site visit minutes.doc

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

7 August 2008

SUBJECT: Site Visit – Solicitation Nbr FA6656-08-R-0004

Project Nbr: ZQEL 06-0003, Modify/Upgrade IWP System, Bldg 309

A pre-proposal conference was held for subject solicitation on 6 Aug 08 at 10:00 AM in Bldg 102. See the attached list for attendees. (Atch 1).

a. Below is a summary of comments made by the Contracting Officer during the administrative portion of the site visit:

1. The project consists of modifying/upgrading the IWP system to include the process monitoring and additional control response levels, constructing an addition for material handling and process equipment, installing a sample testing laboratory unit, installing metering units at various stages and at discharge points, upgrading the electronic monitoring and control system, and installing a fire suppression system at Bldg 309. The Contracting Officer advised that the general requirements are further detailed in Specification Section 01 00 00, Paragraph 1.02.C. Subparagraphs 1-32.

2. Project is a Total Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Set Aside; offers are only being solicited from Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses. Contractor’s attention was directed to Contract Clause 52.219-27 Notice of Total Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Set-aside, provided in full text in the solicitation at Section I (Page 10). Contracting Officer advised that as this is a set aside, by submitting an offer, Contractors agree that in the performance of a general construction contract, at least 15% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel must be spent on the concern’s employees or the employees of other service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns. Contracting Officer also advised that requirements to be met to joint venture with a service-disabled veteran-owned small business are also detailed in this clause.

3. Proposals are due on 18 Aug 08, at 2:00 p.m., Local Time at the Contracting Office, Bldg 504; however, Contracting personnel will also be available that date at the Visitors Center, after 1:45 p.m., to accept hand carried offers.

4. Contractors are reminded that contract award will be based on best value to the Government using Past Performance Trade Off (PPT) techniques. Contracting Officer stressed the importance that contractors provide a list of no more than ten of the most recent and relevant contracts performed as part of their proposal, provide a copy of the performance rating questionnaire (Atch 4) to all companies on their reference list and make every reasonable effort to ensure that the references complete the questionnaire and forward it directly to the Contracting Officer. Contractors were urged to review the detailed preparation instructions for PPT proposals located in Solicitation Section L. Proposals are to consist of two volumes: 1-Cost/Price data to include financial resources and 2-Past Performance Information. The Contracting Officer advised that an amendment was forthcoming adding Attachment 5, a Financial Institution Reference Sheet, for use in providing financial resource data.

5. Contractors were urged to review contractor past performance evaluation cretieria set forth in Section M of the solicitation.

6. Contractors were reminded that in order to receive an award as a prime contractor, they must be registered in the Central Contractor Register (CCR) database at website http://ccr.gov, as well as have completed the annual representations and certifications electronically via Online Representation and Certification Application (ORCA) at website http://orca.bpn.gov.

7. The Contracting Officer advised Contractors that their proposal is to be based on the specifications/drawings. No changes are to be made unless received in writing from the Contracting Officer in the form of an amendment. Contractors were also reminded that it is their responsibility to check the FBO website for updates and amendments.

8. Contractors are to direct all questions to the Contracting Officer in writing. Questions can be e-mailed or faxed to the attention of Helen Jordan at FAX: 330-609-1042, or Email helen.jordan@youngstown.af.mil. Emails are preferred. The Contracting Officer noted that it is imperative that contractors put the full solicitation number in the subject line to insure the inquiry is associated with the correct solicitation as there are three solicitations currently on the FBO site from this base. Any/all questions received, along with the response, will be posted to the FBO website.

9. Contractors were reminded that the Buy American Act pertains; per the terms of the contract, the contractor shall use only domestic construction material in performing this contract. (Reference Section I - Contract Clause 52.225-9.)

b. As there were no questions regarding the administrative portion of the site visit, attendees were escorted to the site where they were given the opportunity to inspect the entire site and take photographs.

c. Below are comments made/questions which arose while at the site:

Contractors were advised that facility must remain operational during construction; need to coordinate PLC work. To maintain mission capability, only two carbon tanks will be repaired and recoated at a time; two of the tanks are now empty/available; after work is completed in those two tanks, they will be filled with carbon and made operational; then the second two tanks will be emptied and made available to the Contractor. The transition between working on the first and second set of tanks must be coordinated. (Attention is directed to Dwg M-3 Scheduling Note 1 and Specification Section 01 00 00, para 1.02.C.15.)

In regard to Drawing M2, the Contracting Officer advised that the new work required is reflected on the right-hand side of the drawing (repair & recoat four carbon filter tanks/ add new ph monitor/element).

Contractor requested clarification of amps required, stating that Dwg E-2, Electrical Coded Note 1 shows 100 amp circuit breaker; however, the one-line drawing #1 on Dwg E-1 shows a 40 amp circuit breaker. Please clarify. Comment also made in regard to Dwg E-2, Note 1 in that the Contractor did not feel the existing circuit breaker would fit into the new panel DP3. Contractor inquired as to whether they should replace the breaker with a new one rather than relocate the existing one in the DP3 as stated on the drawing.

In response to a question, Contractors were advised that the tanks are to be refurbished in place.

Contractor were advised that all steam lines shown on the drawings for removal are inactive.

Question arose in regard to “Options 1 and 2” as shown on Dwg E-2, Electrical Coded notes 12 and 13. Contractors were advised that at during the design stage, two separate options were being considered but that a determination had been made to include both options in the project as requirements. The drawing had been revised to reflect this requirement; however, apparantly the revised drawing was not uploaded ILO the orginal drawing. Contracting Officer advised that an amendment was forthcoming replacing existing Dwg E-2 with a revised drawing reflecting correct requirements.

It was noted that conduit in interior of Bldg 308 is required to be rigid steel; exterior piping coming out of the ground will be PVC. Question raised as to what type pipe will be required to enter into Bldg 308? Please clarify whether rigid steel or PVC.

Contractor raised question in regard to supply power; will submit in writing.

Dwg E-4, Detail 1 – Contractor raised question as to why piping was shown being placed around the perimeter of the addition rather than directly across the footprint of the building.

Contractor inquired as to who is responsible for marking; Contracting Officer advised that the Contractor was responsible to call OUPS.

Contractors were advised that as trenching and restoration is on the flightline, area must be hydroseeded; straw cannot be used. (Attention is directed to Specification Section 32 92 13, para 3.03.A.)

Discussion was held in regard to how many asphalt cuts/repairs would be required. Government determined that if Contractors remained in the grass beyond the manholes, only one asphalt drive would need to be cut/repaired.

Contractor pointed out that the proposed location of the Flow Meter Control Panel (U-2) does not appear on the electrical drawings and could easily be overlooked during the proposal period. At first it was thought the panel was to be installed in the metering manhole; however, the type of monitor and install detail was noted on Dwg M-6. Location of U-2 is missing from Dwg E-5, Detail 1 Fire Training Facility Site Plan. Contractors were advised that the prime contractor was ultimately responsible for providing the panel Contractors were again reminded to submit all questions in writing through the Contracting Officer and not to contact the A-E or Base Engineer directly. Contractors were also advised that responses to questions and clarifications would be forthcoming via posting to the FBO site and/or in the form of an amendment.

As there were no further questions, the site visit adjourned.

//SIGNED//

HELEN L JORDAN, CIV, USAFRC

Contracting Officer

CONTRACTOR ATTENDEES