Amendment Page 2.doc

HSCG50-11-R-PTJ001

AMENDMENT 0002

PAGE 2 OF 2 PAGES

1. Make the following corrections to the Request for Proposal:

(PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL CHANGES MADE ARE SHOWN IN BOLD).

a. Remove Page 99 and Replace with the attached Page 99 Amendment 0002.

2. The Safety Manual has been uploaded as a pdf file for those who could not open the Word document included with the original solicitation.

3. Questions and Answers:

Q.1: The Plans and Specifications call for a snow melt system that was specified on an earlier clerestory project. It was found that the manufacturers of the roof and the snow melt could not reach agreement on installation that would preserve the roof warranty. The snow melt was subsequently deleted from the project. Do you want this work to remain in this project? Please verify.

A.1: Delete the requirement for the snow melt system shown in the drawings and specifications. Please do NOT include the work described for the snow melt system in your proposal.

Q.2: All five of the previous clerestories have Kawneer Curtain Wall System installed. The last clerestory, Hangar II West, had an addendum specifying Kawneer only, because the previous units were all Kawneer. With two hangars complete with Kawneer, is it the best value for the Coast Guard to potentially introduce an unproven manufacturer and a different warranty process? Please clarify.

A.2: Due to Government historic preservation and maintenance consistency requirements; Kawneer is the only acceptable window manufacturer.

Q3: On detail 1/S3, it calls for MC8 to be welded to L8x6. The symbol shows ¼” fillet both sides. Is this meant to be continuous or skip welded? If skip welded, what size and spacing?

A.3: We believe the detail in question is actually 5/S3. Skip weld L8X6 to MC8 with 1/4 inch fillets, both edges of MC8 flange. Provide 2 inch welds at 12 inches on center.

Q.4: Do the ladder brackets require galvanizing?

A.4: Yes. The ladder brackets shall be hot-dip galvanized, any new exposed fasteners shall be hot dip galvanized, or stainless steel.

Q.5: When rerouting the antenna cable, is the existing wire to be reused?

A.5: Plan on providing new wire to match existing, to meet the "hot cutover" requirements specified in Division 1.

Q.6: Does the stainless sill flashing run continuous from Grid B to N?

A.6: Yes. The stainless steel pan runs continuous, from Grid B to N.

Q.7: Are there any occupancy restrictions preventing the contractor from erecting a scaffold system to access the high welding and lead abatement that has to be completed from inside the hangar?

A.7: There are no restrictions to prevent scaffolding, however, there are constraints. See Division 1, paragraph 3. d., e., and f.; and 4.c. The contractor's Site Specific Safety Plan shall address the contractor's approach to maintain Coast Guard access and protection. The hangar is in continuous use by the Coast Guard. Temporary relocation of Coast Guard owned equipment is to be accomplished by the contractor. Note: the bump out shed structure the middle of the building (with a light gauge metal roof) will require particular consideration.

Q.8: Re: Specification Section 13281, Engineering Control of Asbestos Containing Materials

13281 1.1 Summary states that asbestos may exist…. It also states that no survey has been done. Should the contractor assume that all drywall mud and siding underlayment is asbestos?

A.8: This building received a complete interior and exterior renovation, which was completed approximately 2001. Surveys were performed prior to that reconstruction effort, and every effort was made to remove all ACM. Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) should not now exist, however, original construction (WWII) typically used ACM. Under similar circumstances, in recent similar projects at Hangar I, ACM was NOT encountered. The contractor may assume that no ACM will be encountered in drywall or underlayment. The specification Section 13281 simply provides the protocols that will be employed should ACM be encountered.

Q.9: OSHA Regulation 1926.1101 (k) clearly requires that Owners shall “determine the presence, location, and quantity of ACM and or PACM at the work site.” Will the owner perform and provide the required survey and provide the information as required by 1926.1101 (k)?

A.9: Based on the response to question 1, no survey will be performed, nor is practical. Demolition of building components would be required to access buried materials, destroying the weather protective systems. The results of a survey would also be inconclusive. The Government's expectation with any work at Kodiak (WWII and subsequent facilities), that the potential always exists for encountering ACM and lead. MATOCC contractors typically are prepared this event; knowledgeable, qualified and with access to appropriate resources to resolve changed site conditions when they occur.

Q.10: 132811.1 Summary states that if asbestos is encountered, notify the contracting officer. Please note that only through sampling with PLM or TEM can the presence of asbestos be determined. Are we notifying the CO of a change of conditions or that we need a sample to be sent out to determine if it is asbestos?

A.10: Correct. If upon opening up a building system, potential ACM is observed, notify the on-site government representative, and the Contracting Officer. The Government together with the contractor will then determine the proper strategy for testing, management and/or removal.

Q.11: How is the contractor to get paid for any asbestos work required?

A.11: Discovery of ACM will be handled as a changed condition.

Q.12. Is all asbestos work TBD or change order work?

A.12: Discovery of ACM will be handled as a changed condition.

Q.13. What type of material is suspected to be “siding underlayment”? How thick is it? Is it concrete board or felt paper?

A13: The Hangar 3 underlayment is expected to be plywood, or wood decking with a modern synthetic or felt building wrap. It is the contractor’s responsibility to determine the dimensions of building materials.

Q.14: Solicitation Paragraph L.5 says “Questions should be received by the Contracting Officer within 15 days after issuance of this solicitation.” Does this mean we can no longer submit questions?

A.14: Delete the last sentence from Paragraph L.5 of the Solicitation. You may ask questions at any time prior to the proposal due date regarding this solicitation.

Q.15: Paragraph L.10 (page 93) indicates that “one (1) copy of the contract forms (Volume III)” should be submitted. Please clarify if an Original + 1 Copy is required for Volume III – Contract Forms or if only one Original is required.

A.15: Only one (1) original is required.

Q.16: We have noted a discrepancy on award of the Seed Project under the MATOC. Page 4, para B.2 states, “The government intends to award the seed project as a task order upon contract award.” Page 99 states, “The seed project will be used for evaluation purposes only and will not be awarded as a task order at contract award.” Please clarify.

A.16: See Amendment 0002, Page 99 has been corrected and a replacement page has been provided.

Q.17: We have noted a discrepancy on requirements of a bid bond for the Seed Project. Page 4, para B.2 states, “The offeror must provide a price proposal and bid bond for the seed project.” Page 100 states, “Identification of bond costs and a letter from surety attesting to bondability of up to $9,000,000.00 per year, for a 5 year period. Actual payment and performance bonds for the contract minimum will only be requested from successful offerors prior to award.” Please clarify.

A.17: There is no discrepancy for bonding requirements. In accordance with Paragraph L.7 Offer Guarantee Requirement, “Each offeror shall submit with each task order request a Bid Bond (SF-24)” Page 100 “Identification of bond costs and a letter from surety attesting to bondability of up to $9,000,000.00 per year for a 5 year period” is also required. “Actual payment and performance bonds for the contract minimum will only be requested from successful offerors prior to award” will be required. Also, please review Paragraph L.10.1.1 c) Q.18: Factor 3, Past Performance, Subfactor 1 – Project Management Team Experience states, “Demonstrate proposed team’s experience for 10 relevant projects that concluded not more than three years prior to the date of this solicitation.” Will the USCG consider a completed base year and/or option years on an on-going multiple-year IDIQ contract as completed in regards to this requirement?

A.18: The Coast Guard will accept past performance information which demonstrates the requirements outlined.

Q.19: Factor 3, Past Performance, Subfactor 1 – Project Management Team Experience indicates that projects shall fall within the price range of $100,000 to $3,000,000. Given the fact that the MATOC at BSU Kodiak is valued at a maximum of $9,000,000 per fiscal year, will multiple-year IDIQ contracts valued in excess of $3,000,000 be evaluated as highly as discrete contracts or task orders issued under IDIQ contracts falling within the range of $100,000 to $3,000,000?

A.19: As stated in the solicitation task orders will range between $100,000 to $3,000,000. Task orders valued over this range would demonstrate the requirements in Factor 3.

Q.20: We have noticed that the solicitation and amendment for this solicitation have been posted under separate threads on www.fbo.gov. For example, Amendment 0001 was posted on July 6, 2011 but was posted on the Sources Sought thread dating back to September 2010 rather than the Solicitation thread which is dated July 1, 2011. When viewing the original Sources Sought solicitation thread, the project is listed as being in the pre-solicitation stage and it is not evident that any solicitation has been posted, causing considerable confusion for our subcontractors bidding the Seed Project. Additionally, when viewing the solicitation thread, it is not evident that any amendments have been posted. Given this confusion, would the USCG consider an extension to the proposal due date?

A.20: Amendment 0001 was re-posted on 21 July 2011 to appear with the solicitation documents.

Q.21: Please clarify if title pages, table of contents and other documents included solely for organizational purposes are excluded from the 25-page limit.

A.21: Please review Paragraph L.10.2 (a) (1) regarding Introduction and Summary.