Contractor_RFI_Responses_(20170504).pdf

Project No. UHHZ160050, Rpr/Renov Interior, Shed Sup Equip Dep, B/673 4 May 2017

Bidder RFI Responses

Contractor # 1

1. Request: What is the Distribution Voltage and Amps?

Response: The transformer secondary voltage is 277/480V 3ph Wye. Peak load for the building for 2015, 2016 and thru April 2017 are attached.

2. Request: What is the voltage and amps for each panel?

Response: Power riser diagram for existing panelboards will be provided with the revised SOW. Actual loads for individual panelboards are unavailable at this time.

3. Request: What is the KVA for the transformer?

Response: Size of the outside transformer is 500 KVA.

4. Request: What are the voltage and amperage specification for the air switch?

Response: Per Specifications, Section 01020, 10.3.3.2, air switch is 12,470/7,200V. This voltage is a delta system, not a grounded WYE (correction to be made to SOW).

Replacement conductor size is #2 AWG with neutral. Additional information is also provided with the BFS that was included with the solicitation package (Section 6, particularly 6H).

5. Request: Are there any additional loads that need to be moved or relocated that are not listed on this drawing?

Response: Disconnect, conduits, etc. between the door and overhead doors on the north endwall will be required to be moved due to the relocation of the doors. Other conduit and devices that are interfere with the removal and replacement of the roof and wall panels may also require temporary moving (all were visible during the site visit).

6. Request: There are two existing over-head coiling doors on the building, the specs only mention replacing one door. Please specify which door is to be replaced.

Response: The northwest overhead door and the adjacent personnel door will be replaced with new doors. The northeast door will remain in place.

7. Section 7.2.5.2 Overhead Coiling Door states that sizes are shown on drawing, but there are no scaling details provided. Please provide the size and dimensions for the new overhead coiling door model 625.

Response: Size will be 22 ft. wide x 15 ft. high. Note that Overhead Door is a design basis, other equal door manufacturers are acceptable, subject to review and approval.

8. Request: Please provide the construction requirements for the end wall separating the B673 construction area from the existing tenant area (i.e. fire-rating).

Additional Clarification: Just to clarify number 1.we have no information about the current construction of the dividing wall of the two spaces and need to know its current composition in order to properly account for design and ultimately construction.

Response: Construction on the north side of the wall is metal girts, metal wall panels and exposed insulation (some insulation is missing). Insulation will be required to be replaced. Assume wall does not currently have a fire rating. Tenant separation is not a factor for fire ratings as both sides are owned and operated by RAFB, CMXG. Both areas will be Factory/Industrial with a small admin area on the opposite side of the wall.

9. Request: Please specify areas/walls where fireproofing is required/expected.

Response: This will be up to the design firm to determine during design based on building codes.

10. Request: Please confirm that the orange colored area on the attached sketch does not contain any work associated or required with this contract.

Response: This is correct with the exception of any work required to tie the north and south sections together (Example – roof transition).

Contractor # 2

1. Request: There appear to be no proposal/bid instructions included in the RFP. Please list all of the documents required for the proposal.

Response: Complete all required SF 1442 elements upon submission (e.g. Amendments section on page 2, CLIN amounts, etc.).

2. Request: Is price the only proposal/bid evaluation criteria? None other is listed in the

RFP.

Response: As listed on page 3 of the subject RFP.

3. Request: The solicitation 1442 states that the project is to be completed 480 calendar days after NTP. How many days are for design?

Response: 180 days of the 480 days are allotted for design. A separate NTP will be issued for construction.

4. Request: A due date of April 18th gives us less than a week and a half to complete this proposal, which is not enough time to get design and construction subcontractor feedback for an accurate bid. We respectfully request that the Air Force delay the due date by two weeks.

Response: Reference 4 May 2017 FBO Posting.

5. Request: 1.01 Statement of Work F. 1. Scope c. Abatement of Hazardous Materials states: “No hazardous materials have been identified within the scope of this work.” Has a hazardous materials survey been conducted for this work area? If not, does the Air Force expect the contractor to conduct one?

Response: The building was built in 1998 and used since only as storage. Storage did not include hazardous materials. Blasted nosecones (blasted and cleaned elsewhere) were brought into the building, possibly resulting in trace amounts of heavy metals. Due to this, wipe samples will be performed by the contractor for heavy metals on the floor (scope will be added to SOW) and small trace amounts should be covered for cleaning under this contract.

6. Request: Visual inspection of the ceiling of Building 673 north wing revealed what appears to be water damage. Have the water damaged areas been tested for mold? If not, does the Air Force require mold testing?

Response: Mold damage is primarily to the eaves of the building due to leaves in the gutters causing overflows. Some additional leaking in other areas of the storage area has occurred with damage to the insulation. The building exposed structural elements are scheduled to be cleaned under the SOW. Due to the cleaning and since the roof and wall panels and insulation are to be removed and new installed, mold testing will not be required. No mold remediation is anticipated on the opposite side of the south wall of the storage area and is not included in this contract (this would be an unforeseen condition).

However, the contractor is required to take necessary precautions to protect workers during the work.

7. Request: 1.01 Statement of Work F. 1. Scope d. Demolition 4) “Remove wall insulation.” Does this apply to all wall insulation? Is ALL wall insulation to be removed?

Response: Yes. SOW will be revised to clarify work to be performed on the south storage area wall.

8. Request: Please confirm that the existing exterior transformer is to be removed and replaced.

Response: The revised SOW will provide an option for the transformer and clarify this issue. Considerations are being discussed for a new transformer to feed the 400A service in lieu of replacing the 500 KVA transformer.

9. Request: If existing exterior transformer is to be removed, will it require abatement? Or will the government take possession and be responsible for removal?

Response: If the existing transformer is to be removed, abatement will not be required.

The transformer is to be delivered by the contractor to the CE electrical shop.

10. Request: If the existing exterior transformer is to be removed and replaced, is the existing electrical ductbank running to the transformer to be reused?

Response: Yes, provided the electrical outage due to work on the service entrance is confined to a holiday weekend. This will be coordinated with our inspector and the user during construction. Additional information and changes will be provided in the revised

SOW.

11. Request: Does the government want to specify where the sanitary sewer is to be relocated? E.g. where the new “work around” is to connect to existing sanitary sewer?

Response: The government does not have a preference as to where the sewer is to be relocated as long as the relocation meets codes and the Base Facility Standards. The workaround will be required to be performed at the same time as the electrical outage.

The design engineer will make the determination of location based on the requirements.

12. Request: Does the government require a new manhole at the new connecting point to the sanitary sewer line?

Response: Yes. Design will be in conformance with the Base Facility Standards (furnished with the solicitation), UFCs and building codes.

13. Request: Can the government provide more detail about the existing sanitary sewer line, e.g. inverts?

Response: Yes, a drawing will be provided with the revised SOW.

14. Request: Statement of Work Page 10 of 11, Part 2 – Products 4. CMU insulation: Core- Fill 500. There is no existing cmu for the north wing of Building 673. Where does the government anticipate or require the use of cmu?

Response: CMU is specified for the perimeter walls of the PPE and Locker rooms (Section 01020, 7.3.1). However, the heat/ventilation alternate will be removed from the storage area requiring the full HVAC system to be a part of the contract (revised SOW and Bid Form will be provided). Therefore, the requirement for CMU insulation fill will be removed.

15. Request: Can the government provide architectural drawings, with measurements, for Building 673? Both pdf and CAD if they are available.

Response: Yes, these will be provided with the revised SOW.

16. Request: Statement of Work, Demolition 9) Clean existing structural components in Production Area (base bid). Protect all existing work to remain from damage. Please specify what structural components are to be cleaned, how they are to be cleaned, and how they are to be protected.

Response: All of the exposed building structural components. Cleaning should be sufficient to remove any mold/mildew, but not remove the existing paint. The cleaning method and protection of existing elements will be determined by the contractor and engineer. Test areas will be performed to verify that method chosen will not damage the existing paint.

17. Request: What is the age and manufacturer of the PEMB?

Response: The north end was built in 1999, manufacturer is Star. The south end was constructed later – manufacturer is not known.

18. Request: What is the required height and width of the new overhead door?

Response: New overhead door shall be 22 ft. wide x 15 ft. high.

19. Request: What are the required dimensions of the two adjoining rooms, PPE and Locker Room?

Response: Nominal sizes are PPE – 12’x12’, Locker – 9’x12’. These will be shown in the updated drawing for the SOW.

20. Request: What are the specified sink sizes for the PPE room?

Response: Handwash sink is a standard lavatory size. Stainless steel sink is a 2 bowl floor standing sink, similar to commercial kitchen sink, approx. 42” wide with nominal 18”x18” bowls.

21. Request: Can you provide basic specs for the new personnel doors and door hardware?

Response: Hardware will be as per Base Facility Standards and UFGS requirements.

This is design/build. The design engineer is required to incorporate requirements into the design.

22. Request: Will the new PPE and Locker rooms require paint?

Response: Yes per Section 01020, 7.3.1.

23. Request: Will all of the government property be removed from the north wing of Building 673 by the government prior to renovation?

Response: Yes

24. Request: In the Statement of Work document, p. 27 of 164, under 8. STRUCTURAL DESIGN 8.1. General it states “All structural calculations and drawings shall be checked and stamped by a registered Professional Civil Engineer, registered in the state of the project location.” Is there a reason to have a Civil Engineer check and stamp the Structural design work? Is Robins enforcing this? Will a Structural Engineer be acceptable to check and stamp Structural design?

Response: Structural engineer’s seal will be acceptable.

Contractor # 3

1. Request: For sizing the new Electrical Service; do we size the new Electrical Service for Air Conditioning, even if the ventilation alternate is selected?

Response: Yes. The Bid Form and SOW will be changed to make the Air Conditioning a part of the Base Bid and remove the heat/ventilation alternate.

2. Request: The building currently has TWO electrical services, are we to consolidate them into ONE electrical service?

Response: The revised SOW will provide an option for the transformer and clarify this issue. Considerations are being discussed for a new transformer to feed the 400A service in lieu of replacing the 500 KVA transformer. Final decisions will be incorporated into the revised SOW.

Contractor # 4

1. Request: Is the sign-in sheet from the site visit going to be made available?

Response: Yes. Posted on 13 Apr 2017.

2. Request: Please confirm that the government does not to intend on enlarging the building footprint (which is covered by the roof).

Response: The building footprint is not being enlarged, but a roof is specified for the west handicap ramp per drawings.

3. Request: If there is no building expansion, then why is a Geotechnical Report needed with a single boring?

Response: Single boring will be required for the new delivery access ramp on the north end. The boring will provide bearing capacity for the ramp to allow the structural engineer to properly size the foundations.

4. Request: The scope mentions replacing the roof at the existing purlins; it also mentions that the new roof line should match the southern roof pitch. This would require modifications to the rigid frame rafters (to add the approx. 2 vertical feet to the roof line), and other additional structural elements. Please confirm this is the intent.

Response: This is the intent.

5. Request: Please confirm if transformers are to be switched or un-switched?

Response: Transformers will be required to be switched.

6. Request: Will an eye-wash be required?

Response: Yes per drawings and Section 01005, 1.01 F. e. 13).

7. Request: Where is the sewer tie-in location?

Response: Existing sanitary sewer is shown on the “B673 Utilities” drawing and Plate 101 of the drawings. Actual tie-in locations to the existing line will be determined during design.

8. Request: Can the government please confirm all size and options to be included with the new overhead door?

Response: Options are listed in the SOW and Base Facility Standards. Quality and safety requirements are dictated by the UFGS. Door size is 22 ft. wide x 15 ft. high.

9. Request: Can the government provide as-builts of the existing utility infrastructure for this area?

Response: We will provide the power riser diagram for this building. The utility infrastructure beyond the air switch should not be needed.

10. Request: Does the owner have any criteria for the type of plumbing fixtures to be used?

Response: Stainless steel sink will be commercial type, nominal 42 inches wide.

Lavatory will be durable commercial grade lavatory. Eyewash fountain is per SOW.

11. Request: Will there be a compressed air requirement for the facility? If so, what is the anticipated load and where is the compressor to be located?

Response: There will not be a requirement for compressed air.

12. Request: Does the owner want lightning protection?

Response: Yes per Section 01005, 1.01 F. e. 8).

13. Request: Can it be confirmed if the existing LP system is tied into a grounding loop?

Response: The LP system should be connected into the existing grounding loop. For purposes of this bid, assume that this is so.

14. Request: What new process equipment will be added to the existing electric load?

Response: The sanding booth will be the only major piece of processing equipment. All other receptacle loads will be power tools, max. 20A.

15. Request: Does the owner want LED fixtures on the interior and exterior of B673?

Response: Yes. A LCCA will not be needed.

16. Request: The Statement of Work (SOW) states to design to ASHRAE Standards, but also calls for a 5% safety factor (which does not comply with ASHRAE Standard 90.1) -what criteria is to be used?

Response: Response from CE engineers is pending. Response will be included within changes to the SOW when reissued.

17. Request: Please confirm the pressure relationships for the various areas (+, -, neutral)?

Response: Pressure requirements are as required to prevent contaminants from leaving the PPE room. Design will determine the values.

18. Request: What is the anticipated pressure and flow rate at the base of the existing fire riser?

Response: A new fire pump and tank system are currently being installed near the building to service several buildings in the area. The tank sizes and pump capacity will be provided in the revised SOW.

19. Request: Will the process equipment or specialty fixtures have any domestic water requirements?

Response: No.

20. Request: Is there any specialty drainage that requires oil-water separators?

Response: No.

21. Request: What is the PRV of this facility/project? Please confirm that A-E presence is required at 65% and 95% design review meetings.

Response: If “PRV” is taken as Plant Replacement Value, this value is not required for bidding. The A-E presence is required at the 60% and First Final Reviews (this will be clarified in the revised SOW).

22. Request: The environmental specification section, as provided with the solicitation, is an older version; however, Robins AFB has released a newer version. Please clarify which specification section is to be followed?

Response: A newer section 01560 for 2016 will be used and included with the revised

SOW.

23. Request: Please confirm that all sprinkler shop drawings are to be sealed by a FPE, not NICET Level IV as written on page 3 of 11.

Response: The sprinkler shop drawings are to be sealed by an FPE. SOW will be modified accordingly.

24. Request: It seems clear that the lightning protection is required in reading the SOW, per Section 10.8. Is the existing system to be modified as required for new construction, or is a brand new system to be installed?

Response: A new system needs to be installed from the ground up for entire roof (north and south). Current downleaders tie into the columns which is no longer allowed.

Contractor will confirm condition (including resistance testing to ground) of the underground loop prior to beginning work. Third party certification is still required.

Additional clarifications will be provided in the SOW.

25. Request: Can we ask for approval to not do the LED lighting 10 year life cycle payback calculation per SOW 10.3.4.1? This is unnecessary and redundant considering that the cost of LED light fixtures has come down to be near equal or less than fluorescent and HID types. LED has become the industry standard and we expect other types to be phased out in the next few years.

Response: Newer guidance has omitted the LCCA requirement, so we will be using LEDs (SOW to be revised).

26. Request: The SOW document and drawings make repeated reference to remove existing electrical service back to the existing site air switch as required for new electrical service.

We want to make sure we understand the reasoning for this in terms of design intent. The existing gear does not look old or outdated and there is substantial money involved in its complete replacement. Is the concern that the existing service is undersized? The new scope of work does not seem to include a plethora of new process loads or heavy HVAC loads. Is the current service size maxed out to capacity? The existing pad mount transformer is sized for a capacity of a 600 amp service. Is the desire to go to 800 amps or future electrical load potential?

Response: Additional loads are to be calculated during design by the design engineer.

The revised SOW will provide an option for the transformer and clarify this issue.

Considerations are being discussed for a new transformer to feed the 400A service in lieu of replacing the 500 KVA transformer. If so, the conductors for the air switch will be replaced when the new transformer is installed.

27. Request: Per the SOW, Section 10.9, Voice/Data System work is to consist of boxes and conduit only. Please confirm.

Response: This is confirmed. SOW will be changed to provide “J” hooks for support at the roof line, with conduit and boxes from the roof to the floor. Provide for 2 locations to include 1 phone and 2 data drops at each location.

28. Request: Can facilities engineering be asked if they have any existing drawings of the original construction of the building for all disciplines?

Response: Drawings are available for the original building (north section) and renovations to the flashjet (south section) in both pdf and dwg formats. These will be provided with the revised SOW.

29. Request: We respectfully request an additional two (2) weeks after receiving the RFI responses to finalize our pricing. Can you please advise?

Response: Reference 4 May 2017 FBO Posting.

Contractor # 5

1. Request: For sizing the new Electrical Service; do we size the new Electrical Service for Air Conditioning, even if the ventilation alternate is selected?

Response: Yes. The Bid Form and SOW will be changed to make the Air Conditioning a part of the Base Bid and remove the heat/ventilation alternate.

2. Request: The building currently has TWO electrical services, are we to consolidate them into ONE electrical service?

Response: The revised SOW will provide an option for the transformer and clarify this issue. Considerations are being discussed for a new transformer to feed the 400A service in lieu of replacing the 500 KVA transformer. Final decisions will be incorporated into the revised SOW.

3. Request: On sheet A101, there is a note that says “Modify existing wall insulation scrim as required to allow for the installation of additional insulation without condensation issues”. On sheet A102, there is a note that says “Install additional wall insulation”. Also, on page 2 of SOW, Item 4 says “Remove wall insulation and wall panels for remaining walls on the renovation area (north section of building). Question:

Are all wall panels to be removed on the entire north building (all three sides) and install new insulation and wall panels?

Response: Insulation and wall panels are required to be removed from all 3 sides and replaced with new. Corrections will be made to the SOW.

4. Request: See attached SOW page 3, Item 6 says that the new metal roof on north section shall be on the same slope as the south section. From what I saw yesterday, there are two different roof slopes. Question: Do we have to change the slope of the north section?

Response: Yes, the plane of the new roof is required to match the existing south roof.

Contractor # 6

1. Request: Looking at the map, there are no secure access points preventing anyone from accessing this building. ATFP standoff distance would be violated without some additional fencing, gates, bollards, etc. The building has 8 personnel for the facility so it is considered “non-inhabited.” Can the gov clarify as to whether an ATFP Analysis is required, and then confirm that the gov does not expect the contractor to make bldg 673 ATFP rated as part of this RFP?

Response: This building is not required to meet the ATFP requirements per UFC 4-010- 01.

Attachments to be provided with revised SOW:

Existing Power Riser drawing and panel schedule Existing Building Drawings 2015/2016 Peak building loads (15 min.)

2017 Peak building loads (15 min.)

Section 01560, Environmental, dated 2016