Attachment 01 Annapolis Q A - 25 JUL 2012.pdf

HDEC03-12-R-0006 Amend 02 Attachment 01

Joint Commissary Exchange Annapolis Questions and Responses

Revisions and Continuation

Revised Responses:

5. Reference Drawing C4.1. Details #1, #2, #3, #4, and #15 all reference 12” Compacted Subgrade. Is this simply meant to show existing soil / compacted fill below subgrade? Should the reference to 12” thickness be removed?

RESPONSE: The pavement structures have been designed based upon the 12" of material directly below the aggregate being compacted to 95% of Modified Proctor. If the top 12" of material is already at this level of compaction in an in situ condition, nothing needs to be done except to place the Aggregate Base Course (except in areas of previously placed fill as noted in the response to Question #4 above). If the top 12" of material is not to this level of compaction or cannot be compacted to 95% of Modified Proctor, it is the responsibility of the contractor to compact it or to replace it with a material that can be compacted to the designated criteria.

7. The requirements for the Government’s Designated Inspector Field Office (Specification section 01500, paragraph 1.6.3) are not entirely clear. Is the Contractor required to provide one

(1) field office to be shared by the DeCA and Nexcom Inspectors or two (2) field offices, one (1) for the DeCA Inspector and one (1) for the Nexcom Inspector?

RESPONSE: Requirements for Government’s Designated Inspector Field Office identified in Specification Section 01500 will be revised to clarify requirements and will be included with Technical Addendum.

14. Section 08334, Overhead Coiling Grilles, paragraph 2.3.2-1 calls for locking at both jambs and the mid-point of the bottom bar. A center cylinder lock can be provided with locking bars engaging in each guide. Please verify if this locking is acceptable.

RESPONSE: Provide keyed cylinder lock, operable from both sides of grille, located in bottom bar at each jamb with locking bar that will engage each door guide. Specification will be updated to reflect this requirement and included with Technical Addendum.

15. Section 08334, Overhead Coiling Grilles, paragraph 2.3.2-2 calls for floor sockets. Coiling grilles do not have locking that requires floor sockets. This is typically for a side folding grille.

Can the requirement for floor sockets be deleted from this section?

RESPONSE: Floor sockets are not required if locking bars engage jamb guides.

Specification will be updated to reflect this requirement and included with Technical Addendum.

Continuation of Questions:

37. Drawing C 2.1, sheet keynotes #16 and #17 do not appear on the drawing. Should they?

RESPONSE: Keyed Note #16 (Full Depth Saw Cut) should have been included at all locations where only portions of existing pavement are being removed. This is the case along both Greenbury Point Road and Kinkaid Road at entrances to the new parking lot and service area.

Keyed Note #17 (Remove Transformer and Generator) should have been included to indicate removal of a transformer left in place to the north of Building 348 which has been demolished. Contractor shall disconnect transformer and hold for pick-up by Public Works Department at NSA Annapolis. Transformer pad shall be removed in its entirety.

Abandoned underground electrical shall be removed if it interferes with construction.

38. Is the contractor required to furnish and/or install the recessed standards that are shown throughout the exchange? See the exchange floor plans and also the interior elevations A, C, E/A12.0. If contractor is required to provide these please provide details and specifications for what is required.

RESPONSE: Recessed standards are CF/CI. Exchange floor plans and interior elevations indicate locations, spacing and height of recessed standards required around the Sales Area, Fitting Rooms and Barber Shop. Reference sheets A2.1.1, A2.1.3, A2.1.4, A8.1.2, and A12.0. Refer to Specification Section 09260 GYPSUM BOARD ASSEMBLIES, paragraph

2.4.3 Integrated Metal Stud and Slotted Standard.

39. The equipment schedule on A1.2.0 shows locker 4L03 as a 5 tier locker, however spec section 10505 lists these lockers as a six tier locker. Please clarify

RESPONSE: Lockers shall be five tier as indicated on drawing A1.2.0. Change the following in Specification Section 10505:

Paragraph 1.1.1.c – change “Six Tier” to read “Five Tier”.

Paragraph 2.5 - change “Six Tier” to read “Five Tier”.

Paragraph 2.5.2.b – change width of locker from 12 inches to read 15-inches

40. Please confirm if we are to include item #1E06-A found in spec section 10451. This item is shown as gf/gi on the equipment list but is included in spec 10451 with other items (3-2D04) which are shown on the equipment schedule as cf/ci.

RESPONSE: Equipment item 1E06-A Queuing System is GF/GI. Delete 1.1.1.a and 2.2 from Specification Section 10451 QUEUING SYSTEMS.

41. Section 5.3, a. of Specification 01560 – Environmental Protection, states, " ...contractor shall: [] Complete, submit and obtain all necessary storm water approvals from the State prior to staging any facilities.." The response to question 20 of Attachment 4 of Addendum 01 states, 25 July 12

"The erosion control plan has been submitted, but not yet approved by the Maryland Department of the Environment..."

Please confirm that application has been made for the NDPES Permit and MDE Stormwater and Erosion/Sediment Control Plan and that the Contractor is not responsible for making this application or obtaining these permits.

RESPONSE: The NPDES Permit will be submitted by the Installation during the week of July 23. Ongoing reviews with the Maryland Department of the Environment have been taking place since November 2011 and the A-E will continue working toward receiving approval of the design. The contractor will not be required to make these submittal nor obtain these permits IF THE DESIGN ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY MDE IS FOLLOWED. If the contractor chooses to propose changes to the design ultimately approved, he becomes fully responsible for all subsequent submittals and approvals and any expense related to said submittals and approvals.

42. Sheet A2.1.1 Identifies the outdoor garden to be an Optional Bid Item; however the bid form does not have a place for an optional bid item. Will the bid form be changed to allow for the optional Bid item?

RESPONSE: CLIN 0009 NAVY EXCHANGE GARDEN CENTER – OPTION on page 07 of the solicitation addresses the optional bid item; no changes will be made to the CLIN structure to accommodate optional bid items.

43. The borings in the geotechnical report by Schnabel Engineering were taken in 2009, and it appears that the existing grades given in drawings C2.1 and C5.1 are approximately 2’ – 8’ higher than the elevations the borings logs start at (in the same locations). For example, C5.1 shows the existing grade at the southwest tip of the Exchange building at 82’, but boring B-8 at this same location started at 74.8’. If earthwork has been performed on the site since the borings were taken, it will be very difficult to price the earthwork without knowing what this additional 3’ – 8’ of material consists of and whether it will be suitable for use as fill for the building pad.

It would also make the undercutting recommendations in the geotechnical report inaccurate or even unnecessary. (The unsuitable fill only reaches up to elevation 76’, and the building subgrade is 80.17’.) Has dirt work been performed on the site since the borings were taken?

How should we proceed with pricing the earthwork? Should we still include undercutting 30% of the building pad and 10% of the asphalt paving subgrade even though this work may not be required?

Response: There has not been any fill placed on the site since the borings were completed and the survey and the geotechnical engineering report were prepared. The elevations indicated on the boring logs were obtained from sources other than the topographic survey and were included on the boring logs before the survey was completed. They are not correct and any specific elevations contained in the geotechnical report should not be relied upon. As such, the relative depths from the approximate ground surface indicated on the borings to changes in stratum or location of bearing soil should be used as the basis of design. The elevations on the survey and solicitation drawings are correct and may be relied upon for bidding and construction.

The geotechnical engineer's estimate of 30% undercutting in the area of the building slab and 10% in the pavement areas were based upon a number of assumptions, including the approximate elevations indicated on the boring logs. It is the responsibility of the contractor to develop his own estimate of the undercut quantities based on the information contained in the geotechnical report, as qualified above.

44. The response given in Amendment 1 to question 35 says that we should rely on the information in the geotechnical report unless the specifications indicate otherwise. Specification 00320-1.1.1.c says that the recommendations of the geotechnical report should not be considered as part of the contract documents. Should we include the cost of undercutting as recommended in the geotech report in our bid?

Response: Specification Section 02300, Article 1.4.1.c states:

Perform all excavation work in compliance with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical engineering report. In the case where the geotechnical engineering report does not provide adequate direction, applicable requirements of the State of Maryland Standard Specifications should apply.

The quantity, and associated cost, of the undercutting must be contained in your base bid.

Specification Section 00320, Article 1.1.1.d states:

This report, by its nature, cannot reveal all conditions that exist on the site. Should subsurface conditions be found to vary substantially from this report, changes in the design and construction of foundations will be made, with resulting credits or expenditures to the Contract Price/Sum accruing to the Government.

45. The geotechnical report does not indicate any quantities of undercutting for the spread footings. Please either stipulate quantities for bidding purposes or confirm that this item will be handled through a contract change after the project is awarded.

Response: The contractor shall develop an estimate of the undercut quantities based on the information contained in the geotechnical report. The quantity, and associated cost, of the undercutting must be contained in your base bid. A change order will only be considered if the contractor can demonstrate that the subsurface conditions vary substantially from what is indicated in the report, as qualified above.

46. In the Solicitation, it includes both FAR 52.225-9 (pg. 21/46) and FAR 52.225-11 (pg.

23/46). I am trying to confirm that FAR 52.225-11 will take precedence as the magnitude of the project is above the level where designated country construction materials will be allowed (WTO GPA and all FTA countries).

RESPONSE: FAR 52.225-11 will take precedence based on the magnitude of the project.

47. Is the equipment marked 1R09 shown in room 23 of the commissary cf/ci as indicated on the schedule? If so please provide a specification.

RESPONSE: Equipment is CF/CI as noted on drawing A1.2.0. Refer to Specification Section 11109 ROTATING MODULAR SYSTEM.

48. Wall sections indicate a water resistive coating (07241 ) However (07241) is an Exterior Insulation and Finish system specification. Please specify the water resistive coating that will be required.

RESPONSE: The water resistive coating is specified in Section 07241 to be compatible with EIFS system. The water resistive coating is used throughout the project on exterior wall systems. Specification Section 04810 UNIT MASONRY refers to Section 07241 for water resistive coating.

49. There is a specification for Exterior Insulation and Finish system but I can not find any on the drawings. Is there any EIFS on this project?

RESPONSE: EIFS systems are used on the stair tower and at the front canopy soffits.