Attachment 20 - Round 2 of Questions and Answers - Tank Farm.pdf

Round 2 of Questions and Answers Tank Farm 3 and 4 JBER

AQ = Amendment Question AA = Amendment Answer

AQ1. As Meridian is proprietary for the required ECMS scope can an additional CLIN be added to show this as an allowance?

AA1. No. EMCS work should be included in the CLIN that is associated with the facility where that portion of work will be completed.

AQ2. Can the experience requirement for cathodic protection engineer Div 26 42 13.00 20 per the specifications be lowered from 5 years to 2 years experience in underground piping work.

AA2. No

AQ3. Can the experience requirement for the third party lightning protection installer be dropped if the installer is certified by a lightning protection manufacture? Spec section 26 41 calls for 2 years experience.

AA3. No

AQ4. Will there be a lighting contactor or lighting control for the site lights and/or lights mounted to Fuel Far#4 besides the built-in photocells in fixture “C”?

AA4. The existing exterior lighting circuits will need additional controls. Recommend providing a 20A, 277V relay which is controlled by a north-oriented photocell mounted at +10’-0” above finished grade. Use Function Device #RIB2421B and a Tork #2129A type relay and photocell, respectively, as a basis of design.

AQ5. Should we assume that the SAP (in UFP-QAPP format) of Sections 02 61 13 and 31 09 20.00 29 are separate submittals from the Work Plan and Field Sampling and Laboratory Testing Plan of Section 02 65 00?

AA5. Yes

AQ6. Should we assume that the Closure Report of Sections 02 61 13 and 31 09 20.00 29 are separate submittals from the Site Characterization Report of Section 02 65 00?

AA6. Yes

AQ7. 02 65 00, Section 3.63 (c) states to “analyze samples for TPH, BTEX, and TCLP”. Please confirm that this is the analytical suite to be used, given that previous subsections state to conduct tank removal site assessments in accordance with ADEC regulations which will require GRO, DRO, BTEX, and PAHs.

AA7. ADEC regulatory requirements will need to be met.

AQ8. 02 65 00, Section 3.63 (c) states “Soils that contain 50 ppm or more TPH, 10 ppm or more BTEX, or have TCLP reading of 10 ppm of lead or virgin petroleum products are considered contaminated materials.” Please confirm these are the criteria for considering soil contaminated. Will ADEC and/or EPA values not be used to determine if soil is contaminated?

AA8. Contamination levels will be determined by the most stringent requirement.

AQ9. 02 65 00, Section 3.64 states “For every 25 linear feet of product delivery piping, and at every mechanical joint take one soil sample…” Can the number of mechanical joints be provided?

AA9. No

AQ10. Spec 33 56 10 para 2.5.2.6 calls for the vent piping to be standard weight steel pipe with malleable iron fittings. Malleable iron fittings would be a threaded fitting. Drawing sheet M-507 detail A4 is reflective of weld type pipe. Drawing sheet EC503 shows that the vent pipes are to be catholically protected. Please confirm that the specification is correct and that the vent piping for tanks 401-406 should be carbon pipe with threaded malleable iron fittings.

AA10. Spec 33 56 10 para 2.5.2.6 refers to the vent piping for the Product Recovery Tank (T-407) only.

Malleable iron fittings may not be required for the PRT as the vent piping extends directly upward from the tank. The vent piping for Tanks T-401 through T-406 (as shown in Detail A4 on sheet M-507) must be welded carbon steel pipe as indicated on the drawings.

AQ11. This is a follow up question / clarification to the USAF’s responses to Question # 01 (Cyber Security) within Amendment 01:

The response appeared to confirm that the requirements that UFC 4-010-06 should be applicable, but offered no specific direction if the USAF or DOR would be providing an amendment or direction to incorporate this into the design. The first question was an attempt to point out this omission from the contract documents, as it is a significant cost impact. UFC- 4-010-06 describes the requirements for incorporating cybersecurity into the design of the facility and its specific requirements.

Please confirm that the USAF intends to include UFC 4-010-06 into the projects design and offer a Cyber Security Spec section that is applicable to the specific project and JBER requirements?

AA11. Cyber Security requirements will be met by the following methods for this project.

-Control systems are located within a DoD installation that implements physical security to manage risk and access to the systems is protected by these inherited security controls.

-DDC equipment will be connected to the JBER EMCS system that meets all cyber security requirements.

-Tank Monitoring Systems for this project have an approved sole requirement with these required systems being approved by DLA/DOD to meet cyber security requirements.

AQ12. Previous Q&A #40

The answer for question #40 provided the steel wall thickness for Tanks 49 and 50. These tanks are located at tank farm 5 and we do not believe they provide any relevancy to the subject project and are not a good basis for assumed steel thickness as they are from the 2000’s era and the tanks of interest are 1940’s era. We believe that these tanks are likely thicker than 3/8” and would like to calculate estimated weights for demolition purposes.

Please provide the steel thickness of the tanks at tank farm 3 and 4 to be removed by this project.

AA12. Assumed original Metal Thickness is 0.500 inches. Measure Thickness from the last out of service inspection ranged from 0.436 to 0.473 inches.

AQ13. Question 45 – advised that it was unknown if the ODPCP plan will be a minor or major amendment.

There is a notable difference in costs between a “minor and major” amendment to JBER’s plans under 18 AAC

75.415. Is JBER subjected to the public comment period per 18 AAC 75.455?

AA13. JBER has an Integrated Spill Plan (ICP), which means JBER has an approved SPCC/FRP and ODPCP plan.

So, both the EPA and ADEC will need to review and approve the amendment.

Once the amendment has been submitted to ADEC they will be the agency to determine if it will need to go out for public comments. Also, I’m not aware of a notable difference in the costs between a “minor and major” amendment. Once the applications is submitted with all the information request by ADEC/EPA it should be the same cost.

AQ14. In amendment #1 the prior spec section was removed and replaced in its entirety. We could not locate any flagged changes (usually captured by bolt print with an amendment #). Could the government confirm that specification modifications were limited to the addition of new specification sections?

AA14. No, additional bid time was given to contractor to account for review of new specifications.

AQ15. Amendment #1 provided for a revised specification package which included additional specification sections. Included in this was spec 01 45 00.15 10 Resident Management System Contractor Mode (RMS).

This is commonly a NAVY or USACE program. Please confirm that this will indeed be the system used to support the administrative management of this contract. If not please advise what system will be utilized for this management process if known.

AA15. The government does not intend to use RMS. All submittals will be submitted on a AF 3000.

AQ16. Spec section 31 09 20.00 29; para 3.9 Spec 31 09 20.00 29 para 1.2.2 “Available Data” and para 3.9 “Attachments” makes references to the “excerpt of JBER Environmental Restoration Atlas”. We could not find this attached to the subject specification section. Please provide.

AA16. Please see attachment 19

AQ17. Reference Sheet D-151 Note 23 & Sheet E151. Note 13 on Sheet D-151 directs the contractor to remove the existing transformer west of the exiting TF-3 Filter Building (B/11567). Sheet E-151 directs the contractor to provide a transformer south of the new Retail Building (B/11565). Please confirm the existing transformer is to not to be reused and the contractor is to provide an new transformer south of B/11565. If the existing transformer is not to be reused, will JBER take possession when removed. If not, please confirm the existing transformer does not contain PCB’s.

AA17. Provide new transformer and JBER will take possession of the removed transformer.

AQ18. If the transformer at tank farm 3 is already a 120/208V 75kva or larger, can it be salvaged for relocation and reuse?

AA18. Provide new transformer and return removed one to government.

AQ19. If practical can a section of the existing 12kv conduit to tank farm 3 be reused?

AA19. No

AQ20. There is nothing in the contract specifications or drawings indicating that the 12va conduits are to be concrete encased. Please confirm that conduits do not need to be concrete encased below roadways.

AA20. Install all exterior electrical power distribution per requirements of UFC 3-550-01. As noted in section 3-11.4.1 Directional boring is authorized for crossing under roads so in this location concrete encasement would not be required.

AQ21. If the new 12kv conduit must be installed all the way back to the switch cabinet will the contractor be allowed to trench across Slammer, or will the road crossing have to be bored?

AA21. If Slammer crossing is required, then boring will be required.

AQ22. Reference: C-114 Note 6. - At tank farm 4 the contractor is to remove the existing transformer to adjust the elevation and provide a new transformer pad. Is it known if there is a slack loop at the existing transformer? If the 12 kv conductors reach the transformer bushing new elevations can the existing wire be reused, or will the contractor be required to pull new in new conductors?

AA22. Unknown if there is a slack loop. New conductors will be required.

AQ23. Should we assume that the SAP (in UFP-QAPP format) of Sections 02 61 13 and 31 09 20.00 29 are separate submittals from the Work Plan and Field Sampling and Laboratory Testing Plan of Section 02 65 00?

AA23. Yes

AQ24. Should we assume that the Closure Report of Sections 02 61 13 and 31 09 20.00 29 are separate submittals from the Site Characterization Report of Section 02 65 00?

AA24. Yes

AQ25. 02 65 00, Section 3.63 (c) states to “analyze samples for TPH, BTEX, and TCLP”. Please confirm that this is the analytical suite to be used, given that previous subsections state to conduct tank removal site assessments in accordance with ADEC regulations which will require GRO, DRO, BTEX, and PAHs.

AA25. ADEC regulatory requirements will need to be met.

AQ26. 02 65 00, Section 3.63 (c) states “Soils that contain 50 ppm or more TPH, 10 ppm or more BTEX, or have TCLP reading of 10 ppm of lead or virgin petroleum products are considered contaminated materials.”

Please confirm these are the criteria for considering soil contaminated. Will ADEC and/or EPA values not be used to determine if soil is contaminated?

AA26. Contamination levels will be determined by the most stringent requirement.

AQ27. 02 65 00, Section 3.64 states “For every 25 linear feet of product delivery piping, and at every mechanical joint take one soil sample…” Can the number of mechanical joints be provided?

AA27. No

AQ28. PCB containing materials with >50ppm PCB content are considered a TSCA hazardous waste. Will all personnel handling these PCB materials be required to have HAZWOPER 40 hour certification?

AA28. Follow OSHA/EPA requirements.

AQ29. Notification to the EPA is required whenever TSCA PCBs are removed, transported, stored, etc. Does this site currently have a TSCA ID number?

AA29. The site currently does not have a TSCA ID number. Note from Environmental – PCB containing materials, if results are below 50ppm, the PCB-containing materials still cannot be disposed of in landfills in Alaska and must be shipped to the lower 48. There are no landfills in Alaska that accept PCB waste above 1ppm.

AQ30. For bidding purposes, if the PCB containing paint or sealants are removed from the substrates, can the contractor assume the remaining substrate is not contaminated by PCBs?

AA30. No

AQ31. The paints associated with the canopy structures were not analyzed for PCB content (Table 3, Attachment 13). For bidding purposes, should the contractor assume the canopy structures do or do not have PCB contamination?

AA31. Canopy structures were constructed within the past 20 years so assume that they do not have PCB contamination.

AQ32. Drawing E-511 indicates feeder "15KV" is to be extended to the relocated 500KVA transformer. Please provide an estimated length and cable type for this feeder.

AA32: Intent is to accommodate potential changes to grading that may affect the transformer, but the transformer is not to move. Assume for bidding purposes that contractor will need to provide approximately 5’ of 15KV to match existing cable in 4”C. Electrician is responsible for coordinating with civil for exact extent of any changes to primary feed as a result of grading.

AQ33. Please provide as-built drawings for the existing tank farm control system(s).

AA33. Please see Attachment 18

AQ34. Refer to drawing E-502, detail B1. Please provide a list of existing telecommunications equipment to be salvaged for reinstallation.

AA34. Contractor will have to field verify and coordinate with 673 Comm Squadron.

AQ35. Do we know the LF of joint for sealant?

AA35. No

AQ36. Are water ways required in the anti-slip coatings?

AA36. Containment inlets and remote containment basins do not need to have anti-slip coatings. Provide anti-slip coatings on containment slab and drip pads as indicated by note 4 on C-113.

AQ37. Any coating required in the vaults?

AA37. Coatings are required inside the UST vaults. Coatings are not required in the Remote Containment Basin vaults.

AQ38. Is there any existing coating on any of the surfaces that are not new concrete?

AA38. Yes

AQ39. Can the government provide scope of work for Meridian Systems and define what control interfaces and gateways need to be provided by the contractor.

AA39. HVAC monitoring and generator monitoring required.

AQ40. Is it anticipated that shop drawings for the control system be stamped by a professional engineer?

AA40. Yes

AQ41. Will the Engineer of Record be involved with construction-phase project administration to support response to contractor RFIs and submittals?

AA41. The intent is to have the Engineer of Record supporting this contract for Title II Services.

AQ42. Will contractor-provided seismic calculations and drawing submittals by a registered professional engineer be required?

AA42. Yes, required on drawings submitted by the contractor.

AQ43. Is it anticipated that Meridian Systems will provide integration support?

AA43. This is between the prime and sub-contractor.

AQ44. Is it anticipated that the selected contractor will have to perform any cyber security on existing systems the new controls systems are being integrated with?

AA44. Existing systems already meet cyber security requirements and have device certifications.

AQ45. With the upcoming Independence Day holiday, will the Government consider extending the bid date?

AA45. The government will extend the bid date for this requirement.

AQ46. The project plans may not show all the required dielectric gaskets and unions to electrically isolate the USTs and underground piping. Please confirm that the contractor is to provide all additional electrical isolation devices as needed to achieve effective electrical isolation regardless of if they are specifically identified on the design drawings?

AA46: Yes, contractor will be responsible to ensure that proper electrical isolation is installed.

AQ47. We could not find where it is specifically required to conduct CP testing on the existing POL pipelines near the modified tank farms, as part of post construction / commissioning. Please advise if this is required considering the intrusion that the contractor will have to the site.

AA47. CP testing required on new components only.

AQ48. Specification 02 65 00 Under Ground Storage Tank Removal-

This specification appears to be specific to the removal of the existing underground storage tanks to be removed. Amendment #1 Q&A #20 clarified that the contractor is responsible for the stockpiling, sampling and transportation and disposal of contaminated soil per the quantities of para 3.6.3,e.

These were 2,000 Cubic yards at Fuel Farm # 4 and 2,500 cubic yards at Fuel Farm #3. Is it correct to assume that these identified quantities are specific to the removal of the underground tanks at each location?

AA48. No, quantities are for all excavated materials.

AQ49. Amendment #1 added specification 02 61 13 “Excavation and Handling of Contaminated Material” and 31 09 20.00 29 “Field Screen Testing of Soils for Chemical Contamination”. Please confirm that these two spec sections apply to the complete project site with the exception of the work directly related to the tank removals in which case 02 62 13 shall be substituted for 02 65 00 (Underground Storage Tank Removal).

AA49. The more specific specification (02 65 00) is not a substitute for the other sections. If there is a conflict between the two, the more stringent shall apply.

AQ50. Specification 02 61 13 “Excavation and Handling of Contaminated Material” para 1.2 states the following: “The contractor will be responsible for sampling and disposal of all contaminated soils. Unlike spec 02 65 00 (specific to the tank removal efforts) there is no defined quantity for the contractor to assume or limit them to. Does this mean that the contractor is responsible for sampling and disposal of all contaminated soils generated from other site work that is excavated outside the direct efforts of the tank removals? Would the government consider providing a not to exceed volume for the contractor for the general site work as they did for the Tank Removal Portion?

AA50. NTE volumes are for all excavated material.

AQ51. Specification 02 65 00 para 3.6.3(d) states that if the site is a RCRA-designated CAMU, containerization until further disposition. Is this site a RCRA designated CAMU?

AA51. Not designated CAMU at this time.

AQ52. Specifications 02 65 00 and 02 61 13. Both specification sections reference RCRA metals. Is testing for RCRA metals required? Is the contractor responsible for stockpiling, sampling, and disposal of RCRA contaminated soils? This is a huge possible unknown cost impact, as soils cannot be disposed of and treated locally.

AA52. Yes.

AQ53. Spec 26 32 13.00 20 (Single Operation Generator Sets para 2.2.4.2(a) calls for fuel tanks with a minimum capacity of 72 hours of run time at full load. Spec section 26 32 15.00 “Engine Generator Set Sationary 15-2500 KW with Auxiliaries” was added in amendment #1. Para 2.6.3(a) calls for fuel tanks with minimum capacity of 24 hours of run time. Please advise which is required for the standby generator.

Should 26 32 13.00 20 have been removed with the inclusion of spec 26 31 15.00? Please confirm both specs are applicable.)

AA53. 72 hours is the minimum run-time capacity.

Questions in Amendment 1 and not Answered:

Q74. 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. JBER is not considered a corrosive area, so unless an area has a specific corrosive risk, polyvinylchloride or bitumastic coated rigid steel conduit is not required.

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.

A75. Conduit and fittings must be rated for the classification of the space and in accordance with manufacturer’s installation instructions.

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 demolition and purposed tie in point for the existing comm duct bank is shown on this sheet and is of particular interest)

A76. Drawing is now attached to the invitation.