Attachment 4 - Annapolis Q A.pdf

HDEC03-12-R-0006 AMEND 01

Attachment 4

Joint Commissary Exchange Annapolis

Questions and Responses

1. Due to the unrestricted nature of this solicitation, we will be receiving proposals from multiple subcontractors for each respective trade in order to obtain the most economical pricing for the overall project. Many of these subcontractor proposals will arrive at our office in the final (30) minutes before the specified bid closing time, which will effectively prevent naming the key subs and providing their relevant experience with our proposal due to lack of adequate time to do so. Therefore, can we submit the names and relevant experience of the key subcontractors within (48) hours after the specified bid closing time?

RESPONSE: Proposals must include all of the required information outlined in

Part II of Section L, as shown on pages 3 and 4 of Attachment 3 in the solicitation on or before 01 August 12 at 2:00 p.m. CST.

2. Please provide an editable version (preferably a word document) of the Past Performance

Questionnaire contained in Attachment 7.

RESPONSE: A copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire in Word format is attached.

3. The requirements for relevant experience for past performance will be very difficult to meet as they are currently written. For example, meeting a minimum $25 million cost /

100,000 SF floor area and having food refrigeration systems all in one project severely limits the possibilities. Therefore, would it be acceptable for prospective bidders to submit past projects for grocery stores meeting a minimum 50,000 SF / $10 million cost requirement with food refrigeration systems, and also submitting past retail projects meeting a minimum 100,000 SF / $15 million cost requirement, but not located at the same site or under the same roof?

RESPONSE: All past performance submissions will be evaluated to determine recency and relevancy based on the criteria outlined in Part III of Section L, as shown on pages 4 of Attachment 3 in the solicitation.

4. Section 5.1 of the Geotechnical Report recommends undercutting of existing fills two feet below pavement subgrades. This process is not mentioned in Section 02300 –

Earthwork. Will the Contractor be responsible for undercutting below proposed pavement subgrades?

RESPONSE: There are known to be areas of existing fill on site which were placed in an uncontrolled manner. The soil support in these areas may be suspect and the recommendations contained in the geotechnical engineering study should be followed when it is apparent that the material at the finished subgrade elevation is a previously placed fill. The geotechnical engineering study estimates that approximately 10% of the pavement area will need to be treated in this manner.

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

6. Drawing A2.1.1 indicates that the Contractor is to provide a separate line item cost breakdown, for funding allocation only, for the Bank Space 400 scope of work.

However, the bid form in Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices does not contain a line item for this. Please clarify.

RESPONSE: This information will be requested from the contractor that is awarded this construction contract.

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. Revised text will be in red color font.

8. Specification section 01500, paragraph 1.6.3.2 states that the Government’s Designated

Inspector Field Office and utilities may require relocation at the Contractors expense to allow completion of the project. Can the Field Office and utilities be set up one (1) time in a location that allows for the project to be completed without the Field Office and utilities having to be relocated? If not, how many of these relocations should we allow for in our estimates?

RESPONSE: The Government's Designated Inspector Field Office has to be maintained until completion of all punch list work at the end of the project. It is anticipated that the office may need to be relocated to enable completion of landscaping, pavement, or other site work. If it is possible to site the office in a location where it does not need to be relocated to be able to complete all the work, then that will be acceptable.

9. The RFP (Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award, page 2, paragraph D) indicates that prospective bidders will receive an “Acceptable” rating for Past Performance if they have do not have any prior relevant experience, or if they have only “sparse” relevant experience, i.e., “Unknown”. This seems to defeat the real purpose of past relevant performance and might actually encourage some bidders who possess this experience to forego submitting any past projects hoping to receive an acceptable rating simply by default. Please consider modifying this evaluation factor so that those bidders having past relevant performance are afforded due consideration while those firms lacking such experience are logically and appropriately found “Unacceptable”.

RESPONSE: There will be no changes to Past Performance criteria outlined in

Section M due the specific requirements of FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).

10. Please provide the anticipated delivery dates for all Government Furnished Items so that we can incorporate this information into the development of our CPM schedule and determine any potential impacts.

RESPONSE: Delivery dates will be established after award of construction contract and will be coordinated based upon contractor’s schedule. Refer to GENERAL

NOTES on drawing E0.1 for electrical installation requirements at GF/GI gondola shelving in sales area.

11. Is there any value to the Government in a project construction duration that is less than

607 calendar days?

RESPONSE: Improvements in project construction duration are always welcome and appreciated; and doing so would typically reduce contractor overhead costs and overall project cost.

12. Section 08331, Overhead Coiling Doors, paragraph 2.4.1 calls for the slats on the ventilation doors to be perforated aluminum. Perforated slats are not available in aluminum. Please verify if a 22 gauge galvanized steel slat will be acceptable?

RESPONSE: Basis-of-Design Manufacturer listed in Specification Section 08331 has advised that perforated aluminum is no longer available. Provide 18 GA.

galvanized steel F-265 perforated slats. Specification will be updated to reflect this requirement and included with Technical Addendum.

13. Section 08331, Overhead Coiling Doors, paragraph 2.4.6 calls for the ventilation door and the service door to be mounted separately. Will mounting the ventilation door on the exterior side and the insulated service door on the inside be an acceptable mount? If not please provide a detail on how you wish these doors to be mounted. Typically in this application a combination door would be utilize a common head plate bracket but separate guides and barrels for the curtains to coil on.

RESPONSE: Basis-of-Design Manufacturer listed in Specification Section 08331 has advised that two separate housings as specified and as detailed on drawings are no longer available. Provide combination overhead coiling door and overhead coiling ventilation door in single housing. Specification will be updated to reflect this requirement and included with Technical Addendum.

Mounting ventilation door on exterior side of door opening is not acceptable.

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: A center cylinder lock, operable from both sides, with locking bars engaging in each jamb guide is acceptable.

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.

16. Reference Drawing L1.1. Please provide thickness of topsoil to be spread at seeded and sod areas.

RESPONSE: The topsoil in areas of sod and seed should be 4" thick.

17. The plant material list on L1.2 calls for 5 gallon plugs at 4’ o.c. at the biorentention basins, but these plugs are typically specified as 2.25" plugs at 12" o.c. or 1 gallon plugs at 18"o.c. The Carex, Iris, and Juncus are not typically available in 5 gallon size. Please advise whether these alternate sizes & spacings would be acceptable.

RESPONSE: The sizes of the material indicated are as recommended by the

Installation Appearance Plan. If the indicated sizes are not available for the noted material, 1 gallon plugs at 18" centers would be acceptable.

18. There is a document titled Demolish Multiple Buildings, however, it does not appear that any demolition of buildings on the plans. Also, there is no demolition cost separated in the CLIN structure, which is typical. Please clarify what demolition is required in the solicitation so it can be properly priced.

RESPONSE: The cover sheet of the referenced document has a note reading “This

Document contains information on Building NA128 Midshipmen Warehouse demolished by NSA Annapolis. Building NA128 Midshipmen Warehouse was located within the footprint of the New Commissary Building”. This building has already been demolished. This is also addressed on drawing C2.1 SITE

DEMOLITION PLAN. A separate CLIN is not necessary.

19. Paragraph 1.4.5.1 of Section 01400, Quality Control, requires an initial meeting with the

Contracting Officer to discuss the QC program. The list of attendees includes the QC

Manager, Assistant QC Manager, and QC Specialist. The specification identifies the qualifications for the QC Manager and the Assistant QC manager, but it does not identify the qualifications for the QC Specialist. Please provide the qualifications for the QC

Specialist.

RESPONSE: The QC Specialist must have the same qualifications as the QC Manager.

20. The solicitation documents, specifically drawings C1.1, C1.2 and C1.3 depict the soil erosion and sediment control plan. It was understood from the pre-bid meeting that this plan has already been submitted to the State of Maryland for approval and will be the final plan as submitted for management by the contractor during construction. Please confirm for that all bidders must adhere to the requirements in these plans and maintenance of those BMP’s throughout the construction period with no deviations allowed.

RESPONSE: The erosion control plan has been submitted, but not yet approved by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). It is likely that the plans will not be approved prior to the date on which the bids are due. The contractors should use the current erosion control plans as the basis of their bid. The Maryland

Department of the Environment has indicated that the erosion control plans which they ultimately approve must be strictly followed.

21. Specification section 01500, Mobilization and Temporary Controls, paragraph 1.5.2.2.

Use Charges states that “the Contractor is responsible for all temporary utility fees and their connection, removal, and restoration.” Once the building systems are started up and permanent utility connections are made, the usage cost is significant. Are we supposed to include in our price the utility usage cost after the building systems are started up or just the cost associated with temporary utilities cost used prior to building startup?

RESPONSE: The contractor is responsible for payment of all utility usage until the government accepts the project as substantially complete and ready for the government to move in.

22. Security One-Line Diagram drawing E5.3 Room 31A references a “RADC Panel” and

E3.14 Room 117 references a “SSCP Panel” but drawing E0.1 “Electrical Symbols

Legend “only shows a reference to RADC as Security System Control Panel? Our assumption is that both are security system control panels as stated in Specification

Section 13720 paragraph 2.5.1.

RESPONSE: RADC is the security system control panel for support of the

Commissary portion of the building, and is located in room 31A as shown on detail

#11 on Sheet E4.4. SSCP is the security control panel for support of the Exchange portion of the building, and is located in room 117.

23. Security One-Line Diagram drawing E5.3 and E3.14 references “Detail 2 Notes” whereas note 6 states “Coordinate with the Base Security Officer as to capability of the security signal to the Base Security MDI System”? These drawing notes are not consistent with

Specification Section 13720 paragraph 2.10 Central Station Control Units (CS Digital

Dialers) stated paragraph 2.10.1 Available Manufacturers? As noted MDI was not included in this listing also have been in the security industry for 40 years and not aware of MDI (Monitor Dynamics) as a manufacturer of commercial off the shelf UL Listed CS

Digital Dialers? Had noted in past years before MDI filed for Chapter 7 or 11 that they had purchased a software developer of Central Station account management software called ABM which is no longer part of Mdi.

RESPONSE: Note #6 makes it the contractor’s responsibility to make coordinate with the installation to make sure the security system proposed and used on this job can communicate with the existing security alarm system used by the installation at

Annapolis. There is no requirement to use an MDI system, but it is a requirement that the base security office receives a signal when there is an alarm at either the commissary or Navy Exchange.

24. Have noted symbol EAS (Electronic Article Surveillance) devices but have not been able to locate Specification Section for EAS? Are these devices GFGI with provisions for alarm relay outputs to RADC or SSCP?

RESPONSE: The EAS pedestals are GFGI. Provide connection of the EAS system to Security alarm panel SSCP. In addition, the contractor should be providing the conduit, junction boxes, and power wiring as shown on the Power plans, and on detail #6 on Sheet E4.2.

25. Will the Rapid Gate access security requirements apply to the Annapolis project?

RESPONSE: The contractors will not be required to participate in Rapid Gate since access to the site will be from a public road and the site will be completely fenced in.

26. Specification section 02510, paragraph 3.2 list D.I.P and P.V.C. as acceptable materials for water service piping. The utility plan drawing C 6.1 indicates D.I.P. Please clarify what material is required.

RESPONSE: The installation does not allow P.V.C. pipe for the use of water main piping. Use D.I.P. that conforms to the specifications. Specification will be updated to reflect this requirement and included with Technical Addendum.

27. Will there be restricted hours for the sewer installation which crosses Greenbury Point

Road or the water service installation which crosses Kinkaid Road?

RESPONSE: The Installation has not specifically indicated any time restrictions for the construction of these crossings. Any traffic restrictions resulting from the construction of these crossings must be coordinated with Installation personnel and a minimum of one lane of traffic must be maintained at all times.

28. Specification section 02630, paragraph 3.3.1 (b) allows the use of P.V.C for 15” and less and indicates R.C.P shall be used for 12” or greater. Please clarify these piping requirements whereas it is contradictory.

RESPONSE: The intent of the specification is that pipes of 12" and 15" in size may be either P.V.C. or R.C.P.

29. Drawing C 4.3, detail 7 shows details for the steel pipe encasement. Please provide steel sleeve size for all applications.

RESPONSE: The contractor shall determine the necessary size for steel carrier pipes.

30. Will Commissioning Agent be provided by the Government or the Contractor? If the

Commissioning Agent is provided by the Government, what rolls will the contractor have in the commissioning process?

RESPONSE: Refer to Specification Section 01115 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

REQUIREMENTS.

31. Please confirm that the Central Vacuum System located in room #803 will only serve the

(3) barber stations located in room #800.

RESPONSE: Correct. Install at three barber stations as indicated on drawing

A8.1.2.

32. This solicitation includes two different wage rate determinations, General decision number MD120016 (Highway Construction) and General Decision Number MD120077

(Building Construction). The two wage determinations include duplicate trade classifications but with different wage and fringe rates. Are we to assume that all work

5ft. outside the building line be included under General decision number MD120016

(Highway Construction) and all building construction be included under General

Decision Number MD120077 (Building Construction)? Please clarify.

RESPONSE: Correct. All work 5ft.outside the building line is considered to fall under General Decision MD120016 (Highway Construction) and all building construction is included under General Decision MD120077 (Building

Construction).

33. Per drawing C 6.1, the “Post Indicator Valve (P.I.V.), which is located between the door and downspout on the rear of the commissary, is shown with a symbol of a “New Valve in Valve Box”. However, when reviewing the referenced detail on 3 – C 4.3 a gate valve with a roadway box is shown and not a P.I.V. Please clarify.

RESPONSE: A Post Indicator Valve is not required in a monitored water service system. The note referring to a P.I.V. on drawing C 6.1 is an error; the symbol is shown correctly as a New Valve in Valve Box.

34. There is a discrepancy within 3 portions of the contract documents regarding undercutting for the asphalt paving areas, slabs on grade, and spread footings.

1. Per the drawings S 0.2 Typical Earthwork Requirements it indicated a 2’-0”

MAX remove, fill and replace with compacted fill when fill soils are encountered.

Fill soils greater than a depth of 2’-0” are to remain as approved by soils engineer.

2. Per the Geotechnical Report dated 9/30/2009 completed by Schnabel Engineering, the contractor is to remove a MINIMUM depth of 2’ below the floor slabs and spread footings where the existing building fills are encountered.

3. Per specification section 02300 paragraph 3.1.1 (e) and 3.4.4 (a) it requires when existing fills are encountered the excavations shall be extended to a MINIMUM depth of 2 feet.

Please clarify to what depth the contractor is expected to undercut and replace when fill soils from the existing demolished buildings are encountered?

RESPONSE:

Regarding Comment 1: The note on the referenced detail Typical Earthwork

Requirements “DEPTHS OF (E) FILL GREATER THAN 2’ BELOW BOTTOM

OF BASE COURSE is clarified to read EXISTING FILL GREATER THAN TWO

FEET SHALL BE REMOVED TO A DEPTH OF 2’-0”.

Regarding Comment 2: The Geotechnical Report requires existing fills below footings to be removed to firm natural soils. At slabs, existing fills are to be removed to firm natural soils or to a minimum depth of 2’-0” below subgrade.

Regarding Comment 3: The statement regarding paragraphs 3.1.1 (e) and 3.4.4 (a) is inaccurate. Paragraph 3.1.1 (e) indicates existing fills at footings to be removed, and existing fill at slabs to be removed to firm natural soils or to a minimum depth of 2’-0”. Paragraph 3.4.4 (a) indicates existing fills below slabs shall be removed to firm suitable native soils or a minimum depth of 2’-0”.

It is the intent of the plans and specifications to follow the subgrade preparation recommendations outlined in the geotechnical engineering report by Schnabel

Engineering.

35. Finally, per the Geotechnical Report dated 9/30/2009 completed by Schnabel

Engineering, on page 7 paragraph 4.3 and page 9 paragraph 5.1, it is requiring the contractor to undercut and replace 30% of the building floor slab area and 10% of the pavement sub grades.

Please confirm that the referenced quantities in the Geotechnical Report referenced above are the quantities to be included in this bid, whereas the specifications or drawings did not state a quantity.

RESPONSE: Unless indicated otherwise on the Drawings and Specifications, the

Contractor shall rely on the information provided in the geotechnical report during preparation of bid.

36. We respectfully request substitution approval of our product series 5100 Sliding

Automatic Entrance Doors spec. section (08461) on the subject project which bids

August 1st.

RESPONSE: Requests for product substitutions are not considered prior to contract award. Contractors are required to bid the project using the basis-of-design manufacturer. Specification Section 01300 ADMINISTRATIVE

REQUIREMENTS, paragraph 1.10 describes substitution request requirements after Contract Award.