RFP QandA.docx

Flip Tower Q&A

Q: Are the towers included in the requirement or are you just looking for a flipping mechanism?

A: The government’s requirement is for the entire system including the towers and flipping mechanism. Please see the Statement of Work (SOW) for details

Q: Is the government requiring a design as well as the delivery of the tower?

A: Yes, the government will not provide a design. The offeror will have to engineer the tower and deliver it to the specifications provided in the SOW

Q: Is there an incumbent company that has built the flipping mechanism?

A: We encourage partnerships between interested parties for this effort, especially since this is a small business set-aside. A company that has built a similar mechanism is called PFlow Industries, 6720 N TEUTONIA AVE, MILWAUKEE, WI 53209 USA. Please contact them for details and to inquire about their interest in teaming.

Q: What is the distance from the site to the nearest distribution transformer pole? Is there any pavement on the path between the pole and the site?

A: Under the assumption the vendor is looking for the power pole with a transformer near the top, we do not have any in the area. For this project, we will need to bury the power lines underground and install a ground transformer to support.

Q: Can the government share a site photograph, if available?

A: Reference the site plan attached.

Q: Can government share a Site Plan if available?

A: Reference the site plan attached. The intent is to place the two towers where the connecting flip beam is perpendicular to the road and located within the area labeled ‘WSMR Flip Facility’.

Q: If no information about the site and available power is available, can the government specify base quantities for bidding purposes?

A: The site is being powered by a 24 kV power line. We are assuming a ground transformer will be required to support this project.

Q: Does the government have a geotechnical report from an existing site structure that can be shared for bidding purposes?

A: Topographical survey for the site area is attached.

Q: If no soils information is available about the site or past adjacent foundation knowledge, can the government specify soil characteristics for bidding purposes?

A: Geophysical survey report for the site area is attached.

Q: In the Statement of Work, acceptance testing is due “NLT 40 weeks ARO”. Can that date be changed to reflect a start date after all design and fabrication documents have been reviewed, back-checked, approved by the government, and released for construction?

A: Under the assumption the vendor is asking whether ‘NLT 40 weeks ARO’ can be specified to be ’40 weeks after design and fabrication documents have been reviewed, checked, approved, and release, the answer is yes.

Q: The most current Statement of Work differs significantly from the initial Statement of Work. Please verify the most current Statement of Work (dated 29 June 2023) is the only requirement.

A: Yes, the most current Statement of Work (dated 29 June 2023) is the only requirement.

Q: Reference section 5.2.7: Does the government have a specific reason for the requirement of “2 motors with brakes and 2 gear reducer assemblies at each end”? If so, will the government share the specific reason? If not, will the government accept 1 motor with brakes and 1 gear reducer assembly at each end?

A: The requirement of 2 is specified for system redundancy. The government will consider accepting a lesser number if the vendor is able to account for the reliability of the system.

Q: Is there a Davis Bacon wage rate for us to use?

A: This will be awarded as a firm fixed price contract for a supply, not a construction contract. Davis-Bacon does not apply.

Q: In the section “Special Contract Requirements” paragraph (b)(2) – is this asking for information on the Firm, is this if the offeror was to enter into a agreement with a non-governmental firm, or the offeror’s information acknowledging that we consent the release of the information to another firm?

A: This section just makes the offeror aware that there may be non-governmental advisors able to view the offeror’s proposal during evaluation. These advisors have no decision-making roles and have signed non-disclosure agreeements acknowledging that they are not allowed to discuss or remove any information from the offers outside of the evaluation environment. The fill-in section is there in case the offeror has a separate agreement with another firm and would like to list the details.