Bid-RFI-Responses-Mitchell Phase 7 Final.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

10TH MISSION SUPPORT GROUP

USAF ACADEMY, COLORADO

Bryant M Shea: 10CES/CECE Project Manager Bldg. 8120 PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy

PROJECT BID RFIs / RESPONSES

DATE: 29 August 2012 FROM: 10 CES/CECE Bryant M Shea.

TO: 10 CONS/LGC Audra Coppa RE: USAFA Project XQPZ 09-0103 G, Repair Mitchell Hall Phase 7.

The following RFIs were received from Contractors during the bid process, followed by the responses from 10CES.

RFI 1: Section 05120 Structural Steel. Currently this section requires the use of an AISC certified Fabricator. This project is relatively small in terms of steel Fabrication.

Would it be possible to waive this requirement to allow local qualified Steel Fabricators to compete?

Response: No, use a fabricator with the specified qualifications.

RFI 2: May a different roof hatch and safety rail be substituted for the one specified?

Response: No.

RFI 3: Drawing MD 115 shows 6 kettles in bold. Is there any work associated with the 6 kettles on this sheet?

Response: No.

RFI 4: The drawings for the vestibule replacement doors shows ducting next to the north doors on each end of the building. Will the contractor have to remove and replace this ducting in order to remove and replace the door frames?

Response: How the door system is removed and replaced depends on the contractor’s means and methods. The contractor may have to remove and replace this ducting in order to replace the doors.

RFI 5: Will contractor be allowed to close one full entrance to replace the entry doors?

Response: Yes, the dates and times for the closure of each vestibule shall be coordinated with the user.

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy

RFI 6: Do the catwalks above the dining hall give access to the interior side of the insulation wall to be constructed?

Response: No. Catwalks do not exist above the dining area. The contractor shall propose means and methods to accomplish associated tasks.

RFI 7: What is the load capacity of the Terazzo outside of the building?

Response: Light duty trucks 10,000 GVW with 2 axles. Material loads, 100 PSF, 2000 lbs maximum.

RFI 8: Can USAFA provide the time when the Cadets will be on leave from the Academy?

Response: Cadets are on leave 18-24 Nov 2012, 21 Dec 2012 to 2 Jan 2013, 23-30 March 2013.

RFI 9: Do similar projects need to be completed projects or can a project meet the criteria as similar if it is 50% + complete?

Response: Present performance can be submitted. As stated in Section M of the Solicitation, “Recent past performance is defined as past performance on contracts within the last three years from the issue date of this solicitation.” Additionally, review Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings in Section M.

RFI 10: Please reference spec. section 10431 Signage. We are currently unable to locate any notes or schedules indicating the quantity or the location of signs for plaques relating to this section on the plans. Please clarify.

Response: Electrical specification section 16910 contains signage requirements. This specification section contains significant requirements for the contractor. Architectural drawings with key notes show mounting type, sign location and sign verbiage.

RFI 11: Please provide sizing for Flexible Strip door specified in section 08380.

Response: The size of flexible door strip will depend on the door manufacturer’s requirements submitted by the contractor.

RFI 12: Please specify if the overhead door will need to be chain hoist or electric motor drive. In addition please clarify the locking mechanism to be used on this door.

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy

Response: The roll up door on the north dock shall be chain hoist; provide a permanent keyed lock mechanism per manufacturer.

RFI 13: 02080, 1.9, Asbestos-the specification is written as if the Government can reject bids for non-compliance with the requirements. Specifically, 1.9 “at the USAFA’s sole discretion”. The prime contractor should be given the responsibility to pre-qualify the abatement contractor at the time of bid with the onus to demonstrate compliance at the time of submittals.

Response: Prime contractor shall be given the responsibility to pre-qualify the abatement contractor at the time of bid with the onus to demonstrate compliance at the time of submittals.

RFI 14: 02080, 1.13.B, Asbestos-Paragraph 1.13 references areas ofACM listed in Section 1.10 E.2; 1.10F; and 1.11. Review of 1.10 E indicates the definition for Amended Water; 1.10F indicates the definition for Asbestos; and 1.11 is not a part of the specification. Please provide intended references.

Response: .The reference should be changed to refer to Section 1.13.E.2 for ACM areas. See Attachment 13 corrected Specification Section 02080.

RFI 15: 02080, 1.1.13.B, Asbestos-Several references are made to “Attachment “A”.

Page 30 of 02080 contains notation “Attachment A” however no additional information has been included. Please provide Attachment A intended.

Response: Attachment “A” is the construction documents for project XQPZ 11-0702C Replace Mitchell Hall doors.

RFI 16: 08311, Access Panels and Frames-Paragraph 1.1.A speaks to access panels and frames at “…fire rated access panels and frames at walls and criteria for reinstallation of existing access panels and frames at ceilings” (emphasis added).

Paragraph 2.2 provides specifications for access panels at “walls”. Please provide desired specification and size for new ceiling access panels and frames (Size: 36”X36” believed to be over sized for ceilings).

Response: Use the sizes stated in the specifications.

RFI 17: 10431, Signage-Paragraph 2.2 lists available manufacturers however it is known that the existing sign system is by Systems 290. Additionally, no Signage Schedule indicating Sign Type, Location and Size has been provided. Please provide

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy clear direction if a sole-source matching sign system by Systems 290 is desired.

Additionally, please provide a Signage Schedule

Response: Sole Source by Systems 290 is not required (Match Existing). No Signage Schedule is provided. Architectural drawings with key notes show mounting type, sign location and sign verbiage.

RFI 18: 11010, Fall Protection Equipment-Paragraph 2.4.A.1 specifies, “safety tieback anchors for a controlled descent/fall protection”. Drawing Sheet S-102 “…tie-back safety anchors…” show???. Reference to “controlled descent/fall protection” implies a Fall Arrest system vs. a Fall Restraint system associated with safety tie-back anchors.

Please confirm a safety tie-back system (vs. a fall arrest system) is intended.

Response: Provide a fall arrest system.

RFI 19: Project Manual for XQPZ 11-0702C, 01 00 00, 1.01.B.1 states, “Replacement of existing north vestibule doors…” (emphasis added). The drawing sheets indicate additional openings at the Dining Hall elevations West, South and East. Please confirm that the additional elevations and opening counts are to include the West, South and East elevations as drawn.

Response: The drawing sheets indicate existing openings at the Dining Hall West, South and East. These sheets indicate no work is required on the West, South and East openings.

RFI 20: Project Manual for XQPZ 11-0702C, 02 41 19, 1.08.D states, “Hazardous Materials are present in structures to be demolished. A report of the presence of hazardous materials is on file for review and use. Examine report to become aware of locations where hazardous materials are present.” Please provide bid community with hazardous materials report mentioned on file.

Response: An environmental survey has been completed. (The results are provided in Amendment 0002 to Solicitation FA7000-12-R-0015).The contractor shall follow Colorado Regulation 8 and 5 CCR 1001.

RFI 21: Project Manual for XQPZ 11-0702C, 03351, 1.2.1 references compliance with “USAFA test sample slab #2B.”Please provide bid community with detailed information for USAFA test sample slab #2B referenced. Where is this test sample and what are the specification requirements.

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy

Response: The winning bidder will be given the test sample, in order to match colors when submitting exposed aggregate monolithic colored concrete. The contractor shall follow specifications 071413, 02716 and 033000.2.

RFI 22: Specification 01350, 1.5.B states, “Vehicular parking is authorized within the area designated in the permit as well as designated paved parking”.

Where is/are the designated parking area(s) for this project (none shown)? Should the contractor calculate transportation to/from the remote Field House parking lot (typical for projects in the Cadet Area)? Will the contractor be allowed adequate on-site parking for field management, including field leads for primary subcontractors?

Response: The area to the east of Mitchell Hall shall be the lay down area and paved parking. Crew size and transportation to/from a remote location shall be determined by the contractor’s means and methods.

RFI 23: Specification 01350, 2.5.A states, “…the contractor’s architect or engineer shall schedule for a complete survey of the entire project area…”

Please confirm environmental survey has been provided by others and that reference to environmental survey by contractor should be deleted.

Response: An environmental survey has been completed. (The results are provided in Amendment 02 to Solicitation FA7000-12-R-0015). The contractor shall follow Colorado Regulation 8 for abatement.

RFI 24: Specification 01350, 2.5.E states “The contractor’s shall test construction debris for lead using Toxity Characteristic Leaching Procedure analytical results…”

Please confirm TCLP surveys have been provided by others and that reference to TCLP survey by contractor should be deleted

Response: An environmental survey has been completed. (The results are provided in Amendment 02 to Solicitation FA7000-12-R-0015). The contractor shall follow Colorado regulation 5 CCR 1001.

RFI 25: Specification 01350, 2.5.F states “…the contractor shall submit a report documenting the amount and location of asbestos…”

Please confirm environmental survey has been provided by others and that reference to environmental survey by contractor should be deleted.

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy

Response: An environmental survey has been completed. (The results are provided in Amendment 02 to Solicitation FA7000-12-R-0015). The contractor shall follow Colorado Regulation 8 for abatement.

RFI 26: Specification 01 57 20.00 10, 3.9 requires the contractor to coordinate with the installation pest management coordinator.

Is this reference applicable to this interior renovation? Is the contractor required to calculate pesticide treatments? Additionally, is there any need for the contractor to calculate management of rodents?

Response: The health department requires pest management for this facility. The existing vermin traps and pest management procedures currently implemented at the north dock area and throughout the project will be the contractor’s responsibility once the contractor takes over these areas.

RFI 27: Specification 01732, 1.7.D.1 states “Hazardous materials will be removed by owner before start of work.” Specification 1.7.D.2 further states “…Hazardous materials will be removed by owner under separate contract.

Please clarify intent of hazardous materials to be removed by others, including rodent infestation/debris

Response: If hazardous materials (products) exist within the work area, they will be removed by the owner prior to construction. An environmental survey has been completed. (The results are provided in Amendment 02 to Solicitation FA7000-12-R- 0015).The contractor shall follow Colorado Regulation 8 and 5 CCR 1001.

RFI 28: Specification 01732, 3.5.A.6 states, “Remove decayed, vermin-infested, or otherwise dangerous or unsuitable materials and promptly dispose offsite.”

Please provide a survey of suspected types, locations and quantities to be calculated.

Please note the proper management of vermin infestation may require specific PPE’s, containment, air quality, packaging and disposal impact estimate calculations.

existing vermin traps and health department pest management procedures currently implemented at the north dock area and at the facility shall be the contractor’s responsibility once the contractor takes over construction areas. A survey of suspected types, locations and quantities to be calculated is not required because the facility currently meets health code standards. The contractor shall maintain these standards;

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy the use of specific PPE’s, containment, air quality, packaging and disposal impact are dictated by the contractor’s means and methods.

RFI 29: Specification 01732, 3.8.A.1-4 states “Demolition shall include removal of the following miscellaneous items not shown to be removed that would otherwise be abandoned in place”. 3.8.A.4 further states “Previously abandoned conduit, wiring, tubing, piping and devices.” Mitchell Hall is an extremely large complex (+/-250,000 SF, four levels plus utility tunnels throughout)-it is impossible to calculate ”previously abandoned…” items as stated.

Please clarify intent of 3.8.A.4 or provide bid information from which to calculate accurate quantities.

Response: The intent of these subparagraphs is to cover incidental items that may not have been specifically noted to be removed, but the major items they serve have been indicated to be removed. For example, a duct sensor’s electrical conduit may not have specifically noted to be removed, but the conduit shall not be abandoned in place when the duct it serves is removed.

RFI 30: Specification 01770, 3.2.C states “Pest Control: Engage an experienced, licensed exterminator to make final inspection and rid Project of rodents, insects and other pest. Prepare a report.”

Contractor requires accurate existing conditions from which to calculate estimate-what is the existing rodent/insect/other population?; what is the extent of the rodent/insect/other pest population? Please clarify the extent of these requirements is intended for areas impacted by contract construction activities only. If extent is to contract work areas only, how do we manage/calculate migration from contiguous areas?

existing vermin traps and health department pest management procedures currently implemented at the north dock area and at the facility shall be the contractor’s responsibility once the contractor takes over construction areas. A survey of suspected types, locations and quantities to be calculated is not required because the facility currently meets health code standards. The contractor shall maintain these standards. If the contractor allows infestation then the contractor shall engage an experienced, licensed exterminator to make final inspection and rid project of rodents, insects and other pest. Then prepare a report.

RFI 31: Specification 02080 Asbestos /LBP Abatement-Paragraphs 1.2.B-D; 1.4A and 1.13 A-E appear to place excessive identification, quantification and bid

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy calculation requirements on the contractor when compared to the 1.13 Scope of Work types and quantities expressed.

Please confirm the contractor is to calculate only quantities expressed by 1.13, Scope of Work.

Response: An environmental survey has been completed. (The results are provided in Amendment 02 to Solicitation FA7000-12-R-0015). The contractor shall follow Colorado Regulation 8 and 5 CCR 1001.

RFI 32: Specification 02080, 1.14.A references description of work paragraph

1.13 E.2. Contractor cannot find reference to subparagraph 1.13E.2. Paragraph 1.13E list two “1”. It is believed the second “1” referenced is intended to read “2”.

Please confirm the second “1” should be revised to read “2”.

Response: This item is confirmed. The second “1” has been revised to read “2” in the attached corrected Specification Section 02080.

RFI 33: Specification 02300, 3.3.A states “Unclassified excavated materials may include rock, soils and obstructions. No changes in the Contract Sum or the

Contract Time will be authorized for rock excavation or removal of obstructions.”

Does the drafter of the documents possess soils reports specific to the Warehouse 110 ? Note: S-001, Foundation General Note 1 references foundation design based upon CTL Thompson March 22, 2011. Bidder requires information so as not to be placed in a position of speculating encountering unknown rock & obstructions

Response: See the soils report by CTL Thompson (The results are provided in Amendment 02 to Solicitation FA7000-12-R-0015).

RFI 34: Specification 07841, 2.2.B states, “Penetrations in fire-resistance-rated walls.” Architectural floor plans do not provide locations of fire-rated wall assemblies, new and or existing. The project scope will require a multitude of penetrations through new and existing wall assemblies. As presented, the bidder cannot accurately quantify the required counts. Please provide a fire rated wall scheme.

Response: The identification of both existing and new fire-rated assemblies for Mitchell Hall Phase 7/7 has not been evaluated in the context of a whole building. However, based on our limited understanding that this building is Type I construction and is sprinklered, the following assemblies/rooms are required to be fire-rated:

All floor penetrations

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy

Any stairwell penetrations

Any elevator equipment room penetrations

RFI 35: Specification 10431 specifies “Signage”. A-001, General Project Note #25 states “Provide room signage to match existing signage style, for any room not previously identified.” The drawing floor plans do not reference signage placement and or provide a signage schedule and location.

Please provide Sign Schedule including locations intended ( required for accurate bid calculations).

Response: A sign schedule is not available, the “new” rooms will require new signage.

Architectural drawings with key notes show mounting type, sign location and sign verbiage.

RFI 36: 08 41 13 pg 10 sec 3.03 B-1 "Requires a AAMA 501.2 spray test for a minimum area of 75 feet by 1 story. This is a test designed for storefronts and curtain walls. Doors will not pass this test. Shall it still be a requirement of the transom assemblies?"

Response: The transom is included in the test, the door is not. Prior to testing, cover the door to keep the spraying water from getting through to the interior at the door perimeters.

RFI 37: 08 41 13 page 4 & 5 Sec 1.07 B-1 "Requires a 20 year finish warranty. Is this for the Clear anodized finish or the paint finish? None of the approved suppliers will supply a 20 year finish warranty for clear anodized. Would a 20 year 3 coat polymer (Kynar) finish be allowed as an alternate to the specified paint finish?"

Response: A 20 year 3 coat polymer finish may be allowed as an alternate. CE cannot direct the use of a particular manufacturer.

RFI 38: Section 01350, 2.5.A states "In the design or planning phase of a construction, services, or operations and maintenance project, the Contractor’s architect or engineer shall schedule for a complete survey of the entire project area, in order to determine whether there are hazards associated with asbestos, PCBs, Lead-based paint (LBP). These surveys shall be conducted by certified individuals at the expense of the project. If hazards are identified, necessary abatement and disposal procedures shall be incorporated into contract documents and in all Requests for Proposal." Since there is a known asbestos hazard, have abatement procedures specific to the plenum above the dining area and in the east mechanical room been developed? Should those procedures be incorporated into the contract

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy documents prior to bid? Does the insulation above the dining space need to be removed as ACM? Will it be possible to shut down air handling equipment that is fed through the return plenum above the dining area durning asbestos abatement operations?

Response: An environmental survey has been completed. The results are provided in Amendment 02 to the solicitation FA7000-12-R-0015. Abate the areas shown in the construction documents. The contractor shall follow Colorado Regulation 8 and 5 CCR 1001. The asbestos testing provided by the phase 6 contractor showed asbestos in the insulation and plenum area above the dining room. These results could not be replicated by the phase 7 design team. The Praxis report from phase 6 construction shows ACM in this area. However the Smith Environmental report does not show ACM in this area. The contractor shall assume no abatement is required in this area. It will be possible to shut down air handling equipment that feeds the return plenum above the dining area during asbestos abatement, if asbestos is encountered.

RFI 39: Contractor Storage: Due to the nature of the project, a large storage space will be required for machinery, tools, material, etc. The parking spaces between the North and South Loading Docks may not be sufficient. Have alternate/additional locations been identified (i.e. Fairchild, South or Fairchild, existing yard)? The location identification will allow the contractor to accurately calculate the set up & breakdown costs (fencing, temp electrical, misc staging, material handling and etc…).

Will the contractor be allowed a remote storage area (Stadium Blvd, East contractor area) for additional materials?

Response: Phase 7 Mitchell Hall may use ¼ of the current lay down area south of Fairchild Hall. Successful bidder will coordinate possible remote storage area with Construction Inspector.

RFI 40: Section L, Instructions to Offerors, L-1, Part II, Past Performance Information,

(b) Performance Surveys (Page 32 of 41)

Relevant performance specifies including performance efforts involving, “..curtain wall systems..”. Review of the drawings indicates there are no new “curtain wall systems” as a part of the intended scope. Instead, the work scope includes complete removal and replacement of storefront entry and vestibule aluminum door assemblies.

Suggested Revision: Replacing “curtain wall systems” with “storefront entry and vestibule aluminum door assemblies”.

Response: The new insulation walls that will be placed around the perimeter of the building shall be hung from the structure and are considered interior curtain walls. The contract documents mentioned in this RFI shall remain unchanged.

RFI 41: Section M, Evaluation Factors, M-1, B, Performance Confidence Assessment

(Page 39 of 41) Relevant performance specifies including performance efforts involving, “..curtain wall systems..”. Review of the drawings indicates there are no new “curtain wall systems” as a part of the intended scope. Instead, the work scope includes complete removal and replacement of storefront entry and vestibule aluminum door assemblies.

Suggested Revision: Replacing “curtain wall systems” with “storefront entry and vestibule aluminum door assemblies”.

Response: The new insulation walls that will be placed around the perimeter of the

RFI 42: Section M, Evaluation Factors, M-1, B.2.d, Performance Confidence Assessment (Page 39 of41)

Business Relations states, “Business relations can be measured by offer’s integration and coordination of activity needed to execute the contract; working in occupied living quarters, i.e. dorms, hotels, hospitals, etc…”. Review of the work requirements indicates work is to be performed in an occupied institutional food preparation and dining facility.

Suggested Revision: Replacing “living quarters, i.e. dorms, hotels, hospitals” with ” occupied institutional food preparation and dining facilities”

Response: Section M, Evaluation Factors will be changed to include instiutional food preparation and dining facilities.

RFI 43: Section M, Evaluation Factors, M-1, C, Performance Confidence Assessment (Page 40 of 41) Relevant performance specifies including performance efforts involving, “..curtain wall systems..”. Review of the drawings indicates there are no new “curtain wall systems” as a part of the intended scope. Instead, the work scope includes complete removal and replacement of storefront entry and vestibule aluminum door assemblies.

Suggested Revision: Replacing “curtain wall systems” with “storefront entry and vestibule aluminum door assemblies”.

Response: The new insulation walls that will be placed around the perimeter of the

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy

RFI 44: H-101, Key Note #1-Reference is made to “…Praxis Report.” The documents do not include the Praxis Report.

Please provide Praxis Report referenced.

Response: The Praxis report has been provided in Amendment 02 to Solicitation FA7000-12-R-0015. The contractor shall follow Colorado Regulation 8.

RFI 45: H-101, Key Note #1-The note states “Abate floor and ceiling areas of this room per Praxis Report.” Specification02080, 1.13.B, Asbestos list types of ACM’s to be removed. The “…floor and ceiling areas” are not referenced by specification Suggest the “…floor and ceiling” materials be included by spec reference”.

Response: The Praxis report has been provided in Amendment 02 to Solicitation FA7000-12-R-0015. The contractor shall follow Colorado Regulation 8.

RFI 46: S-101, Service Level Floor Framing Plan-Column Line 8-8.6 reference 14/S-

502. Sheet S-502 does not include 14/S-502.

Please provide missing detail referenced

Response: Detail 14/S-502 was incorrectly referenced and should change to 2/S-502.

RFI 47: S-102, Legend Note #1-the note states, “areas of the roof structure may contain fireproofing. If fireproofing is located on the roof structure, testing should be performed to determine if asbestos containing materials are present in the fireproofing.

Fireproofing in these areas should be removed prior to tie-back anchor installation and replaced after installation is complete” (emphasis added).

The note as written requires subjective interpretation. The bid community should be placed on the same level of competition however there is not accurate information to accomplish same. Does the Government possess an As-Build record indicating if in fact existing fireproofing will be encountered (vs. “may” be encountered). Please provide bid community with clear direction on how to bid this scope. Suggest a Quantity Usage Schedule affording all bidders the opportunity for equal scope calculation.

Please provide the intended rating for repair to fireproofing (ie 1-hr; 2-hr etc…).

Suggest adding the ACM potential to specification 02080, 1.13B (not referenced).

Response: Fireproofing on the existing structure, if any and to what extent, is unknown and must be field verified. For bidding purposes and to assure level competition, assume no fireproofing is present. If fireproofing should be encountered during construction, the contractor will notify the contracting officer for further guidance on how to proceed.

RFI 48: S-502, New Thermal Barrier Wall Details 8, 9 & 10-No top of window wall bottom of deck elevations have been provided from which to conclude the height of the thermal barrier wall.

Please provide top of window wall elevations and bottom of deck elevations for accurate height of wall required.

Response: Top of existing window head elevation is at +/- 7187’-0”. Bottom of roof deck elevation varies with roof slope and truss configuration. Total depth of truss varies from 9’-0” to 7’-0”.

RFI 49: A-103, General Note #3-“All work within the attic space was designed without field verification due to presence of hazardous materials. Contractor should field verify all conditions after abatement and advise contracting officer of any deviations”.

Neither the drawings or specification 02080 show a requirement for abatement in these areas (Note: 02080, Attachment A has not been provided as of this date).

Please provide hazardous material abatement intent for this area.

Response: An environmental survey has been completed, the results are provided in Amendment 02 to Solicitation FA7000-12-R-0015, Abate the areas shown in the construction documents. The contractor shall follow Colorado Regulation 8 and 5 CCR 1001. The asbestos testing provided by the phase 6 contractor showed asbestos in the insulation and plenum area above the dining room. These results could not be replicated by the phase 7 design team. The Praxis report from phase 6 construction shows ACM in this area. However the Smith Environmental report does not show ACM in this area. The contractor shall assume no abatement is required in this area. It will be possible to shut down air handling equipment that feeds the return plenum above the dining area during asbestos abatement, if asbestos is encountered.

RFI 50: A-103, Key Note #6-indicates access to new thermal barrier wall is to be accomplished through the exterior inverted ceiling assembly. Detail 10/S-502, shows “1/2” gyp. Backer bd.” Each side of new thermal barrier wall.

How is the inside gyp backer board to be installed without access through the interior?

(Note-it is believed interior access, including full height perimeter barriers will be required).

Response: Detail 4/A-503 shall be replaced per revised detail SK-1 (attached), dated 8/23/12. The interior gypsum board shown on detail 10/S-502 is not required. Detail 3/A-503 shall be deleted. We do not believe that access through the interior of the building is required; however, if the Contractor believes it is, then it must be specifically

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy approved and scheduled with the Contracting Officer. Key note #6, Sheet A-103 stands.

RFI 51: A-503, Thermal Barrier Wall Detail 4-Steel angles and tees are drawn however are not sized as shown by details 8, 9 & 10/S-502.

Response: See revised drawing SK-1 (attached), dated 8/23/12, which replaces detail 4/A503. Structural details 8, 9, and 10/S-502 govern structural element sizes.

RFI 52: Please confirm details indicated by structural drawings are intended where architectural conflicts occur.

Response: RFI items 50, 51, 52, 53, and 57 have noted detail conflicts; refer to their respective responses.

RFI 53: A-503, Thermal Barrier Wall Detail 4-1/2” densglass gold or equal one side with ½” gypsum backer board is shown one side. Structural details 8, 9 & 10/S-502 indicate ½ gypsum board both sides.

Please confirm details indicated by architectural drawings are intended where structural reference conflicts occur.

Response: See revised detail 4/A-503, (attached drawing SK-1, dated 8/23/12).

RFI 54: Cable Release 6/A-501-Note states, “Install new cable release for existing roof hatch…” Please confirm existing opening actuators are sufficient to accommodate opening by cable system from below.

Response: See attached Owner’s rep-provided detail SK-2, dated 8/23/12 to clarify cable release shown on detail 6/A501.

RFI 55: A-105, General Note #4-the note references maintaining the existing roof warranty.

Please provide particulars for the existing roof warranty (i.e. manufacturer and current warranty period).

Response: The roof was completed on 9/29/06. The Manufacturer is Johns Manville, the warranty (#ANM111049407) is in effect until 2026, and the contractor was Central States Roofing. Central States Roofing is no longer performing work on the USAFA.

Another certified Johns Manville installer will be required for roof repairs to insure warranty remains in force.

RFI 56: Roofing Transition, 10/A-503-Match existing BUR’s and Slope is referenced.

Does the Government possess accurate As-Built information? In the alternative, can the contractor rely on dimensions scaled as drawn?

Response: As- Built information for this roof does not exist. What the contractor relies on for information shall be the contractor’s means and methods.

RFI 57: Typical Fall Arrest Stanchion, 7/S-502 and 5/A-503-Detail 7/S-502 details the attachment point to “existing truss top chord.” Detail 5/A-503 details “existing steel deck/concrete roof” sandwich attachment.

Please clarify correct existing roof deck profile for proper station attachment (weld to structural steel or thru-bolt and plate through concrete deck)?

Response: Stanchion attachment is welded to structural steel, per detail 7/S-502. The structural attachment shown on detail 7/S-502 supersedes the attachment shown on detail 5/A-503. Concrete deck attachment is not relevant to this project.

RFI 58: A-402, Key Note #2-the note states, “Contractor shall examine existing floor condition for any repair work needed.” No information referencing existing conditions (latent) or existing materials are provided.

How is the bid community to calculate unknowns? Please provide specifics for repairs required.

Response: The floor in this area is in good condition, the contractor shall make note of any damages to floor before the existing coolers are moved. The contractor shall be responsible for any damages caused by the contractor.

RFI 59: A-407, Key Note #2-the contractor is to install owner provided reach-in coolers however no manufacturer’s information is provided.

Please provide manufacturer information on GFCI equipment (i.e. model number, cut sheets rough-in requirements).

Response: The coolers are 110V plug in type coolers. The coolers shall be plugged in the outlets as shown on the drawings. Specific manufacturer information is not required for this project. The dimensions of the coolers are approximately the same size as scaled on the drawings.

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy

RFI 60: A-407, General Note #4-the note states, “patch/repair any damaged wall finish” Please confirm the patch/repair work extends to surfaces as a result of damage from contractor activities (vs. general statement referring to any areas throughout).

Response: This note pertains to the walls and work shown on the sheet with this note.

The contractor is not responsible for repairing every damaged wall finish throughout the facility.

RFI 61: A-407, Key Note #10 states “Trowel-Grade Fireproofing…”

Suggest: Revising to “Sprayed Fire-Resistive Materials” consistent with specification 07811 ( Cafco, listed manufacture recommends Blaze Shield HP with Sealer).

Response: A-404, Key Note #10 states “Trowel-Grade Fireproofing. Substitutions for fire proofing may be accepted during the submittal process

RFI 62: F-104, Key Note #3 requires incorporating new fire protection over the dining hall ceiling area.

Can the bidder assume the existing steel superstructure is sized adequate to handle the additional load of the new fire protection system.

Response: Drawing Sheet F-104 does not have a Key Note #3. However, it does have General Note #3 which makes reference to sprinklers in the dining area. The Scope of Work for this Sheet is described in Key Note #1. Therefore, replace General Note #3 with the following:

FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS WILL REQUIRE MODIFICATIONS DUE TO THE

RENOVATION WORK WITHIN THE BUILDING. MODIFICATIONS SHALL BE

HYDRAULICALLY DESIGNED, BASED ON THE OCCUPANCY, SPRINKLER

DENSITY, DESIGN AREA, MAXIMUM SPRINKLER AREA COVERAGE, AND FOR

THE MOST HYDRAULICALLY REMOTE AREAS AS INDICATED IN THE “FIRE

SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA” TABLE.The bidder can assume the existing steel superstructure is sized to handle the additional load of the new fire protection system.

RFI 63: F-104, Key Note #3 requires incorporating new fire protection over the Dining

Hall/Mezzanine ceiling area. Field investigation concludes that there are multiple ceiling hung items including a Drone aircraft.

Will the user be responsible for removing these items prior to construction?

Response: Drawing Sheet F-104 does not have a Key Note #3. However, it does have General Note #3 which makes reference to sprinklers in the dining area. The Scope of

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy

Work for this Sheet is described in Key Note #1. Therefore, replace General Note #3 with the following:

3. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS WILL REQUIRE MODIFICATIONS DUE TO

THE RENOVATION WORK WITHIN THE BUILDING. MODIFICATIONS

SHALL BE HYDRAULICALLY DESIGNED, BASED ON THE OCCUPANCY,

SPRINKLER DENSITY, DESIGN AREA, MAXIMUM SPRINKLER AREA

COVERAGE, AND FOR THE MOST HYDRAULICALLY REMOTE AREAS AS

INDICATED IN THE “FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA”

TABLE.

The Owner will not remove any items hung from the ceiling including the drone aircraft;

how these issues are addressed shall be determined by the contractor’s means and methods. New sprinklers are not to be placed over the dining area including the area around the drone.

RFI 64: The Crash Rail on 15/A-501 Type C2 does not match the current detail installed on Mitchell Hall Phase 6. The user indicated that the type C2 built from 20 gauge stainless steel with a wood backer would not hold up to daily abuse of current operations. It was also a concern that the pressure treated wood would not be a good substrate for attachment due to its known warping properties. Wouldn’t the wood components also need to be fire retardant? The newly designed crash rail is a much sturdier product that can withstand the impacts of push carts and electric pallet jacks.

Can we assume that we would match the crash rail detail installed during Mitchell Hall Phase 6?

Response: Modifications to the Mitchell Hall Phase 6 Crash Rail Type C2 detail 15/A- 501 have been approved. Mitchell Hall Phase 7 shall match the current Type C2 installation.

RFI 65: Shouldn’t the Wall Base on details 18,19,20/A-501 say ¼” Stainless Steel with #4 Brush Finish to match existing. The notes ¼” Steel Plate would not match the existing wall base that has been installed on many phases of Mitchell Hall.

Response: Use ¼” stainless steel plate with #4 brush finish to match recently installed base plates.

RFI 66: Is the Roof Hatch Detail 6/A-501 intended to be a 2 cable pulley system with a gas assisted shock similar to the Roof Hatch Systems recently installed at Fairchild Hall?

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy

Response: No, the intended roof hatch cable design for Mitchell Hall Phase 7/7 is not the one utilized at Fairchild Hall. See attached Owner’s rep-provided detail SK-2, dated 8/23/12 to clarify cable release shown on detail 6/A501.

RFI 67: In order to accomplish the North Loading Dock work scope, the contractor will require a lane of access through the dock area therefore the trash compactor will require relocation. Please provide desired location for temporary placement. Is the contractor required to provide temporary connections, power and steel rails? Please clarify.

Response: Yes, the contractor will coordinate with local service provider through CE to relocate trash compactor and all associated power to temporary location and move back to north dock upon completion of work. South loading dock by west rail is one option.

The contractor must understand pulper operations must continue while the pulper system is in use. The contractor shall keep the system functioning while the system is needed. How this is accomplished is up to the contractor’s means and methods. The time frame when the pulper system is not needed must be coordinated with the user in conjunction with the dates when the cadets are on leave 18-24 Nov, 21 Dec 2012 -2 Jan 2013, 23-30 March.

RFI 68: Would it be possible to get DWG files of Mitchell Hall Phase 7?

Response: DWG files will be provided to the successful bidder. PDF files have been provided for bidding purposes.

RFI 69: Page M-101, general note 10 states the contractor is to provide a balancing report to inspector at time of heating final inspection. Please clarify the heating final inspection requirement.

Response: The intent of this note is to have the balancing report at the time of the final punch inspection before closeout of the project.

RFI 70: Pages M-106 and M-107, general note 6 states the contractor is to provide a balancing report to inspector at time of heating final inspection. Please clarify the heating final inspection requirement.

Response: The intent of this note is to have the balancing report at the time of the final punch inspection before closeout of the project

RFI 71: Page M-106, general note 9 directs the contractor to fully test kitchen hoods upon completion of work to verify that the hoods work in accordance with the

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy manufacturer’s and fire department requirements. Contractor requests these requirements be identified prior to bid.

Response: A survey of the hoods and their associated exhaust fans was performed by the design team. These hoods/exhaust fans are currently operational and modifications required to the hoods and their associated exhaust fans have been identified on the drawings based on known deficiencies. The Contractor making these modifications shall take ownership of the installed systems after making the indicated modifications.

The Contractor shall test and certify that the kitchen hoods, fans and fire suppression systems are operating in accordance with the kitchen hood and fire suppression system manufacturers requirements. This may be in the form of commissioning document certifying the operation of the lights, fans, fire alarm devices, and fire suppression system by the hood manufacturer and the fire suppression contractor. Any and all deficiencies identified during or upon completion of the work shall be assumed to have been created by the Contractor and shall be corrected by the Contractor at his expense.

RFI 72: Page M-106, keynote 1 states, “contractor shall troubleshoot and diagnose each unit for problems, then replace control elements as needed in order to allow each unit to be fully operational.” The Contractor cannot troubleshoot and diagnose problems on existing equipment prior to bid. Propose Contractor troubleshoot and diagnose units for problems and provide list of repairs needed to Government for further action.

Response: The specific issues which prevent these units from functioning properly are unknown and must be field verified by the Contractor. For bidding purposes, assume no repairs are required. A list of needed repairs shall be submitted to the Government for further action after construction has commenced.

RFI 73: Page M-120, keynote 1 states, “Contractor shall re-commission existing control systems and repair all refrigerant and oil leaks on rack refrigeration units

(MTCR-1 & 2, LTCR-2, & BBTCR-1).” Contractor is not able to quantify the condition of the existing equipment prior to bid. Propose contractor troubleshoot existing equipment and provide a list of repairs needed to Government for further action.

Response: For bidding purposes, assume no repairs are required. The contractor’s proposal to troubleshoot existing equipment and provide a list of repairs needed to Government for further action is acceptable.

RFI 74: A-401, drawing 2, note 47 states "asbestos abatement inside shaft. See "H" sheets" The abatement inside this shaft is not identified on the H sheets and shaft abatement is not referenced in spec section 02080. Please provide details as to the type and extent of abatement required.

Response: The contractor shall follow Colorado Regulation 8. The piping insulation in this tunnel is marked as having ACM and requires abatement.

RFI 75: A-406, drawing 3, note 15 what is the nature of the debris? Is there an equipment layout that can be provided for protection requirements? Should this work be performed after hours? If ceiling tiles are already damaged, should they be replaced?

Response: The intent of this note is to clear and clean the ceiling areas shown. The debris is mainly over the coolers and contains construction debris, dirt, backing from metal duct tape, pipe and ducting insulation, Etc. The placement of the equipment will not be a factor in this work. The work may happen during regular hours, with user coordination. Make note of any damaged tiles before work begins.

RFI 76: Will construction deliveries have priority over facility deliveries?

Response: Facility deliveries have south dock priority between 0700-1400 daily.

RFI 77: Will Mitchell Hall provide an office space?

Response: No. Contractor office location will not be provided inside Mitchell Hall for this phase.

RFI 78: Will coordination be required for work on the staff tower?

Response: Staff tower level work must be coordinated 14 days in advance and no work between 1130-1300 M-F will be allowed that creates excessive noise or personnel on tower.

RFI 79: May the terrazzo be used for a lay down area.

Response: Terrazzo level outside and around Mitchell Hall is not a storage area, any equipment or supply storage must have prior approval. Outside terrazzo facility work is subject to stoppage due to VIP visits or direction from USAFA leadership. Must maintain full operations while renovation is ongoing; steam, electrical, and gas outages require a minimum 14 days notice for internal and cadet wing coordination

RFI 80: How many days notice is required for an electrical outage?

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy

Response: Must maintain full operations while renovation is ongoing; steam, electrical, and gas outages require a minimum 14 days notice for internal and cadet wing coordination.

RFI 81: May the contractor have the area directly east of the South dock cooler while this cooler is rehabilitated?

Response: South dock cooler removal and install cannot interfere with food deliveries.

RFI 83: Will the contractor have sole use of one elevator?

Response: No, sustenance movement for food operations has priority in all elevators;

renovation materials and equipment will be accommodated around food service operations.

RFI 84: Will the contractors need a badge at all times?

Response: Security of facility is a priority. All construction personnel must display appropriate identification at all times; anyone not in compliance will be reported to contractor management and the possibility of being removed from the installation.

RFI 85: Is contractor required to participate in USAFA readiness exercises (active shooter and/or disaster preparedness).

Response: Yes, this may affect facility access and work during these scenarios.

RFI 86: How often are contractors required to clean up the construction debris.

Response: Contractor required to immediately clean up any common use areas (hallways, elevators etc). Daily sweeping and mopping also required in these areas.

Dust barriers from floor to ceiling must be placed in or around any food preparation or storage areas.

RFI 87: Who is the Mitchell Hall POC?

Response: Mitchell Hall POC’s will be identified upon award.

RFI 88: May the contractor use the existing break rooms?

Response: Contractor is not authorized use of Mitchell Hall employee break room, formal/informal dining areas, and not authorized to purchase meals.

RFI 89: Is coordination required before blocking building egress?

Response: Blocking off egress must have prior coordination. Contractor shall provide signage when rerouting egress.

RFI 90: The current bid date is established as September 4, 2012 at 10:00 am which is the day after a major holiday. Would it be possible to move the bid date out to the 5th to allow the subcontractors a change to price it wihtout having to work the weekend? We anticipate that we will receive additional subcontractor input if the bid date was moved to the 5th of September.

Response: Bid due date and time has changed to 6 September, 2012 at 2:00 PM.

RFI 91: Will USAFA allow Prime/Sub teaming arrangements between 8(a) contractor and other large or small contractors to perform designation portions of the work at Mitchell Hall?

Response: Refer to Section L, “Instructions to Offerors”, 1(e).

RFI 92: Will the 8(a) contractor be able to use the teaming partners experience for their past performance information and surveys required by USAFA?

Reponse: Refer to Section L “Instructions to Offerors”, 2(b) and 2(c).

RFI 93: Will the teaming partner be allowed to provide a performance and payment the bond for the 8(a) contractor if the project is award to the 8(a) firm?

Reponse: Bonding must meet requirements of Section L “Instructions to Offerors”, 1(g).

RFI 93: Will CCASS evaluations be allowed in lieu of past performance surveys?

Response: No. Past Performance Questionnaires have been tailored for this RFP.

RFI 94: The 1442 requests original + 1 copy of proposal. Pages 31-32, Section L of RFP requests Original + 2 copies +1 CD. How many copies are required?

Response: The 1442 Box 13 has changed to original + 2 copies of proposal. Bidder to provide Original proposal + 2 copies of proposal + 1 CD per Section L of RFP.

PH: 719-333-8450 USAF Academy

RFI 95: Please clarify the submission address for proposal in response to the Mitchell Hall Renovation Phase 7 per Project XQPZ 09-0103G?

Response: SF 1442 Bock 8 has been revised to state the following: 10 CONS – FA7000, Coppa A. 5226 Cedar Drive, USAFA Academy, CO 80840.

//SIGNED//

Bryant M Shea.

10CES/CECE - Project Manager bryant.shea.ctr@usafa.af.mil / PH 719-333-8450 / FAX 719-472-9295 mailto:bryant.shea.ctr@usafa.af.mil