FA524023R0018_RFIs Q and A dtd 11-May-2023.pdf

11 May 2023

Notice ID: FA524023R0018 - Solicitation

Project Title: AJJY 21-1002 Replace Aircraft Fire Trainer Facility North Ramp, AAFB Guam

QUESTION AND ANSWER

• Question 1 o Can you please clarify that a tail and high tail engine are not required on the new trainer (reference to paragraphs 2.5.4 and 2.5.5. of the Statement of Work (SOW)).

• Answer 1 o The wing engines also have dams and plumbing installed to simulate running fuel fires. The re-routing of burner systems from the high tail and left forward ground accommodate the Pyrolance. Therefore, the tail and high tail engine are not required on the new trainer.

• Question 2 o Can you please clarify that the Hazardous Material Assessment and Hazardous Material Abatement relate solely to the mitigation and removal of Lead and Asbestos in the existing control tower (reference to paragraphs 2.9 and 2.10 of the SOW).

• Answer 2 o Yes, the Hazardous Material Assessment and Hazardous Material Abatement relate solely to the mitigation and removal of Lead and Asbestos in the existing control tower.

• Question 3 o Can you please confirm that any abatement needed for para 2.10 will be addressed by the issuance of a contract modification, and not to be included in pricing for CLINs 0001 or 0002.

• Answer 3 o Per paragraph 2.10, abatement and remediation shall be done and performed by the contractor as part of a contract modification. Pricing in not included in CLIN 0001 or CLIN 0002.

• Question 4 o Can you please confirm that in the event of a failed hydrostatic test of the propane tank, the cost of replacing the tank will be handled by a contract modification, and not to be included in pricing for CLINs

0001 or 0002.

• Answer 4 o The cost of the hydrostatic testing will be included in CLIN 0001. In the event of a failed hydrostatic testing, the cost to replace the propane tank and related accessories will be included in Bid Option CLIN

0002.

• Question 5 o With reference to the PPFS, it is acceptable for these to be completed by a subcontractor (rather that the Offeror)?

• Answer 5 o It is the prime contractor's (offerors) responsibility to submit past performance fact sheets with their proposal.

• Question 6 o With reference to the PPFS, can you please clarify who is to complete section 3 of the PPFS (is this by us, or by the customer/end-user)? Or is section 3 not relevant for the PPFs and meant only for the PQQs?

• Answer 6 o It is the prime contractor's (offerors) responsibility to complete section 3. This is the contact information for the customer/end-user who will submit the PPQ.

• Question 7 o With reference to the PPQs, it is acceptable for these to be completed by past customers of a subcontractor (rather that the Offeror)?

• Answer 7 o Yes, Section I.L. of the PPQ allows the customer to annotate the contractor's role. Note, Past performance regarding predecessor companies of the offeror and/or subcontractors, key personnel, and subcontractors that will perform will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

• Question 8 o With reference to the PPQs, If these are returned by customer to you, how will you be able to associate returned PQQs to any possible Prime Contractor that plans to use us as a subcontractor?

• Answer 8 o The offeror shall submit a past performance fact sheet that corresponds with each PPQ. To avoid confusion, offerors are encouraged to have the end user/customer note which prime contractor they are submitting on behalf of. Note, Past performance regarding predecessor companies of the offeror and/or subcontractors, key personnel, and subcontractors that will perform will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

• Question 9 o We would like to confirm ESS/MEC is not required.

• Answer 9 o MEC is not required.

• Question 10 o Request for Site Visit Attendance Sheet

• Answer 10 o Attendees at the site visit are as follows: (1) USAF 36 CONS, (2) USAF 36 CES, (3) Pacific Rim Constructors

Inc, (4) Ian Corporation, (5) Fargo Pacific Inc, (6) EMC2 Mechanical Inc, (7) Kirila Fire Training Facilities

Inc, (8) Techni-Con Inc, (9) Reliable Builders Inc, (10) KFT Fire Trainer LLC, (11) Infratech International

LLC, (12) Modern International Inc, (13) Tri-Spec Construction, (14) Pacific Rim Constructors Inc, (15)

Serrano Construction And Development Corp, (16) WM Engineering Services LLC, (17) United

Mechanical, and (18) Sea Pac Engineering.

• Question 11 o Provide as-built drawings

• Answer 11 o As-Builts have been provided as an attachment on the SAM.gov solicitation.

• Question 12 o Provide details on what needs to be included in the composition for the water management system.

• Answer 12 o There is an existing water conservation pond at the project site. The WCP will provide water to fill the burn pit to operating level and performing flushing activities upon completion of training.

• Question 13 o Please provide the material requirement for the safety grating e.g. stainless steel, galvanized steel.

• Answer 13 o See the USAF TO 35E1-2-13-1 Technical Manual Work Package Operation and Maintenance Instructions

Aircraft Fire Training Facility within “Attachment 1 - Statement of Work 23-Jan-2023” on SAM.gov solicitation.

• Question 14 o Statement of Work section 2.4.2 (3) says “All buried LPG piping shall be coated carbon steel”. Statement of Work section 2.5.2 (1) says “All propane piping within the Training Pit shall be 3” stainless steel”.

Statement of Work section 2.4.6 says “Provide and install a new cathodic protection system for all new metallic piping and equipment (other than stainless steel piping and equipment).” UFC-3-570-01 requires cathodic protection on all buried POL piping (UFC 3-570-01 section 2-2 and 2-2.1). If stainless steel is used on any buried training pit piping, is cathodic protection required? Is there an existing cathodic protection system for buried metallic piping, if so can you share the latest inspection report for our use?

• Answer 14 o All underground pipes and its components shall be protected against corrosion using suitable external anti-corrosion coating or painting and cathodic protection system.

• Question 15 o We wish to inquire if there is possible PFAS or HAZMAT soil contamination within the project vicinity or perhaps a requirement for MEC support?

• Answer 15 o SOW for the project is to replace the ARFF Trainer (aircraft mock-up) and repair the footings and raise the ground level under the mock-up to a level slightly higher of the outside ground level and construct a

"wet deck". All soil/rocks shall be re-used and not be disposed of due to possible PFAS contamination.

• Question 16 o Para 1.1: The Statement of Work mentions electric and pneumatic systems for the trainer. Is a pneumatic system required for opening/closing gas valves, or are low voltage electrically controlled valves acceptable?

• Answer 16 o Pneumatic system is required.

• Question 17 o Para 2.2: Please clarify “not negatively impact existing operational capability”?

• Answer 17 o Not negatively impact operational capabilities of flight line. Ensure that required barricades, appropriate signage, and other protective devices are provided around the construction area. Contractor shall coordinate for interruption of utility services. All other actions not involving interruption of services can be conducted during regular working hours. In the event work/project activities other than what is indicated in this project program is to occur simultaneously, contractor shall verify, coordinate, and may be required to phase such work/project activities.

• Question 18 o Para 2.4.1: Are you open to other options for the two pits on the edge of the burn area (i.e. LPG manifolds) or are the electrical cabinets & pneumatic system plans firm?

• Answer 18

• Question 19 o Para 2.4.1: Please clarify the desire/intent for the control tower? The spec reads that we are to design and install a new control tower, but someone mentioned reusing the existing during the site visit. Para

2.5.6 specifies a touchscreen controller, which requires a climate controlled environment, so I assume new and climate controlled, but would like confirmation.

• Answer 19 o KTR shall reuse existing control tower and shall design as per new equipment requirements.

• Question 20 o Para 2.4.4: Is a pneumatic system required or are electrically controlled gas valves acceptable?

• Answer 20

• Question 21 o Para 2.5.2: Please clarify the desired layout of the ground burners within the fuel spill area? As written, different bidders can interpret the requirement differently, i.e. 9, 10 or 11 ground burners.

• Answer 21 o SOW, 2.5.2 ground burners: Ground burners will be in four two-dimensional arrays in each quadrant of the mock-up, with the wings and fuselage establishing the quadrants. Nine, ten or eleven (9-11) ground burners shall be included in each quadrant, with each ground burner having its own pneumatic control valve.

• Question 22 o Is there any concern regarding PFAS or PFOA contamination in the existing soil located within the fire training pit? Does the soil need to be tested prior to beginning work to determine the presence of this contaminate?

• Answer 22 o The soil does not need to be tested. SOW for the project is to replace the ARFF Trainer (aircraft mock-

up) and repair the footings and raise the ground level under the mock-up to a level slightly higher of the outside ground level and construct a "wet deck". All soil/rocks shall be reused and not be disposed of due to possible PFAS contamination.

• Question 23 o During the site walk there appeared to be a portable generator connection with manual transfer switch.

It is recommended a backup power source be provided for the system either through a generator with

ATS, or a portable generator connection with manual transfer switch. Is there a requirement that should be added to the scope of work for this back up system? If so, please provide a generator size for bidding purposes.

• Answer 23 o Generator with ATS is not part of the SOW.

• Question 24 o Section 2.5.1 Wet Deck Training Pit, references a ring of rock between the waterflooded horizontal reinforced concrete surface and the vehicle driving surface surrounding the training pit. What is the purpose of this ring of rock, and is the 6-inch minimum thickness regarding the thickness of the concrete surface within the training pit?

• Answer 24 o The wet deck and the concrete perimeter will be constructed to hold water for extended periods for fire training exercise.

• Question 25 o Typical driving surface around the training pit is 8” thick concrete out to a distance of 80 feet from the training pit edge in order to provide crash vehicle access for training and maneuverability of the vehicles. Is this required for this facility?

• Answer 25 o This is required for the facility, driving surface around the training pit, 6" thick.

• Question 26 o Is the double containment HDPE liner system to remain? and if so when the pit size is increased from present 100 feet to the specified 125’ is the HDPE liner system to be also increased? And does the liner need to be tested or exposed and repairs made to ensure it’s retention abilities.

• Answer 26 o Yes, the HDPE liner system shall remain. Refer to RFI #1.

• Question 27 o Retention pond overflow, presently sheet flows from the lowest point when overflowing. Is there a requirement to divert channel water?

• Answer 27 o The channel must have positive gradient along its full length to allow free drainage. The drain shall have a stable/positive grade along its length.

************NO FURTHER ENTRIES************