Pre-Award RFIs - FANG Parking Structures as of 8-10-2026.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 38 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA664826Q0009
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) document for Pre-Award Requests for Information (RFI) related to solicitation FA6648-26-Q-0009 for the design and build of covered parking structures for fighter aircraft at Homestead Air Reserve Base in Homestead, Florida. The RFI responses were submitted as of August 10, 2026, with responses consolidated from multiple vendors including Cocoon, Inc., Fortress Fabric Structures, Bloomberg, DCR Services & Construction, HSCC, Cape Fox, and Paradise Awnings.
The Q&A document addresses 90 substantive inquiries organized by reference paragraph, date submitted, government response date, and responding government official. Key topics covered include: past performance evaluation criteria (allowing subcontractor and teaming partner experience to satisfy requirements), confirmation that this is a brand-new requirement with no incumbent, existing pavement specifications (12.5-inch concrete apron), foundation and structural design requirements, aircraft clearance specifications per UFC 3-260-01, wind load design criteria (180 mph ultimate three-second gust at Risk Category III), lightning protection system requirements per AFMAN 32-1065 and NFPA 780, membrane specifications and Miami-Dade County color requirements, design phase submittal schedules within a 365-calendar-day period of performance, Davis-Bacon wage determination applicability, CMMC Level 2 cybersecurity certification or NIST SP 800-171 assessment score of 110 requirement for award eligibility, site access protocols requiring 72-hour advance notice and REAL ID compliance, government-provided 11,000 square feet of laydown space with optional additional 5,000 square feet, FAA obstruction evaluation filing contractor responsibility, and alternative CLIN structure proposals. The document reflects active coordination between government and industry on technical, scheduling, and contractual matters with responses from the Contracting Officer (Sandy Guite) and Civil Engineer (Ivan Marquez).
View the file
Other files
Show all 17
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions & Answers
| RFI # | VENDOR | QUESTIONS | REF PARAGRAPH | DATE ENTERED | DATE SUBMITTED | RESPONSE DATE | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE | NAME and TITLE of RESPONDEE |
| 1 | DCR Services & Construction, Inc. | Question: The solicitation requires offerors to provide 2-4 similar projects in scope and magnitude completed by the offeror's firm over the past three years. Please confirm whether offerors may submit relevant project experience and past performance from proposed key subcontractors, specialty subcontractors, design partners, specialty manufacturers, or teaming partners that will perform a significant role in contract performance. |
If allowable, please clarify whether subcontractor/team member experience may satisfy the past performance requirement or only supplement the prime contractor's experience, and whether the submitted firm must perform a minimum percentage or primary portion of the related work.
Reason for Inquiry: This clarification will assist offerors in preparing compliant past performance submissions and selection of my Design/Build team. Solicitation Eval Criteria 27-Jul-26 27-Jul-26 28-Jul-26 Past performance regarding predecessor companies of the offeror and/or subcontractors, key personnel, and subcontractors who will perform a significant role in contract performance will satisfy past performance requirements. Past performance evaluation criteria within the solicitation has been updated accordingly.
| Prime contractor performance is subject to limitations within RFO Clause 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting (Deviation 2026-O0038) found within the model contract. | Contracting Officer, Sandy Guite | ||
| 2 | Bloomberg | We would like to know if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services. |
| If not brand new, could you please provide the current / previous contract number? | Requirement History Inquiry | 27-Jul-26 | 27-Jul-26 | 28-Jul-26 | This is a brand New Requirement, no previous contract information is available. | Contracting Officer, Sandy Guite | |||
| 3 | Fortress Fabric Structures | What is the thickness of the existing apron/ramp substrate? Confirm existing apron/ramp is formed of concrete. Is the substrate thickness uniform? | Requirement General | 03-Aug-26 | 03-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | Existing apron is approximately 12.5 inch thick concrete. The pavement thickness should be relatively uniform throughout the apron. | Civil Engineer, Ivan Marquez | |
| 4 | Fortress Fabric Structures | May I drill a 7/8" diameter test hole in the existing apron and refill it with SikaFlex after taking a measurement? |
| A test will have to be made at some point. This is critical as bespoke foundations will raise the cost significantly over anchoring to existing concrete. Our last USAF site had 14” thick concrete so there was ample strength there for anchoring. No cutting or excavating required. If your concrete is only 6” thick for example, then we will need bespoke foundations. Fulling a discreet test hole with SIKA FLEX is typical. | Requirement General | 03-Aug-26 | 03-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | The canopy foundation system shall act independently from the existing pavement. Existing pavement thickness is approximately 12.5 inches; however, pavement reinforcement plan is unknown. Any cores and testing will need to be done by a professional testing company. Contractor will be responsible for obtaining any reports or surveys they will need for their design. | Civil Engineer, Ivan Marquez | |||
| 5 | Cocoon, Inc. | Post Award Site Investigation Will the government furnish existing geotechnical reports, boring logs, pavement cores, or as-built drawings for the proposed footprint area? | Requirement General | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | ||||
| 6 | Cocoon, Inc. | Post Award Site Investigation Identify the existing pavement type and section within the proposed footprints, and confirm whether foundations may be installed through existing pavement and the required pavement restoration standard under UFC 3-260-02. | Requirement General | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | The existing pavement is 12.5 inch concrete. The contractor will need to determine how the foundation is installed and what pavement restoration will be required to meet scope. | CEC | |
| 7 | Cocoon, Inc. | Post Award Site Investigation Confirm typical processing time for base access requests for contractor and subcontractor personnel. | Contract Administration General | 03-Aug-26 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | Request for base access must be submitted through the contracting office for sponsorship and routing for processing; our visitor center requires requests be submitted 72-hours in advance of need, it is therefore recommended you submit to contracting at least 5 business days in advance of need. Please note, personnel must wait until they have been fully approved and notified by this office before attempting to access the installation. This protocol is essential to ensure compliance and to prevent delays or issues with installation access. | ||
| REAL ID Compliance went into effective 7 May 2025, when an individual comes to pick up a base pass or presents a temp pass and their ID at the gate they will need to have a REAL ID or risk being turned away at the gate. A drivers license with “TEMPORARY” on it is not REAL ID Compliant and these individual WILL NOT be allowed access to the installation. Due to staffing shortages, non-US citizens or permanent residents requiring a higher-level background check, are unable to be processed until further notice. Contractors, please factor in these risks when scheduling and planning contract performance | Contracting Officer, Sandy Guite | ||||||||
| 8 | Cocoon, Inc. | Post Award Site Investigation Paragraph 5.23 requires government escort for uncredentialed subcontractor personnel. Confirm the expected availability of government escorts and whether escort limitations will constrain daily work hours. (Also applies to CLINs 0009 through 0016.) | PWS 5.23 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | See response to RFI#7 for subcontractor base access. Contractor will need to request a government escort 72-hour in advance. | CEC | |
| 9 | Cocoon, Inc. | Paragraph 5.0 calls for "covered parking structures" for two aircraft and Figure 3 is annotated "(x2)." Confirm whether the requirement is two independent single-bay structures or one two-bay structure. | PWS 5.0 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Figure 3 is a conceptual layout. Designer of Record will need to determine whether to design two independent single-bay structures or one two-bay structure that meets the PWS requirements. | CEC | |
| 10 | Cocoon, Inc. | Paragraph 5.0 places the work "approximately within the bounds of the green box, labeled Overflow Parking" in Figure 2, but the conceptual layout in Figure 3 shows the two footprints in a different, staggered position on the ramp. Confirm which figure reflects the intended location. | PWS 5.0 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Figure 2 is the parking area where the structures will be located. Figure 3 is a conceptual layout of the preferred parking spots we would like the sunshades to be located. Government would be open to other locations within the parking area as long as the contractor can provide reasoning for the change. | CEC | |
| 11 | Cocoon, Inc. | Is there a maximum permitted plan footprint or overall height for each structure? Figure 3 General Note 1 states all measurements are approximate and require field verification, so no dimension can be taken from that figure. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Overall dimensions needs to be designed to meet the clearances identified in part 5.1 of the PWS | CEC | ||
| 12 | Cocoon, Inc. | Will aircraft be towed in and out, or will they taxi under power into and out of the covered position? This determines end-bay column placement and required open ends. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Aircraft typically taxi under power. | CEC | ||
| 13 | Cocoon, Inc. | Given the ACA alert mission, is there a required rapid-egress or launch time under the structure that constrains clear opening width or requires an unobstructed departure path? | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Opening widths shall meet the horizontal and vertical clearances identified in section 5.1 of the PWS | CEC | ||
| 14 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm the required orientation of each structure relative to the taxilane centerline and the prevailing sun angle. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Structures should be oriented to aligned with the taxilane and meet the required clearance with the adjacent parking spots. | CEC | ||
| 15 | Cocoon, Inc. | Table 5.1.2 specifies clearances from doors and walls, but paragraph 5.3 requires a non-enclosed structure with no doors or walls. Confirm which columns of Table 5.1.2 govern the design of an open structure, and whether the door and wall values are to be applied to the column line and end frames. | PWS Table 5.1.2 & PWS 5.3 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Wall clearances shall apply to the columns and frames or any attached equipment to the frames. See UFC 3-260-01 for additional information on clearances. | CEC | |
| 16 | Cocoon, Inc. | Table 5.1.2 shows no value for wing tip to roof framing. Confirm that no vertical clearance is required at the wing tip, or provide the required value. | PWS Table 5.1.2 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | For the aircraft in the PWS, the vertical clearance from the roof framing will typically depend on the tail. See UFC 3-260-01 for information on clearances. | CEC | |
| 17 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm the minimum clear height under the lowest roof framing member is 28.8 feet, derived from the 18.8 foot composite aircraft height plus the 10 foot vertical tail to roof clearance. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | According to the dimensions provided in the PWS, the minimum height of the roof framing or any hanging equipment will be 28.8 feet. See UFC 3-260-01 table 6-1 for more information on clearances. | CEC | ||
| 18 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm whether the required clearances are measured to the lowest structural member, the lowest point of the membrane under design deflection, or the lowest appurtenance including lightning protection air terminals and conductors. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Vertical clearances shall be measured from lowest point of frame or hanging equipment. Horizontal clearances shall be measured from the columns/framing or any attached equipment. See UFC 3-260-01 table 6-1 for more information on clearances | CEC | ||
| 19 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm whether clearances are measured with the aircraft on gear at maximum gross weight, at empty weight, or in a jacked condition. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | See UFC 3-260-01 for more information on clearances | CEC | ||
| 20 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm the design wind speed and exposure category the government expects. Our reading of ASCE 7-22 for the site is 180 mph ultimate three-second gust at Risk Category III, Exposure C. Confirm whether the government has a site-specific exposure determination for the ramp. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Calculate wind loads according to PWS section 5.2.1 | CEC | ||
| 21 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm Risk Category III is directed for an unoccupied, non-enclosed shade structure notwithstanding ASCE 7-22 Table 1.5-1. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Calculate wind loads according to PWS section 5.2.1 | CEC | ||
| 22 | Cocoon, Inc. | ASCE 7-22 Chapter 32 requires tornado load evaluation for Risk Category III and IV buildings in the tornado-prone region, which includes this site. Confirm whether the tornado load case must be evaluated and documented, or whether the government accepts that the 180 mph wind case governs. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Calculate loads according to PWS section 5.2.1 | CEC | ||
| 23 | Cocoon, Inc. | Where the Florida Building Code, 8th Edition High Velocity Hurricane Zone provisions and ASCE/SEI 7-22 differ, confirm which governs. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | The more strict requirement governs | CEC | ||
| 24 | Cocoon, Inc. | Where UFC 3-301-01 and the Florida Building Code HVHZ provisions differ, confirm which governs. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | The more strict requirement governs | CEC | ||
| 25 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm the allowable lateral drift and vertical deflection criteria, and the wind mean recurrence interval to be used for serviceability checks. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Designer of Record will need to determine based on the applicable codes and regulation identified in the PWS | CEC | ||
| 26 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm Seismic Design Category A applies and that no seismic detailing requirements govern. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Design to codes and standards required by the PWS. HARB is a Seismic A Zone. | CEC | ||
| 27 | Cocoon, Inc. | Paragraph 5.4 states the roof shall provide protection from the sun. Define the required performance quantitatively. | PWS 5.4 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Statement is just to address that while the membrane for the roof needs to be penetrable, it will still need to provide shading to the parking area. | CEC | |
| 28 | Cocoon, Inc. | Identify the authority having jurisdiction for plan review and permitting: the Department of the Air Force, Miami-Dade County, or both. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Plan reviews and permitting will be done by HARB | CEC | ||
| 29 | Cocoon, Inc. | Regarding the FAA 7460-1 Obstruction Evaluation / Airport Airspace Analysis required by paragraph 5.30, confirm whether the government has already initiated the filing, and confirm the government will sponsor or endorse the contractor filing. | PWS 5.3 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Contractor is responsible for initiating, coordinating, and obtaining any required permits and determinations. Government can sponsor or endorse the filings as needed. | CEC | |
| 30 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm the proposed structures do not penetrate airfield imaginary surfaces under UFC 3-260-01 given an overall height on the order of 35 feet adjacent to an active taxiway, and confirm whether an airfield waiver is anticipated and who is responsible for obtaining it. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Contractor is responsible for obtaining all permits and waivers | CEC | ||
| 31 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm the required taxiway and taxilane lateral clearance criteria applicable to the structures under UFC 3-260-01. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | All clearance requirements for the taxiway and taxilanes are applicable to the proposed structures. See UFC 3-260-01 for clearance information. | CEC | ||
| 32 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm the government will accept a delegated design arrangement in which the structure manufacturer's Florida-registered Professional Engineer seals the superstructure drawings and calculations, and the prime contractor's Florida-registered Designer of Record seals the foundations, civil, and electrical drawings, with a single Designer of Record coordinating the package. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Each discipline must be signed and sealed by a FL Professional Engineer competent in the respective disciplines. One set of drawings signed by one specific engineer will be rejected. | CEC | ||
| 33 | Cocoon, Inc. | Paragraph 5.13 requires all cover sheets to be signed and stamped by a principal of the firm who is a registered Professional Engineer or Architect. Confirm whether that principal must also be registered in Florida. | PWS 5.13 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | DOR shall be a state of Florida registered Professional Engineer. | CEC | |
| 34 | Cocoon, Inc. | Paragraph 5.7 states lighting is not applicable and paragraph 5.8 states electrical is not applicable, yet paragraph 5.13 requires electrical discipline drawings and paragraph 5.6 requires a complete lightning protection system. Confirm the electrical scope is limited to lightning protection and grounding, and that no lighting is required under or on the structures. | PWS 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.13 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Electrical scope is limited to the lightning protection and independent aircraft grounding systems. | CEC | |
| 35 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm whether a design charrette, kickoff design conference, or over-the-shoulder reviews are expected in addition to the four formal submittals in Technical Exhibit 2. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | See section 1.4.8 Post Award Conference/Periodic Progress Meetings for | CEC | ||
| 36 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm whether the government will accept electronic-only submittals in lieu of the hard copy drawing sets and specification binders required by Technical Exhibit 2. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Government will accept electronic submittals but will need to provide a signed and seal hard copy of the final construction documents. | CEC | ||
| 37 | Cocoon, Inc. | Paragraph 5.3 requires calculations for all structural elements "excluding the roof" to be signed and sealed, while paragraphs 5.2.1, 5.11.1, 5.12, and 5.13 require all structural drawings and calculations to be signed and sealed. Confirm whether the roof framing and membrane calculations require a Florida Professional Engineer seal. | PWS 5.3, 5.2.1, 5.11.1, 5.12, 5.13 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Roof framing and membrane calculations will require a Florida PE signature and seal | CEC | |
| 38 | Cocoon, Inc. | Paragraph 5.5 requires a duplex coating system for structural steel. Define the required system: confirm hot-dip galvanizing to ASTM A123 with a specified minimum zinc coating thickness, plus the required topcoat system, target dry film thickness, and the ISO 12944 corrosivity category and durability class to be met. | PWS 5.5 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | ||||
| 39 | Cocoon, Inc. | Paragraph 5.6 cites AFI 32-1065 while the applicable publications table cites AFMAN 32-1065. Confirm the correct reference. *RFI will govern the lightning protection calculations required by paragraph 5.6 at the 65% submittal, and carry forward to CLIN 0015. | PWS 5.6 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | AFMAN32-1065 has superceded AFI 32-1065. Contractor shall utilize AFMAN32-1065 | CEC | |
| 40 | Cocoon, Inc. | Paragraph 5.6 cites NFPA 780 (2017). Confirm whether the 2017 edition governs or whether the most recent edition applies, consistent with the instruction that the contractor verify the most recent publications. *RFI will govern the lightning protection calculations required by paragraph 5.6 at the 65% submittal, and carry forward to CLIN 0015. | PWS 5.6 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Most recent NFPA code shall govern. (2026 edition) | CEC | |
| 41 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm the required lightning protection level and rolling sphere radius, and confirm whether the parked aircraft must fall entirely within the zone of protection. *RFI will govern the lightning protection calculations required by paragraph 5.6 at the 65% submittal, and carry forward to CLIN 0015. | PWS 5.6 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | This will be determined by the DOR. | CEC | |
| 42 | Cocoon, Inc. | Paragraph 5.6.2 requires all ground rods, conductors, roof conductors, and down conductors to be copper. Confirm the government's expectation for isolating or transitioning copper conductors from galvanized steel framing to prevent galvanic corrosion in this coastal environment, and confirm bimetallic connectors are acceptable. *RFI will govern the lightning protection calculations required by paragraph 5.6 at the 65% submittal, and carry forward to CLIN 0015. | PWS 5.6.2 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Designer of Record to determine the applicable method of connecting the copper elements to the structure in order to prevent any damage to the steel framing | CEC | |
| 43 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm the required earth resistance value for the lightning protection and aircraft grounding systems and the test method to be used for acceptance. *RFI will govern the lightning protection calculations required by paragraph 5.6 at the 65% submittal, and carry forward to CLIN 0015. | PWS 5.6 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Lightning protection design shall conform with the criteria and regulations identified in the PWS section 5.6. UFC 3-575-01 and AFMAN 32-1065 references the earth resistance values and approved testing methods | CEC | |
| 44 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm whether the AutoCAD DWG deliverable requirement of paragraph 5.13 applies only to the design drawing set, or also to manufacturer shop and fabrication drawings. | PWS 5.13 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Only design drawings need to be submitted in DWG format. | CEC | |
| 45 | Cocoon, Inc. | The design phases and government review periods in Technical Exhibit 2 total 199 calendar days of the mandatory 365-day period of performance. Confirm whether the government will permit release of long-lead material procurement and fabrication prior to acceptance of the Issued for Construction package, and confirm whether government review durations exceeding the stated windows will result in an extension of the period of performance. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | The government does not recommend material or equipment that has not been approved by the government be released for procurement or fabrication, should the contractor choose to do so, they do so at thier own risk. If the contractor identifies any long lead items that will impact the PoP or government reviews impact the POP, the government will allow for no cost pop extensions to accommodate. | Contracting Officer, Sandy Guite | ||
| 46 | Cocoon, Inc. | Paragraph 5.38 states the alert mission remains active throughout the period of performance. Identify the expected constraints on work hours, ramp access, and crane operations, and whether ramp closure windows will be made available. | PWS 5.38 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Alert mission remains fully active 24/7. Standard work hours are Monday through Friday, 0700–1700 (excluding federal holidays). Access outside these hours requires one week's advance notice for escort coordination. While crane and heavy equipment operations are permitted because the work site is isolated from the hangar, no ramp closures will be made available due to active mission requirements. | CEC | |
| 47 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm the maximum permitted crane boom height, the approval process for temporary construction obstructions, and whether NOTAMs or airfield waivers are required for crane picks. (Also applies to CLINs 0012 and 0013.) | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Contractor is responsible for obtain any permits or waivers necessary for a crane boom. Coordinate requierments for permit and waiver requests with airfield manager. | CEC | ||
| 48 | Cocoon, Inc. | Identify the anticipated laydown and staging area, and confirm whether it lies inside or outside the controlled area. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | The contractor will be allotted 11,000 SF of space to work at the project site. Additional laydown area will be made available during construction if needed, but not to exceed and additional 5,000 SF. | CEC | ||
| 49 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm whether the Berry Amendment applies to the permeable membrane. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | If by permeable membrane, contractor is referring to the product/material item to serve as the aircraft structure roof, this would be considered a "construction material" as defined in RFO Clause 52.225-9 Buy-American-Construction Materials (Deviation 2026-O0038) subject to the prefernce for domestic construction materials as stated wtihin the Clause. The permeable membrane, is not be considered to be a "component" or "end product" under RDFAR Clause 252.225-7012 subject to the Berry Amendment. | Contracting Officer, Sandy Guite | ||
| 50 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm whether the membrane must carry a Miami-Dade County Notice of Acceptance or Florida Product Approval, and whether TAS 201, 202, or 203 testing applies to a permeable membrane on a non-enclosed structure. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Selection of a roof membrane that has a Miami-Dade NOA is preferred but not required. If no NOA is provided, Designer of record will need to determine if these testing protocols apply IAW applicable codes and that the selected membrane meets or exceeds them. | CEC | ||
| 51 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm whether the membrane must be flame resistant to NFPA 701 or any other standard, and whether UFC 3-600-01 imposes any requirement on a non-enclosed structure. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Membrane shall meet any fire resistance criteria that is required in the NFPA 701 and UFC 3-600-01. | CEC | ||
| 52 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm the required membrane color, since the color table in paragraph 5.10 addresses metals, trim, and signage only. | PWS 5.10 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Membrane should be similar color and tone that matches the HRAB color scheme in the table. Neutral earth tones - beige, cream, taupe, or warm grays. | CEC | |
| 53 | Cocoon, Inc. | Paragraph 5.5.1 requires all structural steel to be factory coated prior to arrival at the project. Confirm that field welding of coated members is prohibited and that all field connections are to be bolted. | PWS 5.5.1 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Field welding is accpetable. Proper field modifications to material surfaces impacted by welding activities shall be prescribed in the final design package signed an sealed by the FL PE or record / DOR. | CEC | |
| 54 | Cocoon, Inc. | Confirm whether the new aircraft grounding points shown in Figure 3 are to be bonded to the structure lightning protection ground system or maintained as an isolated system. | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Refer to UFC 3-575-01 for aircraft static grounding point requirements. Designer of Record needs to be familiar with the applicable reference publications identified in the PWS. | CEC | ||
| 55 | HSCC | No structural drawings or preliminary structural analysis exist yet for the covered parking canopies. Can the Government share any prior conceptual/preliminary structural study, expected steel tonnage range, or foundation type it has already considered for this site, or confirm that structural design is entirely at the offeror's discretion within the PWS performance criteria? | PWS 5.5 / 5.5.3 / Table 5.1.2 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Government does not have any prior conceptual/preliminary structural study, expected steel tonnage range, or foundation type. Design will be at offeror's discretion. | CEC | |
| 56 | HSCC | Does the Government have any existing geotechnical borings, topographic survey, or utility-locate data for the Overflow Parking area (PWS Figure 2) that could be shared with offerors, or is all site investigation solely the offeror's responsibility post-award? | PWS 5.15 / 5.16 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Government does not have any geotechnical borings, current topographical surveys, or utility-locate data for the proposed site. Contractor will be responsible for any testing, surveys, or investigations they need for their design. Field investigation testing and studies should be identified in the proposal presented by the offeror. | CEC | |
| 57 | HSCC | Does the PWS require a dedicated, separately-badged CQC Manager, or may the Superintendent/QC Manager 'dual-hat' as CQC Manager as is common Design-Build practice, consistent with past RFI-73/75 responses on comparable HARB solicitations? | PWS 1.4.3 / Technical Proposal - Schedule & Methodology | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | Dual hat is authorized as long as person is trained and qualified to perform both roles. | CEC | |
| 58 | HSCC | Please confirm the intended mechanics of CLIN 0008 (Materials delivered on site and accepted by Gov, Qty = anticipated $ value of materials, Unit Price = $1.00): should its Amount be included in the Total Evaluated Price alongside the other CLINs, or is it purely a progress-billing/cash-flow mechanism that should not be summed into the award price (to avoid double-counting material costs already reflected in CLINs 0003-0006 and 0009-0016)? | Amendment 0001 CLIN 0008 language | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | CLIN 0008 should be included in the Total Evaluated Price alongside the other CLINs. It is not intended to be a separate progress-billing mechanism that is excluded from the total award price. |
CLIN 0008 is designed to allow for invoicing of materials upon delivery and acceptance, but its value is an integral part of the Total Evaluated Price and the final FFP award. This is a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract. All material costs must be isolated. Under no circumstances should material costs allocated to CLIN 0008 (Material CLIN) be included in any other CLINs.
Under the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) guidelines, traditional construction progress payments (FAR 52.232-5) do not apply to this commercial acquisition. Payments are strictly governed by RFO Clause 52.212-4, which allows payment only for accepted partial deliveries or upon the complete inspection and acceptance of a Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). Invoices may only be submitted after the Government inspects and accepts the completed items/services.
| Because the payment terms of RFO 52.212-4 are rigid, the Government has invited industry to propose alternative CLIN structures via the RFI. This flexibility is intended to help contractors structure deliverables in a way that aligns with realistic billing milestones while remaining compliant with commercial delivery constraints. | Contracting Officer, Sandy Guite | ||||||||
| 59 | HSCC | The wage determination has no published classification for installation of specialty tensile/permeable fabric roofing systems (PWS 5.4). May offerors use the closest published classification (e.g., Ironworker, Structural) per 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(iii), or does the Government intend to pursue a conformance action for a distinct classification prior to award? | Davis-Bacon WD FL20260125 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | ||||
| 60 | HSCC | PWS Sections 5.7 (Lighting) and 5.8 (Electrical) are marked 'N/A.' Please confirm no permanent utility power, lighting circuits, or electrical service (beyond the lightning protection system itself, PWS 5.6) is required at either covered parking structure. | PWS 5.7 / 5.8 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | No electrical power, service, or lighting is required for the structures. Only lightning protection for the structure is required. | CEC | |
| 61 | HSCC | Can the Government confirm the available laydown/staging area location and size relative to the Overflow Parking box shown in PWS Figure 2, given the FANG compound's constrained footprint adjacent to an active taxiway and alert mission area (PWS 5.38)? | PWS 5.21 / Figure 2 | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 07-Aug-26 | The contractor will be allotted 11,000 SF of space to work at the project site. Additional laydown area will be made available during construction if needed, but not to exceed and additional 5,000 SF. | CEC | |
| 62 | HSCC | The solicitation states the Government is open to industry recommendations for CLIN structure revisions. Would the Government consider adding a distinct CLIN (or Section B line item) for 'General Conditions/Mobilization - PM/Super/Admin Field Staffing,' separate from field Mobilization tasks, to improve price-schedule transparency and progress-payment tracking? | Solicitation CLIN Structure preamble | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | The government is ameniable to adding this CLIN, the revised CLIN structure will be incorporated with the final RFI amendement later this week. | Contracting Officer, Sandy Guite | |
| 63 | HSCC | The Model Contract's full clause text requires 'CMMC Level 2' (Conditional or Final; Self-assessment or C3PAO) prior to award for every contractor information system processing/storing/transmitting FCI or CUI - stricter and more specific than the solicitation synopsis's looser paraphrase ('NIST SP 800-171 score ... or CMMC Level 2'). HSCC currently holds only CMMC Level 1 and is completing the upgrade to a Level 2 Self-Assessment (achievable now, since the Phase II suspension affects only third-party C3PAO certification, not self-assessments) prior to the 21 Aug 2026 due date. Please confirm: (a) that a 'Conditional Level 2 (Self)' status entered in SPRS with an active Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) satisfies the requirement at time of proposal submission even if 'Final' status is not yet reached; and (b) whether any schedule flexibility exists if HSCC's Level 2 self-assessment and CMMC UID generation in SPRS is still in progress (not yet finalized) at the time of proposal submission. | Model Contract Section L, FAR 252.204-7025 (full text) and DFARS 252.204-7021 (full text) | 03-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | 04-Aug-26 | Per the solicitation and model contract, to be eligible for award, an offeror must have either: |
A NIST SP 800-171 assessment score of 110 posted in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), or A CMMC Level 2 certification.
A Conditional CMMC Level 2 Status with an active operational plan of action & milestones (POA&Ms) is allowable and will meet the requirements for compliance and award eligibility.
| For a NIST Score below 110, a current approved operational plan of action/improvement plan is required to meet the requirements for compliance and award eligibility. | Contracting Officer, Sandy Guite | ||||||||
| 64 | Cape Fox | Section L is minimal in defining desired requirements, but reviewing the SAM.gov introductory language, is it acceptable and compliant to package the information in three volumes: 1)Administrative and Price; 2) Technical; and 3) Past Performance? | Model Contract Section L. | 06-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | Instructions to offeror's and Evaluation Criteria adendums were only included in the sam.gov posting and not on the model contract. Submission of three volumes (Admin/Price, Technical, Past Perf) is acceptable and compliance will be subject to review of proposal packages to ensure all required information is included. A single PDF with each section identifies is also acceptable. Please remember USAF outlook email will not accept emails larger than 20MB. Follow solicitation instructions for DoDSafe for larger files. | Contracting Officer, Sandy Guite | |
| 65 | Cape Fox | Will a SF30 be provided for Amendment 1? | 06-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-06 | An SF-30 Amendment will only be provided for amendements that require changes to the model contract or extend the proposal due date. Amendments can be acknowledged on the SF1442 in Section 19. Acknowledgement of Amendments. | Contracting Officer, Sandy Guite | ||
| 66 | Paradise Awnings | Cybersecrurity eligibility requirement: The solicitation states: |
"A score in the NIST SP 800-171 (if below 110 a plan of improvement is required with proposal) or Level 2 in CMMC of SPRS is required to be eligible for award."
We also note that the Department of Defense announced on July 13, 2026, the suspension of CMMC Phase II implementation while stating that Phase I self-assessment requirements remain in effect.
Could you please clarify whether:
| 1. | An active NIST SP 800-171 Basic Assessment score in SPRS is sufficient to satisfy this requirement, or | ||||
| 2. | A CMMC Level 1 self-assessment is acceptable, or | ||||
| 3. | A CMMC Level 2 record is still required for this solicitation despite the Phase II suspension? | 07-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | Per the solicitation and model contract, to be eligible for award, an offeror must have either: |
A NIST SP 800-171 assessment score of 110 posted in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), or A CMMC Level 2 certification.
A Conditional CMMC Level 2 Status with an active operational plan of action & milestones (POA&Ms) is allowable and will meet the requirements for compliance and award eligibility.
| For a NIST Score below 110, a current approved operational plan of action/improvement plan is required to meet the requirements for compliance and award eligibility. | Contracting Officer, Sandy Guite | |||||||
| 67 | Paradise Awnings | Has the Government established an Independent Government Estimate (IGE) or estimated construction budget for this project? If so, could you please provide the estimated budget or construction cost range? | 07-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | Yes the government has established a government cost estimate (IGE) however they are not releasable to industry. Under Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) construction cost ranges have been eliminitated from solicitation requirements, however the anticipated magnitude is between $1,000,000. and $5,000,000. | Contracting Officer, Sandy Guite | |
| 68 | Cape Fox | Will the government provide a laydown area and temporary utilities for contractor use | 10-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | ||||
| 69 | Cape Fox | Are signatures required to meet the digital signature requirement for Rule 61G15-23.004, F.A.C.? | 07-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | ||||
| 70 | DCR Services & Construction, Inc. | Please provide any available existing survey information, topographic survey, record drawings, as-built drawings, pavement/asphalt/concrete apron mapping, and base mapping for the proposed work area to support final design by the selected manufacturer and RH Engineering. | 07-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | ||||
| 71 | DCR Services & Construction, Inc. | Please provide available utility drawings identifying underground and overhead utilities within or adjacent to the proposed structure location, including electrical, communications, drainage, grounding, lighting, fuel, water, sewer, and any other utilities that may affect foundation locations, grounding, or aircraft cover layout. | 07-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | ||||
| 72 | DCR Services & Construction, Inc. | Please provide any existing geotechnical reports, soil borings, pavement investigations, groundwater information, compaction data, pavement section information, or subsurface data available for the proposed structure location. If no data is available, please confirm that offerors should carry post-award geotechnical investigation and foundation design based on final manufacturer reactions. | 07-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | ||||
| 73 | DCR Services & Construction, Inc. | Please provide available drawings or record information identifying existing grounding systems, aircraft grounding points, grounding conductors, grounding electrodes, lightning protection components, test wells, and any grounding infrastructure that may be affected by new foundations, structural steel, or aircraft cover layout. | 07-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | ||||
| 74 | DCR Services & Construction, Inc. | Please provide existing aircraft parking striping layouts, tie-down/mooring locations, aircraft grounding point locations, parking envelope data, and related airfield drawings applicable to the proposed covered parking area so the manufacturer and RH Engineering can coordinate final bay layout and foundation locations. | 07-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | ||||
| 75 | DCR Services & Construction, Inc. | Please confirm that the covered aircraft shelter manufacturer may provide delegated structural/canopy design, calculations, drawings, connection loads, and shop drawings, with a Florida Engineer of Record reviewing, coordinating, and incorporating the accepted delegated design into the final signed and sealed construction documents. | 07-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | ||||
| 76 | DCR Services & Construction, Inc. | Please clarify the Government’s expectations regarding FAA Obstruction Evaluation / Airport Airspace Analysis coordination and identify whether any prior FAA determinations or airspace evaluations exist for the proposed project area. | 07-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | ||||
| 77 | DCR Services & Construction, Inc. | Please identify the anticipated Government review durations for Concept Design, 65% Design Package, 95% Design Package, and Issued for Construction Design Package submissions so offerors can accurately develop the AF3064 progress schedule within the 365-calendar-day performance period. | 07-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | ||||
| 78 | DCR Services & Construction, Inc. | Please identify known airfield operational restrictions, mission requirements, work-hour limitations, escort requirements, FOD-control requirements, blackout periods, delivery restrictions, staging/laydown constraints, or other base operations requirements that may impact field investigation, foundation construction, structural erection, canopy installation, LPS/grounding, or striping/tie-down work. | 07-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | ||||
| 79 | DCR Services & Construction, Inc. | Please confirm whether the Government will permit one qualified individual to serve in multiple roles, specifically Superintendent, Quality Control Manager (QCM), and Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO), provided the individual meets all qualification requirements for each position, is present on-site as required, and can adequately perform all responsibilities identified in the contract documents. If triple-hatting is not permitted, please clarify which positions must be staffed by separate individuals and whether any dual-hat combinations are acceptable. | 07-Aug-26 | 10-Aug-26 | ||||
| 80 | ||||||||
| 81 | ||||||||
| 82 | ||||||||
| 83 | ||||||||
| 84 | ||||||||
| 85 | ||||||||
| 86 | ||||||||
| 87 | ||||||||
| 88 | ||||||||
| 89 | ||||||||
| 90 |
&"Arial,Bold"PROJECT ID AND LOCATION
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .