Government Responses to RFI 24R0013 Follow up.pdf

Questio n #

Reference Question DET 2 OL-B Response 1 Follow up Question/Comment DET 2 OL-B Response 2

EPA 402-R-93-078,

“Radon Mitigation Standards”, Section 11.4

Section 11.4 of the EPA 402-R-93-078 “Radon Mitigation Standards” recommends performing a Pressure Field Extension (PFE) test, also known as a communication test, when the characteristics of the sub-slab material are unknown, to determine the optimal location and quantity of mitigation systems required. Given the significance of this diagnostic tool in identifying the ideal placement and number of systems, should we assume that a PFE test is required for all units in the project? If not, please clarify under what conditions the PFE test would be considered unnecessary.

DET 2 OL-B: No, Pressure Field Extension (PFE) test require for this project

Understood. We will not include the cost of performing the Pressure Field Extension

(PFE) test in this bid.

However, as a Certified Radon Residential

Mitigation Provider, I must note that the PFE test is a widely accepted industry diagnostic tool. Without conducting a PFE, the placement and quantity of mitigation systems would be selected randomly, which contradicts the principles set by the NRPP and

EPA.

The EPA recommends the PFE test in its

Radon Mitigation Standards (RMS) Section 2.0: "The purpose of the RMS is to provide radon mitigation contractors with uniform standards that will ensure quality and effectiveness in the design, installation, and evaluation of radon mitigation systems in detached and attached residential buildings three stories or less in height." Could you clarify the reasoning behind excluding this

EPA-recommended test?

DET 2 OL-B - To perform this PFE test the housing unit would need to be vacant and hold drill on the floor. Government will not be drilling holes inside the house and inconvenience the resident. If contractor can perform the test without ripping and drilling the inside the home then government will come the test.

Government would only want single unit with slab on grade be tested. No drilling of holes on the floor inside the home.

FYI, government have successful reduce radon reading without peform this PFE test for the past 10 years.

SOW, Section 2.1.f) and 29 CFR 1910.146(b) “Permit-required confined space”

Section 2.1.f) of the SOW requires sealing cracks or leaks underneath the crawl space.

Given that a crawl space is considered a permit-required confined space under 29 CFR 1910.146(b) due to the potential for hazardous atmospheres (e.g., methane and hydrogen sulfide levels above PELs, oxygen deficiency) and other safety risks (e.g., low visibility, slippery surfaces, biological hazards), should we include the cost of training for entrants, as well as the cost for a Confined Space Entry Attendant/Supervisor in our bid? Please confirm if these OSHA-required safety measures are expected to be covered within the scope of work.

DET 2 OL-B: Yes, include the confine training in your bid proposal

This is a partial response to our question. We also asked if the cost of the Confined Space Entry Attendant/Supervisor should be included in the bid, but we received no response on this point. As this is an OSHA and EM 385-1-1 requirement for permit-required confined space entry, we will include the cost of one Entry Attendant per site (in case several entries happen simultaneously) in our bid. We kindly request written confirmation to ensure that all bidding companies include these confined space entry requirements equally. Without this confirmation, there is a risk of unfair bidding if some companies include these costs while others do not. Please confirm in writing.

DET 2 OL-B: Include all your requirement into your bid proposal to include OSHA and EM 385-1-1 requirement for permit-required confined space entry, we will include the cost of one Entry Attendant per site and other requirements as required.

SOW, Section 2.1.f) and 29 CFR 1910.146(d)(9) “Rescue and emergency services”

For operations within the crawl space, where a permit-required confined space entry is anticipated, can we assume that the base’s Fire Department will provide rescue services as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.146(d)(9)? Or should we include the cost of providing our own dedicated rescue team in the bid? Please clarify whether the provision of rescue services by the Fire Department is guaranteed.

DET 2 OL-B: Any mishap or emergency on base/installation shall contact Emergency Response team (Fire Dept (911)). Installation Fire Dept will response and provide rescue service as require and necessary.

Contractor shall include in their bid what they see most appropriate.

N/A

4 SOW, Section 2.1.f)

In reference to the requirement to seal cracks or leaks underneath the crawl space, could you please provide guidance on the estimated number of linear feet to be sealed and the number of buildings involved? This information is necessary to accurately estimate materials and labor for this task.

By breaking down the questions in this way, it allows for each aspect of the inquiry to be addressed clearly, reducing the risk of miscommunication or overlooked details.

DET 2 OL-B: There are 251 units, 23 single units are slab in grade foundation and 2 tower units (no crawl space). 226 units (multiplex) with crawl space and approx. 40 LF/units will need to be sealed (cracks and fracture hairline) for leaks with sealant, caulking or others.

N/A

5 SOW, Section 2.1.g

Section 2.1.g of the SOW requires the installation of interior vents to improve and balance the air pressure inside the quarters.

Could you please clarify if this requirement applies to all units?

Additionally, could you specify the type of vent (e.g., material, design) and the size of the vent that should be installed? This information is critical to ensure that the installed vents meet the necessary performance and safety standards.

DET 2 OL-B: 15% (38UN

government will assist in selection) of the units will required 6" free flow (soffit or gable) vent with cover install on side of the living room, 1 ~ 1.5 feet below the ceiling on exterior wall, away from the AC unit.

N/A

RFI DUE 8/23/24 @ 1300

SOW Section 2.1.g and NFPA 5000 “Building Construction and Safety Code®”

Do we need to comply with NFPA 5000 standards regarding the installation of interior vents as specified in SOW Section 2.1.g?

Specifically, should we follow the requirement that approved and tested firestops must be installed wherever vents or other utilities pass through fire-rated and, in some cases, non-fire-rated walls, floors, and ceilings? Your confirmation will ensure that we meet all necessary fire safety regulations in our installation process.

DET 2 OL-B: All electrical work shall comply with NFPA 5000 code.

N/A

EM 385-1-1 (2024),

Section 22- 3.(2)

Regarding the use of scaffolding on this project, we seek written confirmation that we must adhere to the requirements of EM 385- 1-1 (2024), Section 22-3.(2). This section mandates that the employer must provide training to each employee performing work on a scaffold, with the training conducted by a person qualified in the subject matter to recognize the hazards associated with the specific type of scaffold being used and to understand the procedures necessary to control or minimize those hazards. Could you please confirm that this training requirement applies to all scaffolding work under this contract?

DET 2 OL-B: Yes, standard OSHA requirement employer shall provide Operation Risk Management to include safety requirement on the use of this subject matter “EM 385-1-1 (2024), Section 22-3.(2)”.

N/A

EM 385-1-1 (2024),

Section 22- 4.1.(1) and Section 22- 3.b

EM 385-1-1 (2024), Section 22-4.1.(1) requires that a Competent Person (CP) oversee employees who erect, dismantle, move, or alter scaffolds, and Section 22-3.b further specifies that the Scaffold CP must be trained and possess extensive experience.

Should we provide a CP to be on-site at all times when scaffolds are being erected, used, and dismantled? Confirmation of this requirement is crucial, as it directly impacts our staffing and cost considerations.

DET 2 OL-B: Contractor shall comply EM 385-1-1 (2024), Section 22- 4.1.(1) include it in your cost estimate.

N/A

EM 385-1-1 (2024),

Section 21 “Aerial Lifts and Elevating Work Platforms” and OSHA 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L (Aerial Lifts)

In addition to scaffolding, similar requirements may apply to the use of aerial lifts. Could you please confirm whether the same oversight by a Competent Person (CP), as required for scaffolds under EM 385-1-1 (2024), is also mandated for aerial lift operations as outlined in Section 21 “Aerial Lifts and Elevating Work Platforms”? This clarification will help ensure we are compliant with all safety regulations and can accurately reflect these requirements in our proposal.

DET 2 OL-B: Contractor shall comply with most current EM 385-1-1 Safety and Health Requirements for subject requirement “EM 385-1-1 (2024), Section 21 “Aerial Lifts and Elevating Work Platforms” and OSHA 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L (Aerial Lifts)”

N/A

OSHA 29 CFR

1926.51 “Sanitation”

In accordance with OSHA 29 CFR 1926.51, which outlines sanitation requirements for construction sites, we would like to confirm whether we are required to provide all necessary sanitary facilities for radon mitigation workers on this project.

Specifically, this includes the provision of portable toilets, potable drinking water, non-potable water for cleaning purposes, and appropriate washing facilities.

Ensuring that these facilities are available and compliant with OSHA standards is critical for maintaining the health and safety of workers on-site. Proper sanitation not only mitigates health risks but also aligns with regulatory requirements and best practices in occupational safety. Confirmation of this requirement will allow us to accurately reflect these needs in our project planning and cost estimation.

DET 2 OL-B: Contractor shall include in their cost estimate portable toilets, potable drinking water, non-potable water for cleaning purposes, and appropriate washing facilities to ensure compliance with OSHA, local and other health safety requirements and standard.

N/A

SOW Section 1.6, Table 1.11, UFGS 02 82 13, and

UFGS 02

83 00

The SOW references UFGS 02 82 13 for asbestos abatement but does not mention UFGS 02 83 00 for lead remediation. Is there a specific reason why UFGS 02 83 00 is not included? If this UFGS is intended to be part of the requirements, please note that subsection 1.2.20 of UFGS 02 83 00 defines Paint with Lead (PWL) as any material, including paint, containing lead as determined by a valid laboratory test method. While the SOW Section 1.6 and Table 1.11 indicate that no paint samples are considered Lead- Based Paint (LBP) (with lead content above 0.5% by weight), it is possible that some samples might still contain detectable amounts of lead, classifying them as PWL.

Could you clarify whether UFGS 02 83 00 should be applied in these cases?

DET 2 OL-B: Government did not include the USGS 02 83 00 in the SOW because past LBP sampling on exterior wall have shown results"NEGATIVE" to be less than 0.5% by weight (5,000 mg/kg) or 5,000 ppm per JEGS/EPA definition;

so this is non issue in this project. In addition, the government does not use LBP on housing, see sampling past sampling data’s provide . Contractor can sample and test LBP at there own cost and if LBP is discovered then government will make the appropriate contract modification.

N/A

SOW, “National Environmental Health Association (NEHA) National Radon Proficiency Program”

The SOW references the “National Environmental Health Association (NEHA) National Radon Proficiency Program.”

However, NEHA has not managed the National Radon Proficiency Program since 2012. Can we assume that this reference should be updated to the “American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists (AARST) National Radon Proficiency Program (NRPP)”? This clarification is essential to ensure that all certifications and practices align with current industry standards.

DET 2 OL-B: Government will accept both “National Environmental Health Association” (NEHA) or “American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists (AARST) National Radon Proficiency Program (NRPP).

Contractor needs to be able to show proficiency in the radon program (knowledge, techniques, skill and understanding, etc) to comply with current USAF, Bioenvironmental Engineering Guidebook for Radon Management 3rd Edition (1) and EPA Radon Standard and Practice.

N/A

SOW, 4.1 Designer certification requirement for design engineers: Electrical Area page-24

Since the exact name of the Japanese qualification (1st Class Denkishi or Registered Electrical Engineering Consulting Manager) listed in Experience Matrix table/Electrical is unclear, is it acceptable to provide a "1st Class Denki Sekou Kanrigishi" for this contract ?

DET 2 OL-B: Government will accept 1st Class Denki Sekou Kanrigish for this project.

N/A

SOW, 4.6 Actual Field Investigation: The Contractor shall perform environmental archaeological monitoring in accordance with 718 CES Environmental requierements, page-

Please confirm if archaeological monitoring is required. Digging is very small, shallow and only immediately adjacent to buildings.

Archeaelogical monitoring will add significant effort and cost to this conract.

DET 2 OL-B: No, archaeological monitoring will not be required for this project.

N/A

SOW, 5.3

Performance Time, page-26

If options are not awarded at initial NOA, how much additional time is allowed for procurement of materials for options that are awarded later? Additional procurement time is needed if base and options are not awarded together.

DET 2 OL-B: Government will add additional procurment time for additional options.

N/A

Adam Vance Contracting Officer