JFSD202007CR A-E CCR SOW - Pre-solicitation 21Jul21.pdf

Architect-Engineer (A-E) Statement of Work Planning and Charrette Services for

JFSD202007CR

Repair Corrosion Control Hangar-Full Paint H613

1. Scope of Work: The Architect-Engineer (A-E) shall perform field reconnaissance, studies, site investigations, and meeting with the users, including travel and work required to obtain engineering information and design data to produce contract documents for this project. The Base Civil Engineering Project Manager will assist in scheduling design meetings.

1.1. Goal: Provide three distinct project scope options followed by a 35% design for selected scope option for a fully functioning corrosion control facility capable of housing, at a minimum, a Global Hawk RQ-4 that will allow full de-paint and paint capabilities. Options will have sufficient development and cost accuracy for project programming purposes with a completed Facility Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) Charrette Report (CR). Investigate the facility conditions, assemble requirements from published standards and functional stakeholders, identify constraints and opportunities, develop and present an array of solutions, and deliver three distinct options for project scope.

1.2. Background: The Air Force has very limited ability at the base level to make permanent Global Hawk RQ-4 structural repairs and to refurbish or paint flight control surfaces. The RQ-4 requires a corrosion control hangar with full painting capabilities in accordance with UFC 4-211-02 Aircraft Corrosion Control and Paint Facilities, and capacity for de-painting. Based on current information and size of available hangars, hangar 613 is the preliminary proposal for repair and reconfiguration to meet Global Hawk painting requirements. However, a study is needed to verify hangar 613 is a viable option and to evaluate hangar 603 as an alternative.

1.3. Issues to address include, but are not limited to, the following.

1.3.1. The facility must meet UFC 4-211-02. The minimum size aircraft serviced will be Global Hawk RQ-4.

1.3.2. The facility will require security and access control features. Criteria in AFI 31-101 Integrated Defense will apply as directed by 319 Security Forces Squadron.

1.3.3. Repair and reconfigure support areas to meet functional space requirements.

1.3.4. Repair industrial waste drainage/handling as required.

1.3.5. Construct a new emergency backup generator as required by UFC 4-211-02 and AFI 32-1062, along with new exterior equipment pads (platforms) and associated sidewalks.

1.3.6. Evaluate facility envelope for significant deficiencies.

1.3.7. Evaluate facilities for compliance with Air Force Corporate Facilities Standards. AFCFS are available on the Whole Building Design Guide website. http://afcfs.wbdg.org/index.html

1.3.7.1. Grand Forks AFB Installation Facilities Standards are currently in draft status. Direction will be provided from the draft by 319 CES as required.

1.3.8. The Design Criteria Development Procedure per UFC 4-020-01 DoD Security Engineering Facilities Planning Manual has determined that only minimum standards per UFC 4-010-01 DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings are required.

1.3.9. Evaluate project scope alternatives for requirements of various cost thresholds.

The magnitude of construction cost for Hangar 613 is less than $25,000, and Hangar 603 is between $25,000 and $100,000.

1.3.10. Other issues identified by the A-E site investigation, code study, and charrette meetings.

1.3.11. Include antiterrorism and security requirements. Requirements per UFC 4-020-01 DoD Security Engineering Facilities Planning Manual and UFC 4-010-01 DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings will be evaluated, established, and verified by the government, in collaboration with the A-E, based on information gathered during planning study meetings.

1.3.12. Comply with the attached Work Standards for Architect-Engineer Title I Services.

1.4. Conduct a Planning Study

1.4.1. At least one week prior to the planning study kick off meeting, provide a draft agenda to allow scheduling of required attendees and a list of key topics, questions, issues, and references to review for attendees to arrive prepared. Identify information that is required by the A-E before the meetings. Conduct meetings and discussions to gain necessary information and direction.

Provide graphics and text, produced prior to, and during the discussion, to facilitate understanding of concepts and requirements. Document the discussion with graphics and texts.

1.4.2. Perform a site investigation to determine the condition of the existing facilities. Evaluate the condition of building systems to determine general compliance with standards, ability to meet needs, and remaining life expectancy. Evaluate the general condition of the building. See attached fire inspection and risk assessment reports.

1.4.3. Lead discussions to gain necessary information and direction. Provide graphics and text, produced prior to, and during the discussion, to facilitate understanding of concepts and requirements. Document the discussion with graphics and texts.

1.4.4. After adequate initial discussions, a pause in the planning study meetings shall occur for study, evaluation, and development. Produce initial options as described in this document with details and cost estimates of sufficient accuracy to allow for consideration, comparison, and selection for further development.

1.4.5. Provide recommendations and options for basic Planning Alternatives. Four Planning Alternatives shall be developed. Provide cost estimates for each planning alternative developed to -30% to +50% accuracy. See sections below for submittal requirements.

1.4.5.1. Options include, but are not limited to:

1.4.5.1.1. Repair hangar and install equipment and ventilation needed to conduct required aircraft corrosion control operations.

1.4.5.1.2. Construct new facility for required aircraft corrosion control operations.

1.4.5.1.3. Partnership with Grand Sky.

1.4.5.1.4. Status Quo.

1.4.5.2. Include requirements triggered by project cost ratios; i.e. 50% rule. Clearly identify options with project cost nearing 70% of the Estimated Replacement Cost.

1.4.6. A break in work of approximately four weeks will occur for the government to evaluate the Planning Alternatives. The government will identify the Planning Alternative to be developed into Scope Alternatives in the next phase.

1.5. Conduct a Scope Study

1.5.1. At least one week prior to the scope study kick off meeting, provide a draft agenda to allow scheduling of required attendees and a list of key topics, questions, issues, and references to review for attendees to arrive prepared. Identify information that is required by the A-E before the charrette. Conduct meetings and discussions to gain necessary information and direction.

Provide graphics and text, produced prior to, and during the discussion, to facilitate understanding of concepts and requirements. Document the discussion with graphics and texts.

1.5.2. Propose multiple Scope Alternatives options for consideration, comparison, and selection for further development.

1.5.3. Submit an electronic copy of the scope study meeting documents and meeting minutes within three calendar days. Include a list of unresolved items and information needed from the government.

1.5.4. Conduct a Scope Study Out-brief

1.5.4.1. Present initial options and leading discussions to identify any further refinements required. The out-brief will result in the identification of three option for final development. The government may require up to one week for internal discussion before identifying the final options.

1.5.4.2. Provide recommendations and initial options for potential project scopes.

1.5.4.3. Submit an electronic copy of the out-brief documents and meeting minutes within seven business days of the out-brief presentation. Include a list of unresolved items and answers needed from the government.

1.5.5. Produce three final Scope Alternatives based on government direction. The final options must be developed to at least 15% project definition; sufficient to provide the information required for the FSRM Charrette Report. The scope alternatives require a cost estimate developed to Class 4, -20% to + 30%, accuracy.

1.5.6. A break of approximately four weeks will occur for the government to review the scope study results and evaluate the options before identifying the Scope Alternative for final development to 35% design.

1.6. Produce a 35% Design

1.6.1. At least one week prior to the 35% design kick off meeting, provide a draft agenda to the charrette to allow scheduling of required attendees and a list of key topics, questions, issues, and references to review for attendees to arrive prepared. Identify information that is required by the A-E. Conduct meetings and discussions to gain necessary information and direction.

Provide graphics and text, produced prior to, and during the discussion, to facilitate understanding of concepts and requirements. Document the discussion with graphics and texts.

1.6.2. Submit an electronic copy of the meeting documents and meeting minutes within three calendar days. Include a list of unresolved items and information needed from the government.

1.6.3. The cost estimate developed to Class 3, -15% to +20%, accuracy.

1.6.4. The 35% design documents are intended for use to solicit a Design-Build contract for construction.

2. Field Measurements: The A-E shall survey the project site, making field investigations to verify dimensions and other information shown on government as-built drawings furnished upon request.

3. Evaluations and design solutions shall comply with appropriate criteria including, but not limited to, Unified Facilities Criteria, Air Force Engineering Technical Letters, Air Force Instructions, and other DoD and Federal criteria. Utilize industry standards and best practices in the absence of applicable DoD and Federal criteria.

4. Submittals: Upon completion of the work in accordance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, and after the required information and other design data has been obtained, the A-E shall submit documents identified below for record purposes. Provide electronic copies of documents and photographs on CD/DVD.

4.1. Planning Study:

4.1.1. Meeting documents with a list of unresolved items and answers needed from the government.

Electronic files only.

4.1.2. Planning Study report including the following:

4.1.2.1. Analysis on four final planning alternatives with cost estimates.

4.1.2.2. Site investigation report including descriptions of existing conditions of work areas augmented with photographs. Provide a site plan or map for each alternative.

4.1.2.3. Meeting minutes and attendee lists.

4.1.2.4. Planning Study Questionnaire. See attached.

4.2. Scoping Study

4.2.1. Meeting documents with a list of unresolved items and answers needed from the government.

Electronic files only.

4.2.2. Scoping Study report including the following:

4.2.2.1. Analysis on three final scoping alternatives with cost estimates.

4.2.2.2. Site investigation report including descriptions of existing conditions of work areas augmented with photographs.

4.2.2.3. Meeting minutes and attendee lists.

4.2.2.4. Scope Study Questionnaire. See attached.

4.2.2.5. FSRM Charrette Report. See attached template.

4.2.2.6. Basis of Estimate. See attached.

4.2.2.7. Any relevant information that is not part of the FSRM Charrette Report.

4.3. 35% Design

4.3.1. Meeting documents with a list of unresolved items and answers needed from the government.

Electronic files only.

4.3.2. Complete 35% Design including the following:

4.3.2.1. Site investigation report including descriptions of existing conditions of work area augmented with photographs.

4.3.2.2. List of code deficiencies and recommendations. Include security, antiterrorism, and force protection upgrades required by Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Air Force Instruction (AFI), and Engineer Technical Letter (ETL).

4.3.2.3. Meeting minutes and attendee lists.

4.3.2.4. Basis of Estimate.

4.3.2.5. Documents as required by Work Standards for Architect-Engineer Title I Services.

4.4. Electronic drawings shall be submitted in AutoCAD and Adobe .pdf format while specifications, reports, and other data shall be submitted in the appropriate Microsoft Office format and in Adobe .pdf.

5. Schedule:

5.1. A predesign conference will be held prior to the A-E proposal due date.

5.2. A meeting shall be held prior to completion of site investigation to verify requirements and obtain other information.

5.3. The A-E shall complete the Planning Study report and submit documents to arrive within 28 calendar days after the receipt date of Notice to Proceed with the Planning Study. A review meeting/out-brief will be conducted after a government review period of approximately 1 week.

5.4. After this review meeting the government will require approximately 4 weeks to analyze and select a planning alternative.

5.5. The A-E shall complete the Scoping Study report and FSRM Charrette Report, submit documents to arrive within 28 calendar days after the receipt date of Notice to Proceed with the Scoping Study. A review meeting/out-brief will be conducted after a government review period of approximately 1 week.

5.6. After this review meeting the government will require approximately 4 weeks to analyze and select an option for development of selected scope alternative.

5.7. The A-E shall complete the 35% Design and submit documents to arrive within 35 calendar days after the receipt date of Notice to Proceed with the 35% Design. A review meeting/out-brief will be conducted after a government review period of approximately 2 weeks.

6. 319 CONS shall receive original copies of all transmittal letters from the A-E design consultant. The number of copies to be mailed directly to Grand Forks AFB via overnight service by the A-E is as follows:

Agency 319 CES/CENM 1 bound hard copy of Reports 525 Tuskegee Airmen Blvd 1 electronic of all submittals Grand Forks AFB, ND 58205-6434

7. Grand Forks AFB points of contact: