RFQ IHS1520125 Questions and Answers.pdf

RFQ IHS1520125 Questions and Answers

1. “HEPA 95%” requirement (24”x24”x12” and 12”x24”x12”) o Please confirm the exact performance specification intended by “HEPA

95%” (efficiency rating and test standard).

o Is a true HEPA requirement of 99.97% @ 0.3 micron required, or is the

Government specifically requiring 95% (and if so, at what particle size/test method)?

1. The term “HEPA 95%” in the SOW appears inconsistent with true HEPA definition. True HEPA = 99.97% @ 0.3 micron. If 95% efficiency is intended, the particle size and test standard must be specified.

Government intent should clearly state either:

• True HEPA (99.97% @ 0.3 micron per IEST-RP-CC001.6 or equivalent), OR

• ≥95% efficiency at specified particle size (define standard).

(Changes made in SOW

2. HEPA filter construction / configuration o Are the HEPA filters required to be box style or V-bank?

o Are there any required details for gasketing (yes/no), and if yes, which side

(e.g., air-leaving side) and what type?

1. For HEPA-required units, filter sealing must prevent bypass. Drawing

M001 shows requirement that space around filter be sealed 150310_M001. If HEPA is required, specify gasketed filters and indicate gasket location (typically air-leaving side).

3. Identification of existing filters

Can the Government provide manufacturer/part numbers for the existing filters, or a photo of the filter label currently installed (or confirm the contractor may submit cut sheets for Government/COR approval prior to ordering)? The currently installed filters are:

• FilterBuy Model AFB9H122412 – 12" x 24" x 12"

• FilterBuy Model AFB9H242412 – 24" x 24" x 12"**

• Contractor shall provide filters that meet or exceed the performance specifications of the existing installed filters. Equivalent products are acceptable subject to COR approval prior to installation.

o

4. Replacement frequency o The requirement is described as a quarterly service cycle for 136 filters.

Please confirm whether the HEPA filters are also to be replaced quarterly, or if the Government would allow an alternate approach such as pre-filters quarterly and HEPA annually (subject to COR approval). If alternates are allowed, please confirm how pricing should be submitted/evaluated.

1. No alternatives allowed Quarterly replacement is typical for dusty environments (Yuma climate considered).

Risk of extended intervals: increased fan stress and potential filter failure (tearing)

5. MERV substitution o For the MERV 8 / 9 / 10 items, would the Government accept MERV 10 across the board (as an alternate), provided the dimensions match and airflow/fit are not impacted?

1. Minimum efficiencies per A/E design are shown in filter schedule (see attached M_001). Code requires not dropping below minimum. Higher MERV is allowed but increases fan static pressure when loaded.

Recommendation: Maintain original A/E design values.

6. Is there any other opportunities for a site visit for RFQ IHS1520125?

1. Yes coordinate with Cor and CO.

7. Is site visit mandatory? In order to bid this RFQ?

1. No the Q&A and SOW are sufficient with new supporting attachments.

8. Can you please let us know if the Merv 8 and Merv 9 requirements for filters are absolutely the Merv value you need or can they be substituted with Merv 10 value filter?

1. The 12"x24"x4" MERV-10 filters correspond to specific air handling units as designed by the project A/E. The Government intends to maintain the original design filtration levels for each unit. The contractor shall provide filters matching the specified MERV rating for each size listed in the SOW. No substitution of filtration efficiency is authorized unless approved by the COR.

9. Many times Merv 10 value is a better, more efficient filter to trap dust and allergens.

However MERV 10 is denser, causing slightly higher airflow resistance but not too much of a difference from merv 8 or merv 9.

1. While MERV 10 allows for 50% greater efficiency than MERV 8/9. The Government has determined that MERV 9 filtration is sufficient for the systems as designed. Substitution up to MERV 9 is acceptable. MERV 10 is not required.

10. I have reviewed the proposal documents and I cannot seem to find any information on where or to whom we submit our proposal. See Attachment D, page 10 - 12 for submittal instructions.

11. Are we to email our proposal to you before the deadline or mail it via postal mail to the location address? See Attachment D, page 10 - 12 for submittal instructions.

12. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) Edmund Thundercloud, COR Level II, is designated as the Contracting Of�icer’s Representative for this contract. The COR is responsible for technical oversight and acceptance of services but does not have authority to modify contract terms.