Air Force Project Manager, Inspector and Contracting Officer for approval. Progress reports will also be required to be submitted to the Air Force Contracting Officer, Project Manager, and Inspector for approval. Once approved it will be the contractor’s responsibility to submit for payment in WAWF and to also upload the approved AF 3065’s into WAWF before payment/pay applications are processed.

Q3. 01 33 29, 1.2, states this project will be documented IAW High Performance and Sustainable Building or HPSB Guiding Principles, please confirm that this requirement and the costs associated with managing this effort, are required, justified, and warranted for a Fully Designed project of this nature.

A3. Because this project is released as fully designed, the contractor is only responsible for instituting those HPSB principles that are already incorporated into the design. No certification or documentation will be pursued for this project.

Q4. 01 35 26, 3.8.1 Utility Locations, states: Provide a Third Party, independent, private utility locating company to ID underground utilities. Please confirm this requirement and advise to names of private firms that have access to the GOV records and files to perform this requirement.

A4. Utility locates will initially be completed utilizing the standard JBER Dig Permit/Work Clearance procedures. Contractor will need to complete the current Wing Form 3 and have utilities identified on the form located by respective agencies or offices identified on the form. Third party will be used for positive identification of underground utilities marked in the area by perspective agencies listed on the Wing Form 3.

Q5. Reference spec sections 22 00 00: Please confirm if there is a requirement to connect any new equipment or perform remote monitoring and integration into the JBER BMS /ECMS systems? If yes, please advise to what data points should be remotely monitored. Also confirm if the support of a local, preapproved or proprietarily system contractor (identify contractor) is required to perform this integration into the JBER BMS/ECMS.

A5. Yes, there is a requirement for connection of equipment to perform some controls and monitoring with integration into the JBER BMS/EMCS system. Monitoring and control points will include HVAC Systems to include heating controls and ventilation controls for the facilities. All components that will interface with / integrate into the JBER BMS/EMCS System must be from the Automated Logic Corporation. In addition, monitoring capabilities are also required for the Generator that will be installed with monitoring point listed in 26 32 13 (3.7 JBER Generator Requirements) that also requires Automated Logic interface to the EMCS. The local vendor for Automated Logic is Meridian Systems. A switch will also need to be provided and installed by 673 CES Comm to support connection to the EMCS system. Note: There are additional systems that require remote monitoring outside of JBER BMS/EMCS systems to include Fire Alarm systems, Tank Gauging Systems/Fuels Manager.

Q6. Reference spec sections 23 00 00: Please confirm if there is a requirement to connect any new equipment or perform remote monitoring and integration into the JBER BMS/ECMS systems? If yes, please advise to what data points should be remotely monitored. Also confirm if the support of a local, preapproved or proprietarily system contractor (identify contractor) is required to perform this integration into the JBER BMS/ECMS.

A6. Yes, there is a requirement for connection of equipment to perform some controls and monitoring with integration into the JBER BMS/EMCS system. Monitoring and control points will include HVAC Systems to include heating controls and ventilation controls for the facilities. All components that will interface with / integrate into the JBER BMS/EMCS System must be from the Automated Logic Corporation. In addition, monitoring capabilities are also required for the Generator that will be installed with monitoring point listed in 26 32 13 (3.7 JBER Generator Requirements) that also requires Automated Logic interface to the EMCS. The local vendor for Automated Logic is Meridian Systems. A switch will also need to be provided and installed by 673 CES Comm to support connection to the EMCS system. Note: There are additional systems that require remote monitoring outside of JBER BMS/EMCS systems to include Fire Alarm systems, Tank Gauging Systems/Fuels Manager.

Q7. Reference spec sections 26 00 00: Please confirm if there is a requirement to connect any new equipment or perform remote monitoring and integration into the JBER BMS/ECMS systems? If yes, please advise to what data points should be remotely monitored. Also confirm if the support of a local, preapproved or proprietarily system contractor (identify contractor) is required to perform this integration into the JBER BMS/ECMS.

A7.Yes, there is a requirement for connection of equipment to perform some controls and monitoring with integration into the JBER BMS/EMCS system. Monitoring and control points will include HVAC Systems to include heating controls and ventilation controls for the facilities. All components that will interface with / integrate into the JBER BMS/EMCS System must be from the Automated Logic Corporation. In addition, monitoring capabilities are also required for the Generator that will be installed with monitoring point listed in 26 32 13 (3.7 JBER Generator Requirements) that also requires Automated Logic interface to the EMCS. The local vendor for Automated Logic is Meridian Systems. A switch will also need to be provided and installed by 673 CES Comm to support connection to the EMCS system. Note: There are additional systems that require remote monitoring outside of JBER BMS/EMCS systems to include Fire Alarm systems, Tank Gauging Systems/Fuels Manager. .

Q8. Reference spec sections 33 00 00: Please confirm if there is a requirement to connect any new equipment or perform remote monitoring and integration into the JBER BMS/ECMS systems? If yes, please advise to what data points should be remotely monitored. Also confirm if the support of a local, preapproved or proprietarily system contractor (identify contractor) is required to perform this integration into the JBER BMS/ECMS.

A8.Yes, there is a requirement for connection of equipment to perform some controls and monitoring with integration into the JBER BMS/EMCS system. Monitoring and control points will include HVAC Systems to include heating controls and ventilation controls for the facilities. All components that will interface with / integrate into the JBER BMS/EMCS System must be from the Automated Logic Corporation. In addition, monitoring capabilities are also required for the Generator that will be installed with monitoring point listed in 26 32 13 (3.7 JBER Generator Requirements) that also requires Automated Logic interface to the EMCS. The local vendor for Automated Logic is Meridian Systems. A switch will also need to be provided and installed by 673 CES Comm to support connection to the EMCS system. Note: There are additional systems that require remote monitoring outside of JBER BMS/EMCS systems to include Fire Alarm systems, Tank Gauging Systems/Fuels Manager.

Q9. 33 57 55, 2.6: states, the Farm #3 existing Fuel Master (VIL) shall be reused. Please confirm if the VILs should be connected to any remote monitoring or remote-control or remote monitoring system/networks. If yes, please advise to the network description, and how the contractor should manage and execute this integration to an offsite, DOD network.

A9. Local BSME contractor is responsible for connecting/calibration/programming/integration of the Fuel Master VIL and ATG systems. Contractor required to provide conduit / pull wires associated with Fuel Master VIL. Provide 10 week notice to Government personnel for scheduling of installation and programming of the Fuel Master VIL at the end of the project *Note: LGRF is going to a new system called EPOS with network connection likely to be similar to Fuel Master VIL and ATG Systems. Install with this system replacing the Fuel Master VIL supposed to happen in April of 2024.

Q10. Attachment 01-SOW – Page 59 of 76, and spec section 02 82 00, 1.3.1.1, references a Haz-Mat Technical Memo of Asbestos and Hazardous Materials Survey conducted by the USACEAD in April 2019. Please provide a copy for the contractor’s use.

A10. See attached Survey by USACEAD called “JBE057_058_Asbestos_Final.pdf”

Q11. Ref drawing H-001, Sheet Note #9 – it references a “Asbestos-Containing Tarry Waterproofing “ on the inside face of the concrete walls. Should the contractor assume this material is friable ACM or non-friable ACM?

A11. Assume that it is non-friable ACM that may become friable depending on the forces exerted on the material by the Contractor’s Means and Methods.

Q12. Ref drawing H-001, Estimated Quantities to be removed: These notes indicate that a “ Asbestos-Containing Tarry Corrosion Barrier” on the USTs and the UST Vent piping. Should the contractor assume this material is friable ACM or non-friable ACM?

A12. Assume that it is non-friable ACM that may become friable depending on the forces exerted on the material by the Contractor’s Means and Methods.

Q13. Ref drawing H-001, Sheet Note #11 references testing conducted by the USACE. Please provide these reports/test results to the contractor. Not Defining specific hazmat materials and quantities within the RFP opens the contractor to substantial risk and will increase costs to lower the risk and exposure.

A13.

See attached Survey by USACEAD called “JBE057_058_Asbestos_Final.pdf”

Q14. Ref drawing H-001, Sheet Note #11 reference PCB bulk products but offers not quantities, provides no testing samples , no test results. Should the contractor assume that all concrete manways over each UST and all concrete within the Pumphouse 3 & 4 footings, walls and ceiling, should be assumed to contain PCBs and should be disposed of IAW 40 CFR 761?

A14. See attached Survey by USACEAD called “JBE057_058_Asbestos_Final.pdf”

Q15. Reference drawing H-001, Estimated Quantities to be removed: Please clarify if the contractor should include all costs associated with handling a disposing of the HAZMAT materials based on the quantities listed on H-001, as a minimum quantity? Or, after award and the performance of a contractor conducted HAZMAT Survey, its realized that the Estimated Quantities listed on H-001 are incorrect, and actual quantities discovered are either below or above these Estimated Quantities, would this discovery be considered a change in conditions?

A15. The quantities shown on H-001 are the basis for the potentially hazardous building materials for the bid. If there are fewer or additional hazardous building materials discovered during the course of the work, that may be considered a change in conditions, and negotiated as outlined in the contract documents for this project.

Q16. 01 57 20.01 29 para 3.17 (Attachments) - TS 01 57 20.01 29 paragraph 3.17 references 3 attachments. (2019 JBER Environmental Handbook, JBER Environmental and Hazardous Materials and Spill Template and Poster. We could not locate any of these attachments is the solicitation documents. Please provide.

A16. Please see attachment 10, attachment 11, and attachment 12

Q17. 02 65 00 Underground Storage Tank Removal; para 3.6.3,e states that the contracting officer will determine the extent of contaminated soil to be removed from each site, not to exceed 2,000 cubic yards at Fuel Farm #4 and 2,500 cubic yards at Fuel Farm #3. Is the contractor to assume that this volume of handling, stockpiling and disposal shall be included in their base bid? What happens if that volume is more or less?

A17. Yes, anything above the referenced amounts will be paid via a modification to the contract.

Q18. Drawing sheet G-003 General Excavation Note #4. States that soil must be screened and contaminated material must be stockpiled and disposed per Specification 31 09 20.00 29.

Specification 31 09 20.00 29 was not found in the solicitation package. Please advise.

A18. A corrected set of specifications is to be released with the Q and A amendment.

Q19. TS 01 57 20.02 29 – para 3.15 “Manage potentially POL contaminated soil in accordance with section 31 09 20.00 29 FIELD SCREEN TESTING OF SOILS FOR POL CONTAMINATION.

Follow Section 02 61 13 EXCAVATION AND HANDLING OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL for contaminated soil.” Neither section 31 09 20.00 29 or 02 61 13 were provided in the specification package. Can the contractor assume that field screening is not required?

A19. A corrected set of specifications is to be released with the Q and A amendment.

Q20. Attachment 9 – Project Price Break Down does not include option pricing on a per cubic yard basis for Excavating and Handling of Contaminated Soils (02 61 13) or per cubic yard basis for transport and disposal. On DLA related projects we are used to seeing the handling, stockpiling and disposal identified as separate CLIN’s as actual quantities are unknown and undefinable.

Additionally, the associated funding may come from different sources justifying a separate CLIN. Is the contractor to include any costs associated with excavation, handling, stockpiling, testing and disposal of contaminated soil in their proposal or will this be addressed as a change of conditions should it be required?

A20. The bid should include the disposal of contaminated soil not to exceed 2,000 cubic yards at Fuel Farm #4 and 2,500 cubic yards at Fuel Farm #3. Anything above the referenced amounts will be paid via a modification to the contract.

Q21. 33 01 50.60 “Cleaning of Tanks” – Para 1.5.8.7 requires a certification from a Marine Chemist stating that the tank is safe for hot work and that special precautionary measures have been taken for workers to enter the tank to perform work. The unedited guide specification allows for the designer to select either a Marine Chemist or a CIH. Considering the lack of availability of Marine Chemist in Alaska would the DOR consider revising to allow for a CIH to perform the certification.

A21. Specification Section 33 01 50.60 1.5.7.7 – it is acceptable to use an CIH.

Q22. 33 56 10 Factory Fabricated Fuel Storage Tanks; Para 2.4.3.4 and 2.5.4 Per these paragraphs API MPMS 2.2E certified calibration charts following the installation of Tanks 401-406 and Tank 407 (JP-8 tanks) are required. This requirement is not specified for Tank 408 (ULSD). Please confirm that post-installed certified strapping charts are not necessary for tank 408.

A22. An API MPMS 2.2E calibration chart should be provided for Tank 408.

Q23. 33 56 10 – Factory Fabricated Fuel Storage Tanks; Para 2.6 The ULSD 25,000-gallon tank has an FRP secondary while the 7 each JP-8 tanks are STI-P3 tanks. Would the government consider allowing the ULSD to be the same type as the JP-8 tanks.

A23. The intent with the design was for FRP so that the sumps could be bonded to the tank making a liquid tight joint.

Q24. 33 56 10 – Factory Fabricated Fuel Storage Tanks; Para 2.6.1 & 2.7.2.1 - Please clarify the tank requirements for tank 408. Paragraph 2.6.1 specifies UL 1746 Part III, while para 2.7.2.1 references UL 1746 Part IV.

A24. UL 1746 Part III.

Q25. 33 56 10 Factory Fabricated Fuel Storage Tanks; para 3.2.5 calls for an inspection in accordance with STI SP131 and that the report must include UTM’s. STI SP131 appears to be geared towards repairs and modifications and touches on inspections associated with those.

Additionally, it provides no direction for UTM’s. Considering that the new tanks must be installed by a licensed UST worker please confirm that this inspection is appliable to the new tank installations.

A25. Perform the inspection per STI SP131.

Q26. Drawing sheet M-601 (equipment schedules T-401-406) – States that the tanks are to be provided with two factory fabricated steel vaults and rolling covers. All drawing details indicate there is only 1 vault per tank. Spec 33 56 10 para 2.4 also states there are two steel vaults. Please coordinate drawings and specifications and confirm that each tank only has 1 vault as indicated on drawing details.

A26. Provide one pit with rolling cover per tank as shown on the drawing plan views.

Q27. 33 56 10 Paragraphs 2.4.1; 3.1.1.2; and 3.1.1.4 all provide statements about anchoring the tank to a reinforced anchor pad / slab. We were unable to find any details of this on the design drawings.

Are anchor pads / slabs required for the UST’s? If so, please coordinate the design drawings with the specifications.

A27. Hold downs for the UST’s are not required based on geotechnical conditions.

Q28. SOW page 30 (Coating system) – states that the internal coating system will be field applied after the tanks are installed. -Paragraph 2.1 “Coating System” states “The entire coating system is intended to be applied in the field. As these tanks are shop fabricated would it be acceptable for these tanks to be shop coated?

A28. Provide a field applied coating per the specification.

Q29. Sheet M502 shows the profile view of Tank 407 but the plan view is not included. It was also omitted for tank 408. Sheet M-501 does provide both plan and profile views for tank 401-406. We could not locate the dimensions for Tank 407’s tank vault. Please provide a plan view for tank 407 and the vault dimensions.

A29. Tank 407 vault is 5’-0” by 9’-6”.

Q30. Sheet M-501 Detail A1 – dimensions the tank O.D. at 12’-0” and 60’-0” OAL. Sheet M-601 calls the OD out at 12’-4”. Please confirm that the OD of the 50K tanks is indeed a type II and OD should be approximately 12’-4”.

A30. Dimensions may vary slightly by manufacturer, 12’-0” is nominal primary tank OD, 12’-4” is nominal secondary tank OD.

Q31. M-502 Detail A1 calls out the Top of Vault at 189’. Sheet C-114 calls out the top of vault at 188.5’. Please confirm coordination between Mech and Civil sheets.

A31. The correct elevation of 189’-0” as shown on detail A1 on M-502.

Q32. 33 52 23.15; Para 3.2.2 “NDE Frequency” This paragraph states that “All pipe field welds” shall be radiographic methods. Please clarify “field welds”. Can welds made in a shop setting be inspected at a different frequency?

A32. Treat shop performed welds as field welds and meet field weld NDE frequency

Q33. 33 08 55 para 3.2.6 - Will the government (JBER POL and local DLA lab) provide for required fuel quality testing?

A33. The government is responsible for testing the fuel during the commissioning effort. The commissioning plan should include details including that the JBER Lab will be responsible for fuel testing. Give advanced notice to the fuels lab in advance of testing.

Q34. 32 52 40; 3.12.4 - The specifications call for soak testing of the new system per API RP 1595.

Please confirm that this is necessary and justified for a system of this size.

A34. Perform the soak test per the specifications.

Q35. 33 52 43.23 Aviation Fuel Pumps Para 2.1.4.8 and 2.1.4.9 indicate that automatic air elimination is to be provided with the pumps. This is not indicated on the P&ID sheets (M-012 and M-015). Please confirm if automatic air vent systems are required on the pumps.

A35. The air vent will be integral to the pump and should be provided.

Q36. 09 97 13.15 para 1.4.6.10 and 09 97 13.27 para 1.4.6.8 The “Qualification of the coating Contractor” requires that the coating contractor must be both QP1 and QS1 certified. The SSPC QS1 greatly restricts qualified contractors, particularly local Alaska contractors, as there are none. With consideration to JBER not being located in a highly corrosive environment, would the government consider revising the qualification requirements by removing the requirements for SSP QS1 and QP 5 requirements and replacing them with a NACE qualified inspector.

A36. Coating contractor shall be qualified per the spec.

Q37. Drawing sheet C-113 note 4 – calls for providing anti-slip coating on containment slab and drip pads. TS 32 13 14.13 para 2.11 is vague in nature and does not provide specific product quality requirements for the type of product to be used. During the site visit it appeared that the existing truck fill slabs had been coated with an American Safety AS-2500 system. We would consider the AS-2500 to be a very high quality 100% solids two component epoxy coating system that far exceeds the limited requirements provided in spec section 32 13 14.13 para 2.11. Is the government expecting AS-2500 or approved equal?

A37. Yes, an AS-2500 system, or equal quality system, with 100% solids two component epoxy coating system coating system is required.

Q38. Drawing sheet M501, 502 and 503 - Drawing sheet M501, 502 and 503 do not show finish grade elevation. Is a minimal depth of coverage required? Please consider coordinating grade elevations from the civil sheets with these mechanical sheets as tank coverage elevations are necessary to determine tank wall thickness requirements per UL.

A38. Grade over tanks varies and is not appropriate to be shown on mechanical details/sections. Use civil drawings to determine grade over the tanks to determine min/max depth of cover as needed.

Q39. Could the government provide the ADEC tank license numbers for the existing regulated tanks to be removed.

A39. ADEC 294 is the tank number for the only regulated tank that will be removed (ULSD Tank 42). ADEC tank 325 and 337 are at the service station, will remain in service and they will require State of Alaska licensed UST worker to replace the fuel lines and install electronic line leak detectors.

Q40. Is the steel thickness known for the existing below grade tanks?

A40. Tanks 49 and 50 steel wall thickness is approx. 3/8”

Q41. Specification section 09 97 13.15 (Low VOC Polysulfide Interior Coating of Welded Steel Petroleum Fuel Tanks) which is a two-coat low VOC polysulfide system has been included in this solicitation package. It is understood that this was a specification most commonly used by the Navy on large field fabricated tanks and that the USACE and AF typically use the MIL-DTL-24441 system which is specified by UFGS 09 97 13.17. Additionally, it appears that 09 97 13.15 has been removed from UFGS and is a retired specification. Would the DOR consider replacing this specification with UFGS 09 97 13.17 (Three Coat Epoxy Interior Coating of Welded Steel Petroleum Fuel Tanks)?

A41. The coating system specified in UFGS 09 97 13.17 is a suitable alternative provided all other requirements relating to testing/documentation/qualification outlined in 09 97 13.15 are met.

Q42. 01 58 00 Project Identification. -This specification references details of sign graphics in plates 6 and 7 of sketches attached to the section. The Plates 6 & 7 sketches were not attached to the section. Please provide the plates referenced.

A42. A corrected set of specifications is to be released.

Q43. 01 57 20.01 29 para 2.1 - This paragraph references the requirement to provide a SPCC Plan / Contingency Plan amendment in accordance with ADEC 18 AAC 75 and EPA 40 CFR 112.

However, there is no specific mention of an update to the ODPCP (Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan). Can the contractor assume that only an Amendment to the SPCC Plan is required?

A43. No, this project will require an amendment to the JBER SPCC/CPlan and ODPCP plan. The ODPCP is the CPlan.

Q44. 01 57 20.01 29 para 2.1 – If an ODPCP plan is required shall this be a combined or separate plan with the SPCC?

A44. JBER has an approved SPCC/CPlan, the CPlan is the ODPCP. The JBER SPCC/CPlan is a combined plan so both plans will require an amendment and approval from ADEC & EPA.

Q45. 01 57 20.01 29 para 2.1 – If an ODPCP plan is please advise this will be a “minor” or “Major” amendment to JBER’s plans under 18 AAC 75.415

A45. The state agency- ADEC will be the one to decide if this will be a “minor” or “ major” amendment.

Q46. Sheet H-001; Has the paint on the building and piping been tested for PCB’s? If so please provide the results. The documents say to assume everything is painted with PCB paint, which will drive the cost of demolition and disposal up immensely. Please consider testing the paint prior to bid to confirm site conditions, as we believe this is in the government’s interests.

A46. See attached Survey by USACEAD called “JBE057_058_Asbestos_Final.pdf”

Q47. At the site meeting slide show presentation, it was recommended that if submitting via DOD safe link, the proposal should be uploaded the day prior to ensure it is received and allows contracting time to download and have for the public opening. This information provided appears to conflict with Section L paragraph 3.i.j which states that “The time and date of bid receipt will be the upload completion/delivery time and date recorded within DOD Safe Site.” Please clarify submission deadlines if using DOD safelink.

A47. What was mentioned in the Site Visit presentation was to ensure compliance with provision 52.214-7(b)(i). Where it states, “if it (bid) was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the IFB, it was received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later than 5:00 p.m. oneworking day prior to the date specified for receipt of bids.” The language in Section L is correct. The oneworking day prior is to allow for proof that the bid was in government control based on the provision. This is to protect a bidder from submitting a bid close to bid time and the bid not making it into government control prior to the bid closing time. A bid may be uploaded on the same day as the bid opening but there is no guarantee it will reach the government in time, and would be considered late if proof of government control was not by 5 p.m. one working day prior per the provision. This provides ample time to ensure the bid is in the control of the government on the day of the bid opening.

Q48. Please confirm minimum ambient temperature is -20°F per Spec 33 52 43.11, para. 1.1.

A48. Materials and equipment will be suitable for service to -20°F.

Q49. Spec 33 52 43.11, para. 2.9 requires the following for the Enraf ATG: “The level indicating system must be able to measure and compute fuel level, fuel density, fuel actual volume, fuel and water corrected volume, and fuel ambient temperature.” Drawing M-501 doesn’t include a temperature/water probe for the storage tanks. A temperature/water probe is required in order to measure the fuel temperature and water level in the tanks. The temperature/ water probe requires a slotted stilling well.

A49. The ENRAF Vito probe should be provided. Place ENRAF Vito Probe in nozzle where manual gauge hatch is shown. Provide 8” nozzle and 6” aluminum slotted stilling well. Provide manual gauge hatch in manhole cover with striker plate below.

Q50. Spec 33 52 43.11, para. 2.10 calls for Scully level switches. Dwg. M-012 indicates rod with float. Dwg. E-812 shows direct wired to PLC inputs and as no Level alarm Panel shown. Is a separate level alarm panel required or can the scully modules be provided in PCP?

A50. Level sensors/switches to all be connected directly to the control panel and tank indicated on the HMI and the user workstation.

Q51. The Control Valve spec 33 52 43.14, para. 2.2.1.1 only allows cast stainless steel or ductile iron electroless nickel plated (ENP) control valve bodies, bonnets, and covers. Stainless steel valves are extremely expensive and are not necessary for this project. Ductile Iron valves are only rated for 250 psi because of the flange rating of 250 psi, ANSI B16.42. Suggest allowing Cast Steel valves with ENP coating.

A51. Cast steel valve conforming to ASTM A216/A216M, Grade WCB internally plated with chromium, nickel or internally electroless nickel plated is considered acceptable.

Q52. Spec 33 52 43.23, paragraph 2.1 and dwg. M-601 require 3,600 rpm motors for the vertical turbine fueling pumps. The standard is 1,800 rpm for a vertical turbine pump motor.

A52. 1800 rpm or 3600 rpm pumps will be considered acceptable.

Q53. 33 09 52 2.1.13 Requires Alarm Annunciator not shown on control panel drawings Only LED pilot lights are indicated.

A53. Annunciator panel as called for in the spec section isn’t required. The HMI can simulate this functionality and panel and remote alarms are shown on A1/E-112 and C1/E-814.

Q54. 33 09 52 2.1.14 requires (3) Alarm horns and (2) resonating horns (sirens) but are not shown on drawings. Equipment required? One horn for panel is shown.

A54. Only the (2) alarms shown on sheet E-112 and the One horn shown on the panel are required

Q55. 33 09 52 2.1.15 requires desktop PC and monitor with software but drawing E-814 indicates Panel mounted Digital Touchscreen HMI. Are both required?

A55. Both are required. The PLC is to have a communication port per 33 09 52 2.2.6 for interface with a PC but the intent is not to directly connect them but use the LAN to connect. Provide patch cables as need to connect to local telecom ports shown on A1/E-112.

Q56. If HMI panel mounted display is required, please provide specification for physical requirements. Harsh environment units are only rated down to -40°F.

A56. Area that houses the HMI is a conditioned space.

Q57. 33 09 52 2.1.16 requires laser printer with spare cartridges but not shown on drawings.

Equipment required?

A57. Provide equipment for use with the local work station.

Q58. Our tank manufacturer has access to numerous lining systems, but can’t find any single system that meets the specification 100%. What manufacturer and lining system is the basis of design?

A58. The Tank 408 FRP jacketing is per UL 1746 and is not manufacturer specific. The internal tank coatings is per specification 09 97 13.15 and is not manufacturer specific (see response to Q41 for acceptable alternative).

Q59. Are there “Buy American” (or similar) requirements for the underground tanks?

A59. Please see clause 52.225-11 Buy American - Construction Materials Under Trade Agreements (DEVIATION 2020-O0019) Jul 2020 in the solicitation.

Q60. There was a requirement for a factory fabricated vault (with a roll up door) for the 12’ x 60’ tanks. Is this still required?

A60. The vault will be integral to the tank and will be manufactured by the tank manufacturer. The rolling pit cover does not have to be manufactured by the tank manufacturer. Plans and Details for the rolling pit cover are included in the Structural drawing sheets.

Q61. Can a barge dock at or near the underground tank worksites? What would the distance be from the actual tank excavations? Are there paved roadways between the dock and the tank excavations?

A61. JBER does not have a dock for a barge. The nearest port is the Port of Anchorage which has paved roads to JBER.

Q62. Spec. section 33 56 10 – 3.1.1.4 states; Anchor tank to a reinforced concrete anchor pad as indicated through the use of manufacturer's supplied hold down straps. Separate tank from an anchor pad by a minimum of 12 inches of backfill material. Please provide details for these concrete pads.

A62. Hold downs for the UST’s are not required based on geotechnical conditions

Q63. Per page G-102, low profile barriers are required along the northern edge of the construction site. Will 7’ long – 6” tall – 8.5” wide concrete wheel stops suffice for this requirement? If so, will they need to be staked down? These wheel stops weigh 300 lbs. I doubt they will be displaced by jet blast.

A63. Per Note 1/G-102, selected barrier must be easily collapsible OR sturdily attached to the surface to prevent displacement from a jet blast. It is contractor means and methods how to achieve this.

Selected barrier must also meet all the other requirements listed on G-102.

Q64. Note 5 on page C-153 states; ENTIRE SIDEWALK MUST BE DOWELED INTO FOUNDATION PER D5/S-502. Detail D5/S-502 does not appear to be related to this requirement. Is the design intent to dowel the sidewalk into the foundation? If so, please provide details.

A64. Detail D5/S-502 is applicable to note 5 on C-153.

Q65. Can the UST interior coatings be field applied by a 3rd party painting subcontractor?

A65. Interior coatings are a field applied coating to be applied by a contractor meeting the qualification requirements of the coating specification.

Q66. Bid item 001, reflects Build facility 11590 at tank farm #4, and Bid item 002, reflects Build facility 11590 at tank farm #4, Bid item 0010 reflects Build facility 11590 at tank farm #4, Bid item 0011 reflects Build facility 11590 at tank farm #4. All four CLINS reflect build the new facility 11590. Is building 11590 the new filter bldg. to be constructed at the fuel farm 4 site?

A66. Yes

Q67. Is the new retail facility bldg. 11565?

A67. Yes.

Q68. What is the new facility 11589?

A68. 11589 is the new Truck Fillstand for ULSD at Fuel Farm #4.

Q69. Demo drawing D-111, note 9 states “Remove below ground POL pipe, 8” SS, approximately 95 LF. See also detail A1, Fuel farm demolition plan on the same drawing, where as there are two note 9’s, one is for what appears to be the 95 LF of 8” SS pipe and the other note 9, just to the left of the first POL, note 9 is pointing to two other buried lines. Please clarify the extent of the 2 buried lines from the filter building the to the referenced tie in points, their size, product type, pipe type and length of these two additional note 9 lines and the intended scope.

A69. The two 8” SS lines from the filter building towards to the truck fillstand require approximately 95 LF of removal total. Removal limits for these lines start at the filter building and end approximately at the northings/eastings indicated. The exact extent of removal will need to be field located and coordinated with new piping. The other note 9 (callout furthest to east), should not be note 9. It is not currently listed in the demolition items but needs to be added (included in the scope of work). This pipe is part of the transfer line between Tank Farm 3 and Tank Farm 4. This pipe is 8” carbon steel, approximately 116 feet of pipe will need to be removed. Approximate limits of removal are shown on D-101 and D-111, exact pipe location needs to be field located.

Q70. We are having difficulty finding a product to meet the spec for the UST Tanks internal lining.

Would it be possible to find out what paint or paint manufacture this product would come from? If not, then should we quote something that is an equivalent that would be compatible with the fuel being stored?

A70. The coating system specified in UFGS 09 97 13.17 is a suitable alternative provided all other requirements relating to testing/documentation/qualification outlined in 09 97 13.15 are met.

Q71. Unless I am just missing it, the new tanks are provided with 400 series numbers (IE; T-401 etc) the bid schedule for the bid items only lists Facility numbers for the new construction items, is there a schedule or reference key to show what tanks are in as an example Bid item 0006, “Build facility #64”, and so forth.

A71. There is no reference key connecting the numbers listed on the drawings to the facility numbers listed in Bid item 0006. Here is a list with estimated facility number connected to each tank on the drawings.

-T401/Facility 62 (UST 50K GA JP-8 Storage) -T402/Facility 63 (UST 50K GA JP-8 Storage) -T403/Facility 64 (UST 50K GA JP-8 Storage) -T404/Facility 65 (UST 50K GA JP-8 Storage) -T405/Facility 66 (UST 50K GA JP-8 Storage) -T406/Facility 67 (UST 50K GA JP-8 Storage) -T407/Facility 60 (UST 4K GA JP-8 PRT Storage) -T408/Facility 61 (UST 25K GA Diesel Storage)

Q72. For all of the UST’s there does not appear to be any tank hold down provisions to prevent tank up lift. Is the intent to install a concrete base for each of the UST’s for the Hold down provisions to be inserted into the concrete base? If not what are the requirements for potential hold down provisions for each of the UST’s, if any?

A72. Hold downs for the UST’s are not required based on geotechnical conditions.

Q73. Bid units 0001, 0002, 0010, 0011 all contain the phrase “…and build Facility #11590 at Tank Farm 4 in accordance with the Statement of Work.”

Please identify how to split the construction of Facility #11590 between these four bid units.

A73. The CLIN structure only affects the Pre-Award survey and how DLA funds the project. The basis for award is the total price. The Pre-Award survey will only be provided to the government by the apparent low bidder after the bid opening takes place.

Q. 74. Specifications 26 05 00 00.40 para 2.1.1.1 – Rigid Steel Conduit This paragraph states to “provide hot dipped galvanized rigid steel conduit complying with UL 6.

EXCEPT where installed underground, or in corrosive areas, provide polyvinylchloride (PVC), or painted with bitumastic coated rigid steel conduit in accordance with NEMA RN 1.” We could not identify any direction on the drawings for divinations for PVC coated verse galvanized rigid steel conduit (GRSC). As JBER is not located in a highly corrosive environment can the contractor assume that PVC coated conduit is limited to underground applications. We seek clarification as there is a significant cost impact to providing PVC coated verse GRSC.

A74. This will be addressed in the next amendment.

Q75. Specifications 26 05 00 00.40 2.1.1.3 – Can Liquid-tite Flexible Metal Conduit with Listed Fittings be used for this project in a Class 1 Division 2 Location? Per NEC this is an approved method per NEC 501.10 B 2 (4) and common practice in the commercial fuels industry. We seek this clarification because during the site visit, we observed most motors and equipment were connected to the rigid conduit with Class 1 Div 1 flexible metallic whips.

A 75 This will be addressed in the next amendment.

Q76. Drawing sheet G-002 (Drawing Index) – Sheet ED-151 Titled “Fuel Farm #3 Electrical Demolition Plan” was not included in the drawing package. Please provide this drawing sheet.

(It is assumed that the limits of demoli�on and purposed �e in point for the exis�ng comm duct bank is shown on this sheet and is of par�cular interest)

A76. This will be addressed in the next amendment.