Pre-award_RFI_Questions_1-8_Responses.docx

Pre-award Request for Information FA8601-18-R-0018

1. Reference - Section L, Factor 1, Technical Proposal:

“The offeror shall provide evidence/documentation to substantiate the offeror’s previous experience of having performed as a contractor on at least one construction project containing all of the following aspects:

Subfactor 1: Offerors shall provide evidence of successfully completing a General Building Construction/Renovation project with a contract with a value of over $1,000,000.00 to $5,000,000.00 completed within the last 8 years.

Subfactor 2: Offers shall provide evidence of previous experience in successfully completing a General Building Construction/Renovation project within the last 8 years: 1. On a flight line, 2. On historic Facility, 3. Replacing windows to include abatement, 4. In an occupied facility.”

Please clarify whether the experience requirements can be satisfied by submitting multiple projects that individually cover portion(s) of the requirements, but together cover all of the requirements. To meet this experience requirement with a single project is unduly restrictive to secure reasonable, qualified competition, particularly for an 8(a) small business solicitation.

Answer: The offeror provided evidence can be more than one contract showing previous experience in order to comply with Subfactors 1 and 2.

2. Question: Will the government provide a quantity of windows to be removed for painting and a quantity of windows that cannot be removed?

Answer: Remove, restore and reinstall windows: approx. 21,815 SF. Paint structural window framing not removed: approx. 8,725 SF

3. Reference – Painting Specifications: The RFP requires a three-coat application painting process. This application will require each removed window to remain open and exposed to the elements for approximately four days.

Questions: Will the government confirm that this is acceptable to the government?

Or, if not, will the government confirm that temporary protection will be required?

Or, will the government suggest a painting application that does not require a long application duration?

Answer: The facility and its infrastructure must be protected from the elements. The interior temperatures must not drop below 35 degrees to keep pipes from freezing. The long period of performance was partially intended to assist with the timing of the work around the weather. The contractor is responsible for means and methods of the temporary protection. The Government will not suggest an alternate painting application; though, the Government will accept an alternate painting application if it is determined to be equal or better than the contract requirements.

4. Reference – Concrete/Masonry Specifications: The RFP requires the contractor repair concrete and masonry cracks that varied in length, depth and width.

Question: Will the government consider amending the bid schedule to provide an estimate of the quantities that could be cost adjusted up or down by providing unit pricing in the CLIN Schedule (e.g. 0 – 1/8” per SF, 1/8” to ¼” per SF, ¼” to 3/8” per SF, etc.)?

Answer: The bid schedule will not be amended. Assume 9921 SF of masonry repairs and corrective fill at failure in concrete sill. The design intent of this process is to prep the exterior for painting and protect the wall from further spalling/damage. Means and methods to meet that intent are up to the contractor.

5. Reference - Pully Chain System

Question: Will the government provide the manufacturer and/or a basis-of-design for the removal, replacement, or repair of the manually operated pulley chain system and components?

Answer: The original manufacturer was Dayton Greenhouse Mfg Co. The name was changed to Dayton Metal Products Co. Hope’s Windows Inc. (Jamestown, NY) bought the company but they continue to make Dayton Metal Product line of products. See the following link for details:

http://www.daytonmetalproducts.com/

Please clarify a question below regarding project Repair Hangar 1 & 2 Windows F30206: Drawing G-101,

6. Project Note 3 points out to the existing Environmental Analysis Report in Section 4. Please provide this environmental report due to the fact that is not found in the provided documents.

ANSWER: Environmental assessment attached for reference.

Please clarify a question below regarding project Repair Hangar 1 & 2 Windows F30206:

7. Drawing ME101 dated 01/11/2017: Note 1 occurs twice: between columns line 11-12 and 18-19. Neither location is in the southeast corner as noted. Toilet exhaust ductwork, as described, is located in the southwest corner of Hangar 1 and Hangar 2. We assume that Note 1 applies between col. lines 3-4 in each hanger. Please confirm.

ANSWER: Yes, two exhaust ducts will be relocated to discharge out new louvers.

Please clarify a question below regarding project Repair Hangar 1 & 2 Windows F30206:

8. Drawing ME101 dated 01/11/2017: Note 3 indicates a single pipe to be relocated below the windows to penetrate through the masonry. If the design intent is to remove pipes from windows, there are 5 more pipes running through the windows at the same location as the compressed air pipe (note 3). Shall we relocate these below the windows as well?

ANSWER: Yes, all pipes penetrating the windows will need to be relocated to below the window. Drawing note 3 will need to be amended to make that clear.