QandA for RFP Repair FACP MNS - CE Response.pdf

Questions and Answers for RFP FA6633-25-R-0001 Repair FACP & MNS B821 & B870

Contractor shall obtain professional design services (Title I Type A, Title I Type B and Title II Services), provide all supervision, labor, materials and equipment necessary to fully meet all requirements of this Statement of Work, Front-end Specifications, SOW Drawings and all other Contract Documents related to and/or titled: “REPAIR FACP & MNS B821 & B870” at the Minneapolis Air Reserve Station, Minneapolis Minnesota. Both facilities are aircraft maintenance hangars. Electronic PDF and AutoCAD drawings are available. The Construction Manager/ General Contractor is responsible for providing Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the project. The GMP shall be developed in conjunction with the Designer of Record (DOR) and reflect the scope of work indicated on the drawings and specifications developed per Paragraph 1.03. Title II services shall be provided by the DOR.

1. Wiring & Conduit – Based on site conditions, should we assume a full replacement of wiring and conduit, or will selective reuse of existing pathways be acceptable if code compliant?

a. Correct, assume full wiring replacement. If existing conduits are code compliant, they may be reused.

2. Sprinkler/Fire Pumps – For the pump bypass and Building 821 dry-to-wet conversion, does the contractor have full design responsibility, or will the government provide additional criteria/design guidance?

a. The evaluation is not a full design. The evaluation should discuss issues with bypassing pumps, and conversion from dry to wet, and budget costs to make the recommended changes. To be clear, these are two separate tasks; 1) bypass the fire pumps and 2) convert dry to wet in B821.

3. Device Counts & Drawings – Should we treat the drawings as baseline only, with field verification required to determine the final device count?

a. Drawings accurately reflect existing conditions. However, the contractor is responsible to field verify all existing conditions. Final device count shall be determined by UFC and NPFA code requirements. Existing devices may not be in compliance with current UFC and/ or NFPA requirements.

4. As-Builts – Will existing as-built drawings be made available for contractor use, or should we plan to develop complete new as-builts from scratch?

a. As-builts are available for fire alarm system in both buildings. Some drawings are in AutoCAD and some are in PDF. Fire sprinkler drawings are available for both buildings in PDF format only.

5. Phasing Requirements – Must one hangar remain fully operational at all times (i.e., strict one-at-a-time phasing), or is overlapping work permissible if coordinated with BCE?

a. Overlapping of work is permissible, provide that work is not delayed in the first hanger to permit work in the second hangar. The details of the overlapping will need to be discussed to ensure work progresses in the first hangar. The concept of overlapping work is acceptable.

6. Acceptance Testing – Who will have final authority to witness and approve functional testing — BCE, Base Fire Department, or both?

a. BCE, Fire Inspector and Base Fire Alarm SME.

7. LOC Requirements – For Local Operating Consoles, is the government requiring a specific Monaco model (push button + microphone), or will “Monaco-compatible equivalents” be acceptable?

a. Only Monaco branded products are permitted for the LOCs. A sole source letter is available if needed.

8. System Warranty – Is there a minimum warranty period required (e.g., 1 year standard), or should contractors propose their commercial standard warranty terms?

a. Provide manufacturers’ standard warranty for all products.