FA524024R0007 _RFI_Responses_15AUG24.pdf

Q&A # Reference Question Government Response

The existing runway extends approximately 8,338 feet from the east end to the road intersection at the west end. To reach the new length of 8,500 feet, can it be assumed that the extension will only occur westward, beyond the existing road?

Yes, existing road cuts across the airfield on the 06R end. The 8500' measurement is from the pavement joint with the overrun on the 06R end to the end of pavement on the 24L end.

Portions of the existing runway are concrete pavement. Does the government have any as-built to share with bidders? Are there any thickened edge sections or reinforcement within the concrete pavement?

No as-builts available. There are no thickened edge or reinforcement as these concrete sections were executed as expeditionary repairs.

Is the new 10-foot-wide shoulder included in the new total width of 150 feet x 8500 ft long? In other words, is the new runway 130 feet wide, with an additional two 10-foot-wide shoulders on either side?

Runway width should be 150' wide with addition 10' shoulders on each side culminating in a 170' wide pavement.

4 Please confirm whether runway edge lighting is required. No airfield lighting is required. This is an expeditionary airfield using Visual Flight Rules (VFR) only.

5 Statement of Work Per the scope of work item 4.5.C, new pavement elevations must match the existing elevations. Does the government have a topographic survey of the existing runway?

Yes. Survey elevations were included in the 35% design (Attachment 02) provided.

Some sections of the existing runway are over 210 feet wide (concrete pavement).

These sections will be partially sawcut and demolished to construct the new runway. Can the remaining sections of the existing concrete runway remain in place, or should they be completely removed?

Existing pavement shall be sawcut and remain in place. Industry standard joint seal shall be used along these areas.

It appears the existing runway has a mono-sloped design. Since the RFP requires matching the existing slope, please confirm that the new runway will not have a crown at the center.

New runway will have a 1.5% slope from the center crown as shown in the details on the 35% design (Attachment 02) provided.

During the site visit, we observed at least two underground utility crossings beneath the runway. Can you confirm if any active underground utilities (such as power, communication, or electrical lines) exist across the existing runway?

The Government is not able to confirm the existence of any active underground utilities. The contractor is responsible for conducting field verification and shall consult with the Government PM or Contracting Officer for further direction.

9 36 CONS We respectfully request a 2-week extension of the deadline to September 17, 2024.

The Government does not intend to extend the proposal due date for this solicitation

(FA524024R0007)

FA524024F0007

SAKW 23-5001 Repair Thunder Landing Zone (LZ)

Questions & Answers (Q&A)

Q&A # Reference Question Government Response

10 SOW & 35%

Design

Please reference Attachment 1-Statement of Work. Please provide any existing geotech site investigation reports for the existing runway. From the site visit it appeared that there were core holes in the pavement from a previous site investigation. If no data is available, please provide existing pavement sections for proposers to use as the basis of estimate for demolition and removal of the existing runway as noted in section 4.4-Demolition/Removal Works.

The Government does not have any existing Geotechnical data to provide. The desired pavement sections' dimensions can be found in both the provided Statement of Work and 35% Design. The Statement of Work dictates a full depth repair.

Please reference Attachment 1-Statement or Work. Section 4.4- Demolition/Removal Works paragraph e) states that MEC clearance may be required by the 36th Civil Engineer Squadron. Given that the entire NW Field area is designated “red” or “high likelihood” for MEC in the JRM ESS how should proposers prepare their estimates, should MEC be excluded from proposals and if required proposers will be issued a change order? Is a depth for known prior clearance and construction activity available to bidders as basis of estimate as the depth to start MEC clearance? Please clarify.

The 36 CES requires conducting MEC for all projects. The government currently does not have information regarding the depths for prior clearances and construction activity as requested.

Please reference Attachment 1-Statement or Work. Section 4.4- Demolition/Removal Works paragraph c) states that the Contractor shall remove heavy vegetation and other unsuitable materials that are encroaching on the shoulders. To what limits outside the proposed new runway shoulders should vegetation be cleared? Proposers could assume different limits and quantities without clarification. Please provide a basis of estimate for all Proposers to use in their estimates.

Only minor vegetation clearance is required for this project. This would include any/all vegetation (i.e. grass and weed) that have penetrated the surface of the existing pavement.

13 SOW & 35%

Design

Please reference Attachment 1-Statement of Work. Section 4.1-“Design” indicates that the Contractor shall provide a 100% final design. It goes on to discuss the use of the runway and expected criteria for the design. Further down in this document in section 4.5-“Construction and Restoration Work” AF provides prescriptive pavement section criteria for runway and shoulder pavements and basecourse. Should the criteria found in section 4.5 serve as the basis of estimate for all proposers? Has the Government confirmed that the criteria provided in section 4.5 meet the requirements of section 4.1 ?

The criteria in Section 4.5 and the provided 35% Design shall serve as the basis for all design work.

Refer to attachment 1 and 2.

*** NO FURTHER ENTRIES ***

Q&A for SAM