FBNV071475-Gov RFI responses-15 Jun 20-Combined.pdf

FBNV071475

Repair Hangar 136

For EC‐37B

15 June 2020

Q1: RFP reference: 01010, page 1 (capitalized and bold print section in center of page).

The portion of this paragraph that is highlighted in yellow creates confusion. The basis of this confusion is that the designer of record now does not know the kind of construction documents to create.

Option A would be that the teamed Design/Builder is the contractor, but that construction will take place in the future. These documents would be based upon choices and decisions made by the

Design/Build team. In this scenario, the Design/Builder would be preparing the Form 3052 construction cost estimate and the Form 66 schedule of material submittals.

Option B would be that the future contractor could be anyone. In this scenario, the construction documents CANNOT be based on choices and decisions involving the Design/Builder, but rather the design must be appropriate for an open market. The drawings need to account for various potential liabilities associated more with the design‐bid‐build delivery process rather that the Design‐Build delivery method that this is presented as. In this scenario, the Design/Builder would HAVE NO VESTED

INTEREST to prepare the Form 3052 construction cost estimate and the Form 66 schedule of material submittals, so additional consultant(s) would need to be involved.

Option C – does DMAFB have another motive or rationale for making this statement? If so, please explain.

A1: This Solicitation shall be proposed and bid as a Design‐Build Contract, which will include design AND CONSTRUCTION scope of work. The Government has revised the NOTE indicated on page 1 of the 011010. To clarify this Design‐Build Contract is all inclusive of design and construction deliverables.

Q2: RFP reference: 01010, page 1 (capitalized and bold print section in center of page) This solicitation is worded as a typical Design/Build contract with the exception of this text. In a typical Design/Build contractual relationship, the design team is contracted with the general contractor. This bold text may imply that the general contractor is not involved. In this case, who is the design team expected to enter into a contract relationship with?

A2: This Solicitation shall be proposed and bid as a Design‐Build Contract, which will include design AND CONSTRUCTION scope of work. The Government has revised the NOTE indicated on page 1 of the 011010. To clarify this Design‐Build Contract is all inclusive of design and construction deliverables.

The Government expects a contractual relationship between the Design Team and General Contractor as is typical for such contracts.

Q3: RFP reference: Solicitation Box 11 If this solicitation is limited to the design of the project, does this mean that the 210 calendar‐ day performance period is addressing only the design of the project?

A3: This Solicitation shall be proposed and bid as a Design‐Build Contract, which will include design AND CONSTRUCTION scope of work. The Government has revised the NOTE indicated on page 1 of the 011010. To clarify this Design‐Build Contract is all inclusive of design and construction deliverables.

The Government expects a contractual relationship between the Design Team and General Contractor as is typical for such contracts. This solicitation is NOT limited to the design of the project. The 210 calendar day period of performance includes the design and construction scope of work for the project.

Q4: RFP reference: 01010, page 1 (capitalized and bold print section in center of page) AND Section L 01010 states “THERE ARE NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN THIS PROJECT.” Section L is requesting as part of this proposal a significant number of construction‐related aspects:

a. Management Approach

b. Schedule Development and Adherence

c. Construction Narrative

d. Past Performance Questionnaires

e. Relevant Past Performance

f. Recent Past Performance

g. Price

These instructions are in apparent contradiction of the statement in 01010. Please clarify.

A4: This Solicitation shall be proposed and bid as a Design‐Build Contract, which will include design AND CONSTRUCTION scope of work. The Government has revised the NOTE indicated on page 1 of the 011010. To clarify this Design‐Build Contract is all inclusive of design and construction deliverables.

The Government expects a contractual relationship between the Design Team and General Contractor as is typical for such contracts.

Q5: RFP reference: 01011, Section 1.11.1.1 The tail height of the EC‐37B is quoted as 27’‐4”, but no width of the T‐Tail was provided. What is the width of the T‐Tail? More importantly, please provide the height and width of the building’s required opening needed to accommodate the T‐Tail.

A5: The width of the planes T‐Tail is 35.17 feet. The general dimension for the EC‐37B are provided in the attached EC‐37B General Dimension document. The required height and width of the buildings hangar door opening shall be determined by the Contractor’s/Design Team during the design process and in accordance with clear distances indicated by the UFC requirements for hangars.

Q6: RFP reference: Section L, L.7.3

This section requires conceptual interior and exterior facility elevations. It is unclear from the scope of work what is expected to be depicted with conceptual interior elevations. Please provide direction and intent of this requirement.

A6: The requirement for the conceptual elevations was to ensure that the Contractor understands the Government scope of work with regard to the hangar bay door; and the need for a project solution that accommodates the required new hangar bay door configuration based on the EC‐37B aircraft dimensions (especially the T‐Tail). For this proposal the Government shall require an exterior elevation that conceptually depicts the new hangar bay door configuration; and an interior elevation (looking from inside the hangar bay) that conceptually depicts the new hangar bay door in relationship to the existing structure. The Government does not expect the proposal to be a fully resolved solution to the new hangar bay door configuration; However, the Contractor’s proposal should indicate a conceptual understanding of the Government’s requirement and how they plan to get the EC‐37B aircraft into the hangar bay‐that is the intent behind the Government’s request for the elevation drawings.

Q7: RFP reference: None ‐ Site observation

There are two “tank purge” HVAC systems consisting of air handling units on elevated platforms within the hangar and split system condensing units on grade behind the building. These look to be abandoned. Does the government want those systems removed?

A7: Yes‐The abandoned system(s) shall be removed in this project.

Q8: RFP reference: 01010, 1.4.1

Is a life cycle cost analysis required for a like‐for‐like AHU replacement project? The time to create, review and approve an LCCA may be an issue with the project schedule. It is also possible that the LCCA result might suggest a system different than what is existing such that an in‐kind replacement is no longer possible. Budgeting for such an unknown should be considered by the government.

A8: No‐A Life Cycle Cost Analysis is not required for a like for like AHU replacement.

Q9: RFP reference: 01010, 1.11.3.1

The wording of this paragraph suggests a singular AHU is to be replaced. Please identify which one. We were shown six AHU’s in the site visit. 2 on hangar floor (), 2 on elevated platforms (“tank purge” split systems), 1 in “south wing” large mechanical room (Trane 4‐pipe from about 2010), 1 in “north wing” small mechanical room (Trane 4‐pipe from about 2010).

A9: Regarding the Section 01011‐Paragraoh 1.11.3.1‐This requirement is revised to be more specific.

The Contractor shall replace/upgrade the two existing Air Handling Units (AHUs) serving the North and South wing‐Administrative areas (See revised Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.1. and attached (Facility 136 Building HVAC Drawing). Additionally, a portion of the South wing Administrative area contains a “Back Shop” area that requires a replacement/upgrade of the existing Computer Room Air Conditioning (CRAC) units. Refer to RFI response #12 below, and revised Section 01011‐Paragraph

1.11.3.4. for that specific area that requires independent temperature and humidity control. With regard to the hangar bay, there shall be no HVAC work required in the scope of work. Section 01011‐ Paragraph 1.11.3.5. has been removed from the scope of work.

Q10: RFP reference: 01010, 1.11.3.3

Please clarify which unit this paragraph is referencing. A floor plan showing its location would be very helpful. We did not see a unit matching this description during the site visit. The only Carrier AHU’s observed were the heating units on the hangar floor.

A10: Regarding Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.3.‐The replacement and repair and referenced for the Carrier‐water cooled Direct Expansion (Model 50BA024640, Serial X294356) is removed from the scope of work (See revised Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.3.).

A11: RFP reference: 01010, 1.11.3.3

Please clarify the intent of “upgrade”. What are the requirements for the new unit in order for it to satisfy the upgrade criteria?

A11: The intent of the Government is to replace the HVAC units “like for like”. The term “Upgrade” refers to a “like for like” replacement with a new‐inherently more efficient units. Regarding Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.3.‐The replacement and repair and referenced for the Carrier‐water cooled Direct Expansion (Model 50BA024640, Serial X294356) is removed from the scope of work (See revised Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.3.).

Q12: RFP reference: 01010, 1.11.3.4

Please identify where the spectrometric oil analysis room is. A floor plan showing its location would be very helpful.

A12: The spectrometric oil analysis room is what is considered the “Back Shops”. This is currently cooled with two (2) antiquated Computer Room Air Conditioning (CRAC) units (See attached Drawing 1 for the referenced area). The scope of work indicated in Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.4. is revised to require the design and installation of two (2) replacement CRAC units and associated condenser, piping and appurtenances (See revised Section 01011‐ Paragraph 1.11.3.4.).

Q13: RFP reference: 01010, 1.11.3.4

Please clarify the humidity requirements. This paragraph indicates “approximately 50% or less relative humidity”. What is the tolerance on approximately 50%? Plus or minus 10%? That would help define the upper RH limit. Note that heat pump/mini split systems are not designed as dehumidification systems and are not controlled by RH, only dry bulb temperature. If maintaining humidity is critical in this space, the envelope of the room must be vapor‐tight and another type of HVAC system may be required.

A13: The tolerance of the reference for “approximately 50 or less relative humidity” shall be plus or minus 10%. The scope of work indicated in Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.4. is revised to require the design and installation of two (2) replacement CRAC units and associated condenser, piping and appurtenances (See revised Section 01011‐ Paragraph 1.11.3.4.).

Q14: RFP reference: 01010, 1.11.3.5

What are the requirements for sizing the evaporative cooling system to serve hangar? Typically evap systems are sized based on an air change.

A14: Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.5. has been removed from the Design Requirements. There is no HVAC scope of work for the hangar bay in this project.

Q15: RFP reference: 01010, 1.11.3.5

Please clarify the hangar heating requirements. There are 2 older Carrier heating systems on the floor of the hangar with ductwork serving the hangar.

a. Is the intent to leave those as the heating source?

b. Do those get replaced in‐kind?

A15: Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.5. has been removed from the Design Requirements. There is no HVAC scope of work for the hangar bay in this project.

Q16: RFP reference: 01010, 1.11.3.5

Due to the hangar location, there does not appear to be any ground‐level space around the building to set ground‐mounted evap coolers. Please provide acceptable locations for the proposed evap coolers.

The anticipated size required will be too large to consider mounting on the building.

A16: Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.5. has been removed from the Design Requirements. There is no HVAC scope of work for the hangar bay in this project.

Q17: RFP reference: 01010, 1.11.4.6

Please define the humidity and temperature requirements. Also, we were not able to access this room during the site visit. Please provide the dimensions of the room that requires the HVAC system.

A17: Section 011011‐Paragraph 1.11.4.6. references the Riser Room. Currently, this room contains the fire riser as well as the Foam Control Panel‐and it is not conditioned. The Foam Control Panel is required to be housd in a conditioned space, The Government’s intent for this requirement is to have the Contractor design/install a new mini‐split system to cool/condition the room. The dimensions of this room are approximately 10’x20’.

Q18: RFP reference: 01010, 1.6.11.2

(may be a typo for 1.11.6.2?): Assuming this paragraph is referencing the TEP Energy Save Plus –

Prescriptive Application, please confirm that the intent is to provide equipment which meets the minimum efficiencies listed in the TEP worksheet. Also, who is applying for the TEP rebate required?

A18: The Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.5.3 (typo 1.6.11.2.) requirement to meet the Tucson Electric

Power (TEP) Rebate Program is removed from the project scope of work. The scope of work requirement for Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.5.3. has been revised to require that power to the new hangar bay doors be provided before the facility connection, to allow the Fire Dept. to open the hangar bay doors in an emergency and local facility power has been cut (See revised Section 01011‐

Paragraph 1.11.5.3.).

Q19: RFP reference: 01010, 2.2.1.3

If equipment is intended to be replaced like‐for‐like, are load calculations required?

A19: Load calculation shall not be required for existing air handler equipment/mechanical being replaced “like for like” with new higher efficiency equipment. However, any new HVAC/equipment system being installed (I.e. the hangar bay heating and cooling) shall require AC load calculation per

Section 01011‐Paragraph 2.2.1.3.

Q20: RFP reference: General

What is the government’s budget for this project? Without a budget or an established and unambiguous list of design requirements, an A/E fee cannot reasonably be established.

A20: In accordance with FAR 36.204 and DFARS 236.204 the anticipated magnitude of this contract is between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000. The A/E scope of work has been clarified in the revised Design

Requirements and Government’s RFI responses.

Q21: For the building Shop & Missile Service, the Chiller system is coming with standalone controls (see below screenshot). Please confirm if this chiller system will remain standalone OR need to be controlled by NEW DDC controllers.

A21: The chiller system will be controlled by new DDC controllers (Refer to the attached CONTROLS GENERAL NOTES_2019‐Template).

Q22: For the building Shop & Missile Service, the Boiler system is coming with standalone controls (see below screenshot). Please confirm if this boiler system will remain standalone OR need to be controlled by NEW DDC controllers.

A22: The boiler system will be controlled by new DDC controllers (Refer to the attached CONTROLS GENERAL NOTES_2019‐Template).

Q23: For the building Alter l Repair Building No.136C, Existing AC units are shown. They are shown as existing to remain with no new controls (see below screenshot).

A23: Refer to the revised Design Requirements and RFI responses to confirm the HVAC scope of work.

For this project the existing air handlers supporting the South (Building “B”) and North (Building “C”) administrative areas shall be removed and replaced “like for like” (Refer to Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.1.). Additionally, the “Back Shops” area within the South (Building “B”) administrative space contains two Computer Room Air Conditioning (CRAC) units that are to be replaced/upgraded in this project (Refer to Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.4). The hangar bay shall have no HVAC scope of work

Q24: 1.11.3.2 – How will the design team determined if it’s deemed necessary to replace the ductwork?

No pictures or description of the duct work was provided.

A24: The scope of work requirements of Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.2. have been revised to include the replacement of existing duct work (See revised Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.2.).

Q25: Does the existing hangar include any heating or cooling? If yes, what type?

A25: Currently, the existing hangar bay contain heating. Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.5. has been removed from the Design Requirements. There is no HVAC scope of work for the hangar bay in this project.

Q26: 1.11.3.5 – What is the temperature expectation in the hangar?

A26: Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.5. has been removed from the Design Requirements. There is no HVAC scope of work for the hangar bay in this project.

Q27: 1.11.5.2 ‐ Is the whole building required to be brought up to the high performance green building standard, or just the hanger?

A27: The requirement to bring the entire building (including the hangar bay) up to the high performance standards has been omitted from the project scope of work. The scope of work is revised to require only that the renovation/repair work in the SOW meet the Sustainability objectives, requirements, and best practices (See revised Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.5.2.).

Q28: 1.6.11.2 (1.11.6.2?) – Who will spearhead the process for submittal documentation for the Tucson Electric Rebate program?

The Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.5.3 (typo 1.6.11.2.) requirement to meet the Tucson Electric Power

(TEP) Rebate Program is removed from the project scope of work. The scope of work requirement for

Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.5.3. has been revised to require that power to the new hangar bay doors be provided before the facility connection, to allow the Fire Dept. to open the hangar bay doors in an emergency and local facility power has been cut (See revised Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.5.3.).

Q29: Please provide existing building architectural and MEP drawings (As‐Builts) A29: As‐Builts were uploaded onto beta.sam.gov 17 Apr 20.

Q30: Please provide pictures of the existing electrical service/electrical gear into the building.

A30: No pictures will be provided. All vendors were allowed to conduct a site‐visit on 15 May 20.

Q31: How much of the non‐hangar space HVAC and electrical is being renovated? It seems that the equipment referenced in 1.11.3.3 may serve the existing non‐hangar space A31: Refer to the revised Design Requirements and RFI responses/diagrams to identify the HVAC and electrical to be completed in the scope of work. The HVAC work in this contract focuses on the North Building “C”) and South (Building “B”) Administrative areas including the CRAC unit’s in the “Back Shop” area within the South Admin area (See attached Facility 136 Building HVAC Drawing).

Q32: 1.11.4.6 – What humidity level and air conditioning requirements are required to be maintained for this space?

A32: The space being referenced is the fire riser room, and it is accessed off the hangar bay. The existing foam control panel is located in this fire riser room. The foam control panel is required to be in a conditioned space, and the fire riser room is currently not conditioned. The Government’s intent with Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.4.6. is to provide a mini‐split system to condition the fire riser room which contains the foam control panel. There are no specific humidity guidelines that must be met. This type of mini‐split system is typical of the units used in communication rooms and other utility rooms on Base. (See revised Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.4.6.)

Q33: 2.8 ‐ Will all design review meetings on site?

A33: No‐Not all design review meetings are needed to be conducted on‐site. Teleconference meetings are used to the maximum extent practicable. The Government expectation is that the Contractor will be on site for the initial Design Investigation/Charrette meetings, 65% Design Review, and any additional design site visits necessary for the Contractor to capture the design analysis required.

Q34: Are existing utility pipe sizes to the building available for review?

A34: Whatever as‐builts were provided by the Government in the solicitation is all that is available.

As‐Builts were uploaded onto beta.sam.gov 17 Apr 20.

Q35: Are existing fire protection as‐builts available for review?

A35: Whatever as‐builts were provided by the Government in the solicitation is all that is available.

As‐Builts were uploaded onto beta.sam.gov 17 Apr 20.

Q36: Can you provide exterior photos of the existing building?

A36: No pictures will be provided. All vendors were allowed to conduct a site‐visit on 15 May 20.

Q37: What is the buildings age?

A37: The Facility 136 was put into service in 1968.

Q38: Has the facility seen an upgrade prior to this one in the past?

A38: Yes‐The Facility 136 has incurred prior Repair/Upgrade sustainment and renovation projects in the past. Whatever as‐builts were provided by the Government in the solicitation is all that is available. As‐Builts were uploaded onto beta.sam.gov 17 Apr 20.

Q39: There are two AC units on both sides. Will these units be replaced with like for like? Can the Government provide as‐builts for these two units?

A39: No‐The AC units indicated in the photo are the existing Carrier heating systems located in the hangar bay. The requirement to provide heating and cooling (evaporative cooling) in the existing hangar bay has been removed from the scope of work (See the revised Section 01011‐Paragraph

1.11.3.5.)

Q40: There is an HVAC unit outside the building. Will this unit be replaced with like for like? Can the Government provide as‐builts for this unit?

A40: No‐The HVAC unit indicated in the photo has been identified by the Government to support the existing Computer Room Air Conditioning (CRAC) units in the Back Shops area of South (Building “B”) Administrative area. The existing CRAC units/system is antiquated and shall be replaced/upgraded per revised Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.4. of the Design Requirements. Whatever as‐builts were provided by the Government in the solicitation is all that is available. As‐Builts were uploaded onto beta.sam.gov 17 Apr 20.

Q41: There are two AC units above floor. Will these units be replaced with like for like?

A41: No‐These two AC units indicated in the photo have been identified by the Government to be related to the existing HVAC system in the hangar bay. Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.5. has been removed from the Design Requirements. There is no HVAC scope of work for the hangar bay in this project.

Q42: There are two CU units outside the building. Will these units be replaced with like for like?

A42: No‐The two CU units indicated in the photo have been identified by the Government to be related to the existing HVAC system in the hangar bay. Section 01011‐Paragraph 1.11.3.5. has been removed from the Design Requirements. There is no HVAC scope of work for the hangar bay in this project.

Q43: Item 1.11.4.2‐Section 01011 Design Requirements‐“Replace sprinkler heads (46)”‐Does that mean only about 46 Sprinkler heads will be replaced, not all?

A43: Yes‐The scope of work requirement to “Replace sprinkler heads (46)” refers to the sprinkler heads in the hangar bay, and the identified number of sprinkler heads in the hangar bay is approximately 46. This count was determined in a prior fire deficiency report conducted by the Government.

Q44: Are all High Expansion Foam generators (HEF) being replaced?

A44: No‐The existing foam generators (High Expansion Foam System) were installed fairly recently and they meet the requirements for coverage for the current aircraft housed in this hangar bay. As part of this Design‐ Build Contract the Contractor/A&E/FPE shall review and analyze the new aircraft (EC‐37B) in‐relation to the locations of the existing foam generators, to determine if they need to be moved/adjusted to new locations.

The Contractor shall relocate the existing foam generator as necessary to meet the coverage requirements.

Q45: Are there any work in Building areas “B” and/or “C”?

A45: Yes‐Refer to the revised Design Requirements and RFI responses to confirm the HVAC scope of work. For this project the existing air handlers supporting the South (Building “B”) and North (Building “C”) administrative areas shall be removed and replaced “like for like” (Refer to Section 01011-Paragraph 1.11.3.1.). Additionally, the “Back Shops” area within the South (Building “B”) administrative space contains two Computer Room Air Conditioning (CRAC) units that are to be replaced/upgraded in this project (Refer to Section 01011-Paragraph 1.11.3.4). The hangar bay shall have no HVAC scope of work.

Door Modification Required

HVAC Upgrade

Interim O&M Projects (B136)

/Replacement In Shaded Areas