RFIs CEMACC III Prebid for SAM.GOV.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Civil Engineering Multiple Award Construction Contract III, IDIQ Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8501-22-R0023
About this file
This document summarizes a solicitation for a Civil Engineering Multiple Award Construction Contract III (CEMACC III) indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract issued by the Air Force Sustainment Center. The IDIQ is for general construction services including design, construction, modifications, and renovations of facilities at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia and other locations supported by the agency. The period of performance is one base year and four option years with a maximum value of $300 million. Individual task orders will range from $150,000 to $2 million in size and complexity. Services include maintenance, repair, alteration, mechanical, electrical, heating/air conditioning, demolition, painting, asbestos remediation, paving, and earthwork for industrial and office buildings. Awards will be made to multiple Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses using a low price with special standards of responsibility evaluation. The North American Industry Classification System code is 236220 with a $36.5 million small business size standard. The solicitation is available on beta.sam.gov and responses are due based on the posting date.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| RFI | Gov Response | |
| Per the drawings, the scope of the Demonstration Project is an existing building that includes cutting into existing concrete decks, installation of new Steel Curb Work, new Structural steel members, insulation around the curb and maybe painting the curbs. | The drawings are as-builts of a previous project in the corresponding area and for information purposes only. The scope of this Design-Build project is described in the Statement of Work for UHHZ170100. | |
| As the bid bond amount was supposed to be $2,000,000 | ||
| Will the steel curbs have an exterior paint finish and if so what type? | The drawings are as-builts of a previous project in the corresponding area and for information purposes only. The scope of this Design-Build project is described in the Statement of Work for UHHZ170100. | |
| Missing Attachments per Section J a. 13 - Procedural Guide for Designers Including AE Firms 29 May 15. Can this be provided? | Yes, this document will be added to the attachments on https://www.sam.gov. | |
| b. 19 - Building Wage Determination. Can this be provided? | Yes, this document will be added to the attachments on https://www.sam.gov | |
| Section J’s list of attachments skipped #5 and #16. Please confirm we aren’t missing other attachments. | No, there were attachments there were mislabeled in the original posting. We deleted the mislabeled documents which were #5 and #16. The system did not renumber the document. | |
| Section J Shows 1 Submittal Register - 2 Submittal Registers were included in the attached documents. Please confirm there are no differences between the 2 or confirm which Submittal Register is to be used. | There are no differences in the submittal registers, these are just templates. | |
| Received an attachment not listed in Section J - Is this applicable to the solicitation? | This is for information only. | |
| In the Scope of Work for the Seed Project, under Section C. Mechanical Considerations, sub section f) states: “The single manufacturer of all HVAC systems at Robins AFB shall be Carrier.” | ||
| Question: Will all HVAC components be required to be Carrier? Ex. Chillers, AHU’s, Mini Splits? Will this requirement be for the entire CEMACC III contract or only for the Seed Project? | The only J&A that the base has is for chillers. Therefore, all chillers will be required to be Carrier, but any other HVAC components can be alternative brands. | |
| Please confirm that if heavy metals are discovered, the remediation of the heavy metals would be treated as an unforeseen condition, and that a contract modification would be issued. | Correct. Testing for heavy metals is required in the base bid, but if tests return positive, a modification will be issued to adjust for the cost. | |
| Section B - Note 4 states that to be considered for award contractor must have a current Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) assessment. Does proof of this assessment need to be included in the Proposal Packet? | No, you don’t need to submit the SPRS assessment with your proposal. We will independently verify registrations. If your business does not show up, we will reach out to individually. | |
| For Pricing Purposes, how would you like the abatement aspect of this task order, without test results on hand? | The intent is to only price testing, a mod will be issued for actual abatement. | |
| Section B - Note 3 (page 5) states “Ensure your Proposal contains: Demonstration Project 170100, Rpr/Rpl AHU's Production Bay, WHSE SUP EQUIP DEP, B350, Proposal Pricing Worksheet, Bid Bond, signed SF 1442, Special Standard of Responsibility (SSR) and acknowledge any amendments if applicable.” Is a second bid bond required or does the overarching CEMACC III bid bond noted under Bonds Requirements A. in the amount of $3 Million cover the Demonstration Project as well? | We only need the bid bond for $3 Million. |
| Section B - Note 5 states we need to submit a report to the DOL (VETS 4212). Does proof of this form being submitted need to be included in the Proposal Packet? | No, you don’t need to submit the VETS information with your proposal. We will independently verify registrations. If your business does not show up, we will reach out to individually. | |
| MRR Compiled Searches… | The drawings are as-builts of a previous project in the corresponding area and for information purposes only. The scope of this Design-Build project is described in the Statement of Work for UHHZ170100. | |
| Proposal Requirements page 43 & 44 of 50 in the solicitation: | ||
| 1. | Item A says for us to provide a letter from an AE firm showing a “Working relationship as defined by projects completed within the last five years with a minimum of three projects. The AE must document this relationship within the respective letter” We have solid, long term, relationships with Multiple AE firms, registered in Georgia, that we utilize for various projects. Our selection of the AE firm is based on project size, their current workload, if the project has a specialized scope, etc. Can we submit more than one AE firm with whom we have completed projects with over the last five years to meet the minimum three projects’ requirements? | The requirement is to show three projects with an individual A&E firm. The intent is to show a working relationship. |
| We understand this to be a general construction CEMACC, however, item C requires that the “design team derive a majority of their income from roof design work.” Is this a general construction CEMACC or will it be a roofing CEMACC? Just want to clarify as I know RAFB recently awarded a roofing IDIQ so I wasn’t sure if this statement was to be included. | This is a requirement per UFC 3-110-03 to design roofs. There will be a requirement to install roofs at some point on this IDIQ, therefore we are requesting proof that this requirement can be met. | |
| Project description paragraph 2.B.e)2) seems to contradict itself by first stating that new AHUs are required to match existing “performance, function, and power requirements”, and afterward stating that new AHUs are to satisfy specific indoor space conditions. Can the government please clarify the intent for replacement units’ performance, function, and power requirements? | The intent is to satisfy the indoor space conditions | |
| Are specifications a required design deliverable, and if so, what format is required (e.g., Specintact-based UFGS specs)? Does RAFB require the use of their own master specifications for Division 01 (or any other) specifications | Robins requires the use of its own Division 01 specs concatenated with the UFGS specs for a design deliverable. | |
| Is temporary HVAC equipment required to be designed and shown on drawings? Or, simply provided in similar capacities to the existing systems? | Yes, the Temporary HVAC shall be shown in the drawings with a rough order of magnitude showing the ability to meet requirements for the space. | |
| The building has existing openings that may allow air to infiltrate from outdoors to the conditioned indoor space (e.g., rooftop exhaust fans, etc.). Can the government please clarify the intent for closure of such openings to properly condition the Center Bay? | Gravity controlled, dampeners shall be installed on the 4 exhaust fans in question. | |
| Please provide pictures and data plates of AHU-5 as we were not permitted in the area during the walkthrough. | Pictures will be posted in solicitation on Sam.gov. AHU-5 was seen as the AHU's in question are 2, 3, 4 and 5. The numbering skips 1. | |
| Please provide data plates on the existing roof mounted exhaust fans. These are open to the atmosphere and have no backdraft dampers. | Pictures will be posted in solicitation on sam.gov. | |
| Is the chilled water supplied from a central plant or a building chiller? | There is a chiller at the building. | |
| Can the existing steam piping running through the building be utilized for AHU heating needs? Is this line from a central plant or a boiler in the building? Is there sufficient capacity for heating use? | No, the steam piping is not sufficient. Heating is accomplished via natural gas. | |
| The scope says to “Install all new associated piping, insulation, pumps, valves, strainers, gauges, ductwork, and controls, in support of the project design and specifications.” Is it right to assume the existing pumps (if not fed from central plant) can remain? If not, please provide the data off these as we were not shown any pumps during the walk through. | The pumps for the chilled water can remain. | |
| Do the existing AHUs meet the performance requirements? Is the space meeting 75 degrees with 50% RH in the summer and 70 degrees with 30-50% RH in the winter? | It can not be assumed that the existing AHUs meet these requirements. Space requirements will have to be evaluated via heating/cooling load calculations. | |
| Can the government please provide the as-built drawings in pdf and dwg format? | The only as-builts available were already provided. | |
| Does the government currently possess any hazardous material testing results from inside the building? If not, the extent of abatement will not be known. Should the contractor exclude pricing an abatement plan to allow fair and competitive bidding? | Abatement should be excluded, but testing and investigation should still be included. | |
| Will the new AHUs be required to be installed in the footprint of the existing AHUs? | Yes, within reason. | |
| During the site visit, the contractor noted infrared and steam heaters located inside the building. Can the government please provide any applicable product data or make/model information for those and clarify how these heaters affect the project scope of work? | The infrared radiant heaters are Solaronics Suntubes. There is 4x25' 2x50' 1x20' and 1x40'. These will need to be taken into consideration when designing the space to meet the requirements. | |
| The SOW calls for temporary heating and cooling throughout the project. Is the government’s intention to meet current conditions with the temporary heating and cooling or will the contractor be expected to meet the desired results of the new system called for in the SOW? | Gravity controlled, dampeners shall be installed on the 4 exhaust fans in question. | |
| It has been noted that the overhead door into the building remains open a majority of the time to allow forklift traffic. This makes it relatively difficult to design a system which can meet the humidity requirements in the SOW. Should the contractor design the system to perform with the assumption the door will remain closed and opened only briefly when necessary? | The system will be designed for the door being closed. | |
| Does the government find it acceptable to power the temporary units using the building’s existing panels? | The unit that is being taken out of commission's power source maybe used. Otherwise, power must be supplied independently of the building. | |
| The SOW mentions removal of pumps during demolition and installation of new pumps. Can the government please provide clarity on which pumps need to be demolished and where they are currently located? | This statement refers to the condensate pumps on the units. | |
| Can the government please confirm the wage determination which should be used for this project? | Davis Bacon - The Wage Determination sheet was posted on www.sam.gov on 30 September 2022. | |
| Will the demonstration project be awarded for construction? | It will be awarded in design and separate Notice to Proceed (NTP) will be issued for construction after its completion on the same contract. | |
| The SOW includes a set of 6 dawings that indicate a roof penetration, but they do not indicate the AHUs that need to be replaced. Is the roof penetration necessary? Should that be priced for the seed project? | The drawings are the only as-builts of the area and meant for reference material only. There should not be any additional roof penetrations. | |
| Provide additional clarity on the letter from an AE firm showing working relationship with a copy of their professional seal. Are you looking to determine if an architect and/or engineer is an actual employee of the AE firm? | The intent is to verify that the firm is a licensed AE firm. | |
| For the minimum of 3 projects for AE firm, are you looking for minimum of 3 projects on individual resumes or are you looking for the AE firm to provide 3 projects showing their capabilities? | The intent is to show 3 projects the prime contractor has worked with AE firms. This is to show that the prime has worked with AEs previously and is familiar with that kind of work. | |
| What disciplines are you looking for the AE firm to provide? It does not appear that any have been specifically mentioned. | No specific disciplines are required. | |
| There appear to be two PDFs with different names, but they appear to be the same file- "RULES- 911 xx % Design Disc Review-308 pgs" and "RULES -PA-RAFB-Construction Standards - 308 pgs copy of 911". Is there a reason for the duplicates? | This was corrected on 26 September this was an error and should not have been duplicated. | |
| "RULES-RAFB Facility Standards 2022-264 pgs" appears to be a superseded version of "RULES -PA-RAFB-Construction Standards - 308 pgs copy of 911". Are they both applicable or only the more recent? | This was corrected on 26 September this was an error and should not have been duplicated. | |
| There appear to be two PDFs with different names, but they appear to be the same file- "SPECS Index - Robins AFB Division 1-UHHZ150293 - 4 pgs" and "SPECS-Robins AFB Division-UHH220009-111 pgs". Is there a reason for the duplicates? | This was corrected on 26 September this was an error and should not have been duplicated. | |
| Are there wage rates for this solicitation? If yes; Please provide. | Davis Bacon is the wage rate used. The Wage Determination sheet was posted on www.sam.gov on 30 September 2022. | |
| Will you provide a copy sign in sheet for the site visit? | Yes this will be uploaded to Sam.gov | |
| The SOW that was provided as part of the solicitatoin did not appear to identify replacing four AHUs. Please provide direction and /or a revised SOW that shows the AHUs that need to be replaced. | There are 2 SOWs in the solicitation. One is for the CEMACC III IDIQ, and the other is for the demonstration project. (If using a link to visit the site, scroll to the bottom and there is a link to the most recent posting) | |
| The existing warehouse where the AHUs will be replaced appears to be a slab on grade. Please confirm the existing floor is a slab on grade, and provide any existing structural drawings if they are available. | Yes the floor is a slab on grade, no drawings exist. | |
| Please confirm that the existing piping, conduit, and ductwork can be resued. | Yes, but if ductwork is reused, it must be appropriately cleaned. | |
| Provide specifications on the existing AHUs that are to be replaced. | The data plates are being provided via sam.gov posting. | |
| Does the owner have a preferred manufacturer for the AHUs? | Carrier shall be design basis, but equivalent alternatives are acceptable. | |
| Will the demonstration project be awarded for construction? | It will be awarded in design and separate Notice to Proceed (NTP) will be issued for construction after its completion on the same contract. | |
| The contractor was unable to obtain access to AHU2 during the site visit. Please provide up close pitcures of the equipment, information plates, piping, connections etc. | All four AHUs on this project were available during the site visit. Pictures of the nameplates are being posted on Sam.gov | |
| Is the CMMC going to play a part in this project at all and if so when? | At this time, Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) will not play apart in CEMACC III IDIQ unless we are required to modify the base contract to add the CMMC reqirements. | |
| Can we get drawings of the building for the seed project? | All available drawings have been posted to Sam.gov | |
| Can we get a roofing type that will have to be removed for the airhandler to be installed? | The roof will not need to be removed, but the roof is a Durolast PVC roof with a metal deck built on beam and post framing over a coal tar pitch roof on a pre cast t deck. | |
| On .pdf document “Design and Construction to SOW”, Page 5 of 9, Paragraph 5, Sub Paragraph B “ The existing facility may have a previous design on CADD that would aid in drawing this project. However, the A-E shall be responsible for verifying all information.” | These CADD files are not available. | |
| Please clarify Project Number. Multiple documents have Project # 220009 annotated but the drawings show Project # 200178 and the Bidding Schedule shows Project # 170100. | 220009 references the CEMACC III IDIQ. 200178 is solely as-builts. 170100 is the demonstration project being bid. | |
| Please clarify Project Title. Drawings show “Project Repair Roof, WHSE Sup 350” and the Bidding Schedule shows Project Name “RPR/RPL AHU’s Production Bay, Warehouse Supply Equipment Depot, B350”. Equip Dep, Building | Repair roof is only for as-builts. The demonstration project being bid is “RPR/RPL AHU’s Production Bay, Warehouse Supply Equipment Depot, B350”. | |
| Document “Special Standards of Responsibility” Requirement only for this Seed Project or for the Entire CEMACC III contract? | The entire CEMACC III contract. | |
| Reference '2. UHHZ170100 _ DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION TO SOW' document, Item 2.B.c.2 - Without performing the Site Investigation and the Hazardous Material Survey, we cannot put a cost to any hazardous material abatement that may be required. Confirm that the base bid is to include the cost of performing the Site Investigation and Hazardous Material Survey only and that any required abatement that is found will be a modification to the contract. | Concur, the base bid is only to include investigation and survey. | |
| We understand that the Government intends to award a lump sum contract for this Task Order. The construction industry continues to experience significant cost volatility in nearly all commodities that cannot be anticipated. Subcontractors are receiving unforeseen increases in material costs from their suppliers, sometimes on a weekly basis, that can be as high as 10% or more. How is the Government going to accommodate the current price escalation being experienced in the marketplace with regards to commodities such as wood, steel, plastics, etc? Can an Equitable Price Adjustment (EPA) per contract length as one of the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 216.203-4(1)(ii) clause be added to the RFP? | The EPA clause will not be added. The offeror will have to ensure they proposal is priced accordingly. | |
| The construction industry continues to experience significant volatility, resulting in material lead time delays, in nearly all commodities that cannot be anticipated. Subcontractors are receiving unforeseen increases in material delivery durations from their suppliers. How is the Government going to accommodate the current extended lead times and material manufacturing and delivery delays that are occurring in the construction industry? | The two common solutions are stop work orders, while waiting on materials, and $0 time mod extensions as long as the contractor provides sufficient supporting evidence that material was ordered in a timely manner and a letter from the supplier stating delays for the specific order. | |
| Has a Limited Source Justification (FAR 6.302-1(c), 6.303) been prepared for any materials identified under this solicitation? If so, identify which systems to which they apply and provide all related documentation, including any required Approval (FAR 6.304) or Certification (FAR 6.303(b)(12)). | No. | |
| Confirm that the Government will allow proposers a minimum of seven (7) business days to respond to the RFP starting from the date that the Government responds to 100% of the RFIs received. | Proposals remain due on 21 Nov 2022, | |
| Reference '2. UHHZ170100 _ DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION TO SOW' document, Item 1.D - provide reference document 'Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-1023, Design and Construction Standards and Execution of .Facility Construction Projects (Chapter 1)' | AFI's are publicly available online | |
| The document titled '2. UHHZ170100 _ DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION TO SOW' document, Item 4.C.c states "For any construction work on the roof necessary for the flue for AHU-02, the roofing contractor shall be Duro-Last certified and coordinate with the original installer to not void the existing warranty, and match the existing conditions of the roof in accordance with Robins Base Facility Standards (BFS)". Provide the name and point of contact information for the original roof installer for coordination purposes. | There is not a requirement to coordinate with the original installer. The only requirements are to have a certified durolast installer and a letter from durolast at the end of the project stating the warranty is still in place. (See updated SOW) | |
| The document titled '2. UHHZ170100 _ DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION TO SOW' document, Item 4.C.d states "Repair the exterior wall where ductwork passes through for AHU-2 to include paint/materials that match the interior and exterior color palette and conditions of the building according to BFS". To be able to price the repair of the exterior wall, the construction of the wall needs to be identified. What is the composition of the exterior wall, including insulation rating, thickness of wall, framing type, exterior facade, etc? | The wall is CMU block | |
| The document titled '2. UHHZ170100 _ DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION TO SOW' document, Item 4.C.d states "The single manufacturer of all HVAC systems at Robins AFB shall be Carrier". In order to require a sole source to Carrier, the Government is required to obtain a Limited Source Justification (FAR 6.302-1(c), 6.303). Provide all related documentation, including any required Approval (FAR 6.304) or Certification (FAR 6.303(b)(12)) that allows for this procudement directive. | This statement is being edited. Carrier shall be the design basis, but no sole source justification is present at this time for all HVAC systems. | |
| The document titled '2. UHHZ170100 _ DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION TO SOW' document, Item 5.B states "The existing facility may have a previous design on CADD that would aid in drawing this project. However, the A-E shall be responsible for verifying all information". The availability of CADD directly impacts the design cost. Confirm that existing CADD documents are available and will be provided to the awarded Contractor upon award. | The only existing CADD files are for floor plans of the building. | |
| The Bid Schedule states "NOTE: We strongly recommended the contractor visit the site to determine the complexity of the work and the amount of material required for this project. Field measurements may have been necessary to determine the size and quantity of materials. Conditions that the Contracting Officer decides would have been obvious or visible to the contractor on inspection at the site visit will not be considered under the Differing Site Conditions provision of the contract". The site visit is not mandatory and therefore Contractors cannot be held responsible for existing conditions. Contractually, Contractors can only be held responsible for existing conditions which have been disclosed in the RFP documents. We respectfully request that this entire clause be removed from the bid schedule. | The applicable language in the |
bid schedule will not be removed because it provides notice to offerors that a failure to participate in the site visit could have implications under FAR 52.236-2 (Differing Site Conditions) later if that offeror becomes the awardee.
| Will the demonstration project be awarded? | Yes |
| Section L of the solicitation document has extremely specific requirements regarding the licensure of a Professional Architectural and Engineering firm in the State of Georgia as well as deriving the majority of their income from roof design work. Furthermore, the working relationship shall be documented by a minimum of 3 projects completed together in the previous 5 years. The specificity in this requirement appears to have been written for a specific offeror or two with current working relationships at the base and will clearly yield awardees with AEs primarily focused on roof design work versus the broader scope of requirements that may be solicited under this MACC. These requirements eliminate many potential offerors that would otherwise be fully capable and responsive to the Government’s need, and in doing so may preclude sufficient competition. We ask that this concern be acknowledged and addressed as the Government sees fit to meet their requirements. | This SSR is based on the UFC 3-110-03 section 1-8.11 requirement. Because roofing will be a critical aspect of this IDIQ, this SSR is to make sure the contractors can meet this requirement on future TOs. |
| 1)Testing for asbestos as well as heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, |
chromium, etc. shall occur in the design phase to ensure adequate preparation for construction.
2) If evidence of heavy metals is detected, appropriate abatement plan will be included as part of the design for project phasing.
| Please confirm that should asbestos, heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, chromium, etc. be detected during the design process, that the Government will negotiate a modification with the contractor to accommodate the removal/abatement of such. If not, please extend the contract up to 60 days to allow all bidders (potentially 20 bidders per site visit attendees) to hire, schedule, and test for asbestos, heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, chromium, etc. to insure adequate funds are included in the bid to cover. | Yes, if abatement is deemed necessary, a modification will be negotiated | |
| Are there previous design drawings to aid in this project? This will aid in our design for the new system. | There are no drawings available. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .