Attachment 7 Pre-Proposal Inquiry Responses 26 Feb.pdf

# Pre-Proposal Inquiry Government Response

1 Solicitation 52.236-1 Performance of Work by the Contractor The Contractor shall perform on the site, and with its own organization, work equivalent to at least 35 percent of the total amount of work to be performed under the contract. This percentage may be reduced by a supplemental agreement to this contract if, during performing the work, the Contractor requests a reduction and the Contracting Officer determines that the reduction would be to the advantage of the Government.

We request a reduction of the FAR 52.236-1 requirement from 35% to 15% via supplemental agreement because it is to the advantage of the Government. To comply with Tunisia permitting and licensing and reduce regulatory as well as schedule risk, we propose that specialized subcontractors perform all physical construction trades while the prime provides on-site project management, QC and safety management and by this retains full responsibility for permits, authority coordination and compliance.

Please confirm whether the Government will consider such a reduction and, if so, the preferred percentage and documentation format (amendment vs. post-award supplemental agreement)

This Clause has been deleted in accordance with the FAR Overhaul

(RFO)

2 Solicitation Section K, page 26

The solicitation states that subcontractors performing work valued at more than $35,000 must be vetted in JCCS and maintain an Acceptable risk rating throughout performance. Please confirm:

-Whether the $35,000 threshold is based on the total subcontract value (including materials/equipment) and whether it is evaluated per subcontract or aggregated across multiple awards to the same firm.

-Whether the requirement applies to all tiers (1st tier, 2nd tier, etc.) or only to first-tier subcontractors.

-The required timing: Must proposed key subcontractors already have an Acceptable JCCS rating at proposal submission, or is it sufficient to have them Acceptable prior to subcontract award or NTP -Whether JCCS vetting applies to subcontractors that provide only off-site professional services (e.g., design support) versus on-site construction services

- The $35K threshold is based on total contract value and applies at an aggregated level per subcontracting firm

- The requirement applies to all tiers of subcontractors

- Submission for vetting of subcontractors can occur post-award prior to issuance of the NTP.

However, if a subcontractor or Joint Venture are utilized to fulfill Factor 2 requirements, they must be found acceptable in JCCS prior to contract award.

- The requirement applies to all types of subcontractors and is based on dollar value

- If proposing as a Joint Venture (JV), either the JV itself or each individual member firm must be registered in JCCS with an Acceptable risk rating to be found responsible.

3 Please confirm our understanding of Factor 2 relevance requirements and how the Government will credit subcontractor experience toward technical acceptability.

We understand Factor 2 requires the offeror to submit at least one relevant project meeting all stated criteria, including: a building/facility owned by the Government of Tunisia and located in Tunisia, executed as design-build, minimum value $750,000, and at least 70% complete within the last 10 years.

We also understand the solicitation allows an offeror to utilize the experience of a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, provided the offeror submits a Letter of Commitment and an explanation of the subcontractor’s role and meaningful involvement (including specific resource commitments and where those resources will be located) Notwithstanding the above, please confirm the following:

-If the prime lacks a qualifying “Government of Tunisia owned / located in Tunisia / design-build” project, may the offeror satisfy Factor 2 using a proposed subcontractor’s qualifying project(s), provided the subcontractor will perform major or critical aspects, is identified in Factor 1, and provides a Letter of Commitment and description of meaningful involvement/resources.

-For “Government of Tunisia owned,” what evidence will be considered acceptable (e.g., contract language identifying the Tunisian government entity as owner/beneficiary.

-For “Design-Build,” will a project be considered acceptable where the contractor performed construction while design was performed by a subcontracted designer under the same prime contract (i.e., the prime held design-build responsibility/managed design), and what minimum documentation/evidence is required to demonstrate design-build execution.

- Yes, Factor 2 may be satisfied using a subcontractors experience.

Page 35 of the solicitation states, “The offeror MUST provide a minimum of one (1) but no more than two (2) relevant Construction projects performed by the offeror or by a subcontractor for whom a Letter of Commitment was submitted under Factor 1”.

- The Corporate Experience Data Sheet should identify the Govt of Tunisia as the owner of the project, and the offeror’s proposal should conform to the requirements at the top of page 36 of the PTS that provides direction based on whether or not the project was contracted by the US Government.

- the narrative provided on the Corporate Experience Data Sheet must demonstrate in design or design management.

4 Solicitation page 1

Please confirm the official proposal submission address/method for N3319126R0001 (physical address/courier instructions vs electronic submission), since SF 1442 Item 8 ‘Address Offer To’ is not populated in the release

Proposals shall be submitted using the Solicitations Module in PIEE.

5 Solicitation, 52.211-12 Liquidated damages, page 21

Please confirm the liquidated damages application: is LD $200/day applied once to the overall contract schedule, or separately per CLIN (potentially cumulative across multiple CLINs)?

The $200/day liquidated damages amount applies at the contract schedule level.

6 Given the contract milestones, including completion and acceptance of the Quality Control Plan, Accident Prevention Plan, and Worksite Layout Plan at final design (with the QC Plan submitted within 10 days after the Post-Award Kick-Off Meeting and refined by final design per section 5.10), and the requirement to perform ‘Temporary Equipment Material Relocation and Storage’, demolition of redundant/obstructing structures, and disposal/cleaning of non-reusable items before renovation, would the Government consider granting a limited Notice to Proceed, after submission of the final design and pre-construction submittals but prior to the full construction NTP (approximately days 80– 100 after award), solely to allow relocation of MOH equipment and materials from the depots to temporary storage, completion of demolition and salvage works, and site cleaning—so that subsequent renovation activities can begin without delaying the overall 300-day period of performance for the base bid?

Concur- Government is acceptable to granting a single or multiple limited Notice to Proceeds to allow for earlier; mobilization, relocation of MoH items, temporary storage, demolition, and additional site cleaning to prepare the area for new works.

7 SOW Section 1.2.2 “Sustainable Design” SOW Section 3.3 “Detailed Architectural Scope of Work”, 3.3.4 Windows The current SOW emphasizes sustainable, energy-efficient design but also shows relatively large window areas on some storage depots where racking layouts mean natural light will not reach the aisles and LED lighting will be required at all times. Given the added thermal losses, HVAC load, capital cost, and ongoing maintenance associated with windows, would the Government consider a design revision that eliminates or significantly reduces windows in the storage areas (while maintaining any required openings for egress and safety) in order to improve thermal performance and reduce life-cycle operating costs? If acceptable, please clarify any minimum daylighting, architectural, or façade requirements that must still be maintained for these depots.

The offerors proposal shall adhere to the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable requirements of the solicitation and adhere to the Performance Technical Specifications in Attachment 1.

The Government is acceptable to post-award designs of eliminating windows for improvement to thermal control and energy use.

Alterations and designs can be developed during the post-award design phase.

8 Solicitation, page 1, SF 1442, Block 12a/12b

Are performance and payment bonds required for this award (SF 1442 Item 12a/12b), and if yes what amounts/forms and submission timing apply?

No, performance and payment bonds are not required for this contract.

9 With reference to the storage/operational requirements for the Bardo depots, please confirm whether temporary storage and relocation of Ministry of Health (MOH) supplies is required for each depot

Government is acceptable to on-side and off-site storage options, during renovation, and whether this is expected to be provided on-site or off-site. In order to minimize schedule risk, transport effort for MOH personnel, and additional contract costs for secured and climate-controlled off-site storage, would the Government and MOH be willing to accept the use of lockable shipping containers placed within the project site as temporary storage for MOH equipment and materials during construction? If this approach is acceptable in principle, please clarify:

Any specific security requirements for these containers (e.g., fencing, lighting, access control).

Any temperature or environmental requirements for the materials to be stored (e.g., items that must remain within a defined temperature/humidity range).

Any constraints on container placement (locations within the compound, maximum number/size, or duration on site)

Our intent is to provide a practical, low-risk solution that keeps MOH supplies close to their normal point of use, avoids unnecessary travel for MOH staff, and reduces both schedule risk and additional storage costs to the project.

including secured lockable shipping containers within the MoH site boundaries. Materials are predominately paper products and personal protective equipment, requirement for a water-tight storage with proper ventilation is mandatory to ensure items do not obtain water or mold damage.

10 With reference to Section L – Instructions (Price) and Attachment 4 / DFARS 252.229-7001 ‘Tax Relief (APR 2020)’, which state that CLIN pricing shall be exclusive of VAT and that offerors must indicate the applicable tax relief exemption rate, please clarify the following:

Please confirm that all CLIN prices (base and options) are to be proposed strictly exclusive of Tunisian VAT and any other recoverable indirect taxes in accordance with DFARS 252.229-7001.

Please specify what tax relief rate and any particular wording the Government expects us to insert in the completed 252.229-7001 provision to accompany our proposal. Also can the government provide this attachment.

As has been customary on similar NAVFAC/HA projects in Tunisia, will the U.S. Embassy and/or NAVFAC provide assistance and the necessary supporting documentation to the Ministry of Finance to facilitate the VAT/tax exoneration process for the prime contractor and its subcontractors?

Government confirms that all CLINs shall be proposed WITHOUT VAT included as the project is VAT Exempt per the Tunisia Humanitarian Assistance DoD AFRICOM and DSCA programs.

NAVFAC and the US Embassy will assist with the VAT exemption process providing memos and letters that support the contract but, will not lead the process on behalf of the prime and subcontractors. The Contractor shall have their own authority to do business and submit taxes in the country of Tunisia with associated Tax IDs in the country for the prime and sub-contractors, and have their own personnel to coordinate tax items on behalf of the company and sub-contractors with the local tax offices and Ministry of Finance that have the appropriate professional skill sets to understand the local accounting regulations. The offeror completes Attachment 4 in accordance with local businesses practices. This attachment is available on SAM.Gov with the solicitation package.

11 Section 1.3 (Base-Bid and Options), in particular the Mechanical/Plumbing/HVAC–Ventilation scope for Depots D1–D6 (e.g. Sections 1.3.1.5, D2.4, D3.5, D5.4, D6.4), which specify HVAC systems ‘sized to maintain ambient 25 °C in offices and 35 °C in storage areas’; and Section 3.4 ‘Detailed Mechanical Scope of Work – Ventilation System’, which states that ‘the Ventilation system shall be designed to maintain an indoor air temperature of no more than 25 °C’;

we note an apparent discrepancy between the 35 °C storage setpoint and the later requirement to maintain indoor temperature at or below 25 °C.

Considering that these facilities are intended for pharmaceutical and medical-supply storage, and that commonly applied technical guidance for medicine storage recommends significantly lower maximum temperatures (e.g. controlled room temperature typically not exceeding approximately 25 °C, and often lower for certain products), we kindly request clarification of the required design temperature ranges for:

1.Bulk pharmaceutical/medical storage areas (non-refrigerated).

2.Office and administrative areas.

In particular, please confirm whether the intent is that storage areas should also be designed to maintain no more than 25 °C (or another specific value) under local summer design conditions, and whether 35 °C appears in Section 1.3 as a drafting error or as an allowable emergency / non-standard operating condition. Clear temperature setpoints will allow us to size HVAC systems correctly, ensure appropriate protection of medical supplies, and provide a defensible life-cycle cost.

PTS Sections- Depots D1–D6 (e.g.

Sections 1.3.1.5, D2.4, D3.5, D5.4, D6.4) is accurate, intent is that local summer design conditions for the administrative offices’ room temperature shall not exceed approximately 25 °C and bulk storage areas (non-refrigerated) shall not exceed approximately 35 °C. Bulk storage areas are predominately for medical documents, personal protective equipment, and medical tools.

Medical equipment required to be kept a lower temperature will be stored in Depot 4 which is fully climate controlled or in the cold-storage mobile units inside the depots.

12 1.Section 1.3.1.5 ‘Depot Mechanical, Plumbing, HVAC Ventilation Upgrades – D1.5’ and the corresponding sections D2.4, D3.5, D5.4, and D6.4 for Depots 2, 3, 5, and 6, which call for a forced-air HVAC system with roof- or wall-mounted air-handling equipment; and

Government confirms. Intent is that the Depot 4 and mobile Cold- Storage units will be used for the

2.Section 3.4 ‘Detailed Mechanical Scope of Work – Ventilation System’, which establishes performance-based indoor temperature requirements (≤ 25 °C) but does not prescribe a specific distribution topology, we request clarification and approval to propose an alternative HVAC concept for Depots 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.

In Depot 4, a central AHU with large suspended ductwork was installed. Reproducing that solution in the remaining depots would require significant roof reinforcement and, due to site constraints (building footprint aligned with the road and limited space outside the façades), does not lend itself to placing large central units externally as was possible for Depot 4. In addition, a single large central unit provides no redundancy: if that unit fails, the entire depot loses cooling capacity until repaired.

To reduce cost, improve reliability, constructability, and long-term maintainability for the Ministry of Health, we propose using multiple ceiling-mounted cassette-type DX units (and/or similar light indoor units) distributed over the storage areas and offices, designed to:

1.Meet or exceed the required indoor temperature performance for pharmaceutical storage and office comfort as defined in Section 3.4.

2.Provide inherent redundancy, so that failure of one unit does not eliminate cooling in the entire depot.

3.Avoid heavy ductwork and minimize additional structural reinforcement to the roof.

4.Use equipment and refrigerants that can be readily maintained by local Tunisian service providers.

Could the Government please confirm that:

The SOW language in Sections 1.3.1.5, D2.4, D3.5, D5.4, and D6.4 may be interpreted as performance-based, allowing cassette or multi-split systems in lieu of a single large central forced-air AHU with extensive ductwork, provided we meet the specified temperature, ventilation, and code requirements;

and that no specific requirement exists to replicate the exact Depot 4 HVAC configuration in Depots 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, as long as the functional criteria (temperature control, airflow, redundancy, and maintainability) are satisfied?

medical equipment required to be refrigerated or kept below a specific temperature. Depot 4 system is specifically to create a large cold storage warehouse for medical equipment that requires that level of temperature control.

While the Depots under this task order are for providing comfortable office spaces below 25 °C and bulk storage spaces under 35 °C.

Government concurs that Sections 1.3.1.5, D2.4, D3.5, D5.4, and D6.4 may be interpreted as performance-based, allowing alternative mechanical/HVAC/Ventilation approaches to be beneficial to the Ministry of Health for cost and maintenance.

13 The Scope of Work notes that solar photovoltaic (PV) systems should be considered as part of the overall sustainability strategy, but does not clearly state whether a PV system is a mandatory requirement or an optional enhancement to be priced at the contractor’s discretion. To ensure a level playing field and consistent pricing assumptions across all offerors, we respectfully request clarification on the following:

1.Does the Government require installation of a solar PV system for this project, or should PV be treated as an optional/innovative feature that is not evaluated in the base and option CLIN prices?

Government has removed alternative energy sources ie Solar Power and Solar Hot Water Heating from the scope in Sections 2.8 and

3.6. Government has also removed

the requirement for energy saving water systems or Grey Water noted in Sections 2.3, 3.1.2, 3.5.

2.If a PV system is desired, please confirm whether the Government prefers a simple grid-tied system without batteries, mounted on the depot roofs, whose production is exported through a bidirectional meter to the local utility and credited to the Ministry of Health’s account, rather than directly feeding the depot loads. This approach would:

-Avoid the complexity and cost of battery storage.

-Reduce first cost and maintenance requirements.

-Still provide a tangible long-term energy-cost benefit to the Ministry of Health.

If PV is required, please specify the target PV capacity (kW) or percentage of annual site consumption to be offset.

Clear guidance on whether a solar PV system is required, and under what configuration, will ensure consistent proposals and allow us to design the most cost-effective solution that aligns with the project’s sustainability goals and the Ministry of Health’s operational needs.

14 With reference to the Fire Protection Upgrade sections for each depot (Base Bid D1.6 and Options D2.5, D3.6, D5.5, D6.5), the SOW calls for an ‘isolated sprinkler or clean-agent system with dedicated high-pressure pump,’ together with hose-reel (RIA) coverage and a multi-zone addressable fire-alarm/detection system, all in accordance with NFPA, EN, and Tunisian regulations. During our review of the existing Bardo fire-protection infrastructure and discussions with the Beneficiary, we have noted:

-The site currently has only two fire pumps and a single ~70 m³ fire-water tank serving all six depots plus an additional similar-sized building across the road, with extremely limited remaining space for additional pumps/tanks.

-In the recently renovated Depot 4, no automatic sprinkler system was installed, likely due to concerns about water damage to pharmaceutical stocks and the physical/space constraints for locating additional pump sets and mains.

-Clean-agent systems (periodic replacement of cylinders, specialized service) would carry a high life-cycle cost and, according to MOH engineering staff, the necessary consumables and service capability are not readily available locally, creating a long-term sustainability risk for the Ministry of Health.

We fully support the intent to significantly improve fire safety and to comply with applicable NFPA / EN / Tunisian requirements as interpreted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), in this case local Fire Department. However, our concern is that fully isolated sprinkler or clean-agent systems for each of

Government has edited sections to incorporate the intent is to provide a fire-protection solution that genuinely improves safety, is technically feasible within the existing site space constraints, and remains affordable and maintainable for the Ministry of Health over the life of the facility.

PTS updated with additional example drawings.

Depots 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 may be technically challenging and financially difficult to sustain for the MOH under the current site conditions:

-A sprinkler system designed correctly for the projected fire load and storage configuration would likely require very substantial upgrades to the existing fire-water storage and pumping capacity (larger tank volume, additional/larger fire pumps, space and power for those units).

-Clean-agent flooding of large storage volumes is both costly to install and costly to maintain (refilling cylinders, periodic replacement), and may be impractical given local supply and service constraints. In this context, we respectfully request the Government’s and AHJ’s guidance on the following:

-If the AHJ determines that automatic sprinklers are mandatory for these depots, does the Government intend for this contract to include all necessary upgrades to the site-wide fire-water and pump infrastructure needed to support a code-compliant sprinkler system for the actual commodities and storage heights, or should sprinkler design be limited to the present 70 m³ tank and existing pumps?

-If such infrastructure upgrades are not within the scope of this project, would the Government, in coordination with the AHJ, consider an alternative protection strategy that emphasizes rigorous detection and manual suppression in lieu of full automatic sprinklers or large-volume clean-agent systems, for example:

-Very dense smoke/heat (and, where appropriate, multi-criteria/CO) detection throughout rack aisles and ceiling zones, tied into a robust, addressable fire-alarm system with clear zoning and audible/visual notification.

-Extensive RIA hose-reel coverage, suitably placed handheld and cart-type extinguishers, and pre-planned hose access to high-risk aisles.

-Mechanical smoke-extraction / fire-exhaust systems over the storage bays, as already referenced in D1.6, D2.5, D3.6, D5.5, and D6.5.

Our goal is to provide a fire-protection solution that genuinely improves safety, is technically feasible within the existing site space constraints, and remains affordable and maintainable for the Ministry of Health over the life of the facility. Clear guidance on whether isolated sprinklers/clean-agent systems are mandatory, and whether site-wide fire-water upgrades are in scope, will allow us to develop a compliant, practical, and sustainable design for the Bardo depots

15 With reference to the Security Upgrades sections for each depot (Base Bid D1.7 and Options D2.6, D3.7, D5.6, D6.6), the SOW specifies ‘CCTV cameras with conduit/backbone for future expansion’ and ‘CCTV cameras on conduit backbones for future expansion,’ in addition to providing camera coverage for Depot

Government clarifies that the intent of the “CCTV cameras with conduit/backbone for future expansion” is for internal interiors and surrounding areas.

Our design intent is to install a CCTV system that provides full visual coverage of all pallet rack aisles, storage areas, and critical access points, based on the final racking layouts, so that every operational angle inside the renovated depots is already covered at turnover. In this context, we would appreciate clarification of the Government’s expectations for ‘backbone…for future expansion’:

-Is ‘backbone expansion capability’ primarily intended to allow future site-wide expansion (e.g., CCTV for possible new buildings or external yards that may be constructed later), beyond the current depots and their immediate surroundings?

-Or is the requirement meant to cover future internal expansion of cameras within the same depots (e.g., adding more cameras inside D1, D2, D3, D5, D6 at a later stage)?

Clear guidance on whether the expansion capability is limited to the renovated depots themselves or is intended to support potential future buildings on the Bardo site will allow us to size the CCTV backbone appropriately and avoid unnecessary cost while fully meeting the project’s security objectives expansion for additional cameras within the depots in case the customer adjusts or adds additional racks internally for storage.

16 With reference to the HVAC requirements in Base Bid Section 1.3.1.4 F (D1.5) and Option sections D2.4, D3.5, D5.4, and D6.4, the SOW specifies both a primary ‘forced-air HVAC system’ and separate ‘Air Conditioning wall- and ceiling-mounted units to supplement central HVAC’ (or ‘supplemental wall/ceiling AC units’ in the options).

Following our previous PPI regarding cassette/multi-split systems as an alternative to a single central AHU with heavy ductwork, if the Government approves a distributed cassette ceiling unit system as the primary cooling, would the requirement for these separate supplemental wall/ceiling AC units be considered satisfied?

A distributed cassette system would inherently provide both primary and supplemental/ redundant cooling capacity without the need for additional standalone units, while avoiding the roof reinforcement and single-point-failure issues of a large central system. Confirmation that the cassette solution fulfills both the primary HVAC and supplemental AC requirements would allow for a more efficient, lower-cost design that still meets or exceeds the performance criteria.”

Concur- per PPI #12 Government would accept a cassette/multi-split systems and that would meet the intent of supplemental wall/ceiling AC units.

17 With reference to the stormwater provisions repeatedly called out across the Mechanical/Plumbing scopes (e.g., Base Bid D1.5: ‘Stormwater roof rainwater collection, harvesting provisions, downspouts, and drainage lines’; and similarly in D2.4, D3.5, D5.4, D6.4), we seek clarification on the Government’s expectations for rainwater harvesting in these low-occupancy medical storage depots. The depots

Government has also removed the requirement for energy saving water systems or Grey Water noted in Sections 2.3, 3.1.2, 3.5.

collectively have only ~2–4 toilets total (minimal flushing demand, <2 m³/month), no landscaping irrigation, and no other high-volume non-potable uses. A full rainwater harvesting system (collection, first-flush, filtration, storage tanks, dual plumbing distribution) would:

-Carry a 5–15+ year simple payback based on Tunis water rates (~0.5–1 TND/m³) and realistic collectible volume (~200–400 m³/year raw from roofs, but <50 m³ usable after losses).

-Complicate depot plumbing with separate lines, valves, pumps, and maintenance points in otherwise simple industrial buildings.

-Require ongoing MOH maintenance (tank cleaning, filters, bacterial testing) for a system with limited daily value—unlike residential or high-occupancy facilities where flushing/irrigation offsets municipal use daily.

Could the Government confirm whether:

-Full rainwater harvesting infrastructure (storage, treatment, distribution) is mandatory, or if basic collection provisions (gutters/downspouts) with site drainage suffice?

-If full RWH is required, should it be scoped as a shared site-wide system (one tank serving all depots) to improve ROI, or separate per-depot?

This clarification will allow an efficient design that prioritizes the MOH’s operational simplicity while meeting sustainability objectives

18 With reference to the Security Upgrades sections (Base Bid D1.7 and Options D2.6, D3.7, D5.6, D6.6), which specify separate ‘CCTV cameras with conduit/backbone for future expansion,’ ‘motion detectors,’ and ‘badge readers,’ we seek clarification on whether a modern integrated security platform may substitute for these discrete components as part of value engineering.

Modern systems consolidate access control, AI-enhanced motion detection, high-resolution video surveillance, and wireless fire detection into a unified ecosystem managed through a single interface, offering significant advantages over conventional siloed hardware:

-Access: Biometric fingerprint/facial recognition replaces badge readers, eliminating lost/shared cards while providing precise audit trails (e.g., ‘User X accessed D1 at 02:15’).

-Detection: Embedded AI in cameras distinguishes relevant threats (intruders/loitering) from nuisances, reducing false alarms by 90% and auto-attaching video verification to alerts.

-Management: Centralized hub/app enables rapid event search (e.g., ‘rack aisle intrusions’) and cross-depot oversight, minimizing guard time and staffing needs.

-Fire integration: Wireless smoke/heat detectors link directly to video/alarm for confirmed response.

This is not a value engineering contract, and no value engineering clauses will be included. The offerors proposal shall adhere to the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable requirements of the solicitation and adhere to the Performance Technical Specifications in Attachment 1.

Government is amenable to innovative approaches that modernize and upgrade the systems to user friendly and efficient systems which maintain regulatory compliance. Contractor design and construction approach for an integrated system is

-Efficiency: Reduced wiring/install costs (30–50% savings); scalable backbone; simpler MOH maintenance via app updates.

This approach meets or exceeds SOW coverage while aligning with EN/NFPA/Tunisian standards, future-proofing the Bardo complex for minimal ongoing support.

Request: Does the Government approve this integrated modern platform as a compliant alternative to separate badge readers, motion detectors, and CCTV, provided full angle coverage, backbone capacity, and regulatory compliance are maintained?” All devices and software would comply with applicable EN, NFPA, U.S. and Tunisian security and data-protection requirements acceptable, would require final approval by end-user to ensure customer can use and maintain the system after turn-over, and that it complies with their security measures.

19 With reference to the Storage Systems sections (Base Bid D1.8 and Options D2.7, D3.8, D5.7, D6.7), which require ‘Design, procure, and install a pallet racking system optimized for the facility’s specific loads and workflows’ per FEM 10.2.02 / EN 15635 standards, we lack critical information to properly size, configure, and price this scope.

As contractors, we do not have Ministry of Health inventory data—including pallet dimensions (Euro 1200x800mm vs. standard 1200x1000mm), individual pallet weights (light meds vs. heavy equipment), storage volume requirements (total m³), or operational workflows (pallet-only vs. mixed pallet/box/bin shelving).

Without this detail, we cannot determine number of bays, levels, beam lengths, upright heights/depths or load capacities per level (e.g., 1000kg UDL vs. heavier) or aisle widths for MOH handling equipment (forklifts/reach trucks) Request: Could NAVFAC/MOH provide sample inventory list with pallet weights/volumes (or max expected loads) and preferred configuration (pallet racking only, or mixed shelving) as well as MOH handling equipment specs (forklift reach/width)? This ensures compliant, optimized racking that matches actual MOH needs rather than assumptions and allows all contractors to price this significant cost item accurately, avoiding pricing disadvantages based on assumptions.

SOW Section 1.3 (Base Bid and Options) – D1.8, D2.7, D3.8, D5.7, D6.7 “Storage Systems” (Reference separately attached excel MOH storage) The Storage Systems scope is described separately for each depot (D1, D2, D3, D5, D6). In some cases the SOW calls for “medical-grade pallet racks, secure cabinets, workbenches, and one rolling stair unit,” while in others it only explicitly mentions pallet racking, even though all depots are intended to support similar MOH storage functions. At the same time, the SOW requires that storage systems be

Government intent is to mimic the procured storage rack system installed in Depot 4. Government has revised sections to be clear and articulated to the storage D1.8, D2.7, D3.8, D5.7, D6.7. Attachment 3 updated with additional example drawings from Depot 4 to illustrate layout, weight loads, shelving style, sizes, and stability factors. Same system to be installed in each Depot 1, 2, 3, 5, 6.

designed and installed in accordance with FEM 10.2.02 / EN 15635 and “optimized for the facility’s specific loads and workflows.”

As contractors, we do not have the Ministry of Health’s detailed storage requirements, including:

• Target storage concept per depot (pallet racking only vs. pallet + shelf/bin storage vs. mixed solutions).

• Pallet types and dimensions (Euro 1200×800 mm vs. 1200×1000 mm, etc.).

• Maximum unit loads per pallet position and per shelf level (kg/UDL).

• Required numbers and types of cabinets, shelving bays, and workbenches (dimensions, load ratings, and intended materials to be stored).

• Expected storage capacity per depot (number of pallet positions, linear metres of shelving, cubic metres of storage) and any functional distinctions between depots (e.g., bulk equipment vs. small parts/pharmacy vs. high value secure items).

Without a clear, consolidated schedule of required storage equipment and performance criteria, it is very difficult for offerors to:

• Design compliant and safe racking/shelving layouts per FEM 10.2.02 / EN 15635.

• Price the storage systems consistently and fairly across all proposals.

• Avoid over or under sizing storage capacity relative to MOH operational needs.

Request: To ensure clarity and a level playing field, would the Government please:

1. Provide a single consolidated Storage Systems schedule (table) applicable to all depots, setting out for each depot:

• Required number and type of pallet racks (bay length, depth, beam levels, load per level).

• Required number, type, and approximate dimensions of shelving units, secure cabinets, workbenches, and rolling stairs (if applicable).

• Any minimum storage capacity targets (e.g., pallet positions, linear metres of shelving) and any specific material types that drive design (heavy equipment, small cartons, hazardous/flammable, high value secure, etc.).

2. Clarify whether this consolidated schedule will replace or supersede the current per-depot descriptive wording (D1.8, D2.7, D3.8, D5.7, D6.7), so that all offerors base their storage-system design and pricing on the same Ministry of Health requirements rather than on assumptions A consolidated MOH-approved storage-equipment schedule will allow us to design and price the pallet racking and shelving systems accurately for each depot, ensure compliance with FEM/EN standards, and avoid significant variance in assumptions between competing proposals.

20 With reference to the Structural Repairs sections (D1.1, D2.1, D3.1, D5.1, D6.1), which state ‘concrete floor repair /resurfacing/leveling with potential/optional epoxy finish,’ this wording creates ambiguity that disadvantages offerors unable to price consistently.

Request the Government:

1.Confirm if epoxy coating is mandatory for all depot floors—or delete the reference if not required.

2.Alternatively, revise to: ‘Contractor responsible for repairing damaged concrete floors to a smooth, level, compliant condition with final finish providing adequate light reflectance (≥70% LRV) for optimal depot illumination.

Government confirms- epoxy coating is required for all depot floors. Section edited to remove “potential/optional.”

21 With reference to HVAC requirements across all scopes (D1.5, D2.4, D3.5, D5.4, D6.4), which mandate systems maintaining certain temperatures, we seek clarification on temperature alarming/monitoring.

Pharma storage demands precise control—many vaccines/meds require alarms for excursions beyond setpoints (±2–5°C tolerance).

Please confirm if remote alarming/monitoring is mandatory

See PPI #11. Remote alarming/monitoring is required to keep spaces under their max temperature.

22 Section 1.3.1 excludes Depot 4 (recently renovated), but Section 3.3.2 mandates an “impact resistant thermal façade on all exterior walls” for awarded depots (D1/D2/D3/D5/D6). This will result in improved thermal performance and a new exterior finish for Depots 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, while Depot 4 retains a different envelope and appearance.

To promote uniform performance and appearance, we propose a value-engineering approach in which the same thermal façade system is extended to Depot 4 as an additional CLIN/option. This would allow:

• Uniform thermal performance across the entire Bardo complex (consistent envelope performance for 25 °C offices and ≤25–35 °C storage setpoints, as ultimately confirmed by the Government).

• Improved pharmaceutical stability and operational consistency by avoiding significant thermal and envelope differences between Depot 4 and the renovated depots.

• Visual and architectural uniformity of the warehouse hub.

• Procurement efficiencies and potential cost savings due to bulk procurement and shared mobilization for the façade system.

In addition, SOW Section 3.3.2 is performance-based but does not define a quantitative thermal target for the wall assembly. To ensure an even playing field among offerors, we respectfully request that the Government:

• Confirm whether the exterior wall thermal façade is required to meet a specific maximum overall U-value (W/m²·K) for this project, and

Government to edit Section 1.3.1 and Section 3.3.2 to allow for exterior walls to be consistently renovated inclusive of Depot 4 and to set a maximum overall U-value for the exterior wall assembly on all renovated of approximately 0.25-

0.30 W/m²·K.

• If so, allow all offerors to design to the same value. For example, we suggest a maximum overall U-value for the exterior wall assembly on all renovated depots (and any Depot 4 façade option) of approximately 0.25-0.30 W/m²·K, or another specific limit the Government may designate for the Bardo/Tunis climate zone.

Please confirm:

1. Whether the Government would consider adding Depot 4 thermal façade as a priced option so that all six depots share the same envelope system; and

2. The required maximum U-value (or equivalent performance criterion) for the exterior wall thermal façade to be applied uniformly by all offerors.

23 The SOW requires new thermally insulated sandwich-panel roofing systems with a ten-year warranty and long-term durability in the Bardo depot environment. The project site is located in the coastal Tunis/Tunis-Bardo area, with marine air, elevated humidity, and chloride deposition typical of a coastal urban environment. Under ISO 9223 atmospheric corrosivity classifications, such environments generally fall in the C3–C4 range (medium to high corrosivity) due to the combined effect of urban pollution and coastal salinity.

To achieve a realistic ten-year warranty and adequate corrosion resistance for exposed roof panels in this environment, international sandwich-panel manufacturers typically specify, at minimum, the following types of systems for C3/C4 categories:

• Hot dip galvanized steel substrate with a minimum Z 275 g/m² zinc coating (≈ 20 μm per side) or equivalent zinc magnesium alloy coating, both sides.

• An external organic coating system of at least 25 μm polyester (or higher grade HDP/PU/PVDF) plus primer, with a suitable backing coat internally, tested and classified for RC3/RC4 corrosion resistance according to EN/ISO standards, with typical 10 year (or more) finish warranties in such exposure.

During preliminary market sounding with Tunisian suppliers, we have found that many local manufacturers can only offer standard “economic” panels intended for inland C2–C3 conditions (thinner zinc coatings, lower-grade polyester systems, and shorter finish warranties), and are either unable or unwilling to certify their products to C3–C4 corrosivity categories with a full ten-year warranty in a coastal urban environment.

To ensure we propose a technically compliant and warrantable solution while maintaining a level playing field, we respectfully request the Government to:

1. Confirm the minimum required corrosion category for the new roof panels at Bardo (e.g., ISO 9223 C3 “medium” vs C4 “high” for coastal urban areas), and whether this is to be demonstrated via manufacturer warranties and EN/ISO test data (RC class).

2. Confirm the minimum acceptable coating system for the steel face sheets, for example:

Government has revised Section

3.3.3 to add detail to the roofing requirements as requested.

• Substrate: hot dip galvanized steel with Z 275 g/m² or better (or equivalent Zn Mg system); and

• External coat: ≥ 25 μm polyester (or higher performance HDP/PVDF) plus primer, with an internal backing coat, for a minimum 10 year warranty in the Bardo environment.

3. Clarify whether the intent is to permit imported sandwich panels that meet these corrosion and warranty requirements if local Tunisian manufacturers cannot provide panels certified to the specified C3/C4/RC class with a ten year warranty Our concern is that, without a clear corrosion-class and coating specification tied to the ten-year warranty requirement, different offerors may assume very different roofing products, leading to inconsistent pricing and long-term performance. Premature deterioration of the roof envelope in the coastal Tunis/Bardo environment would directly threaten the Ministry of Health’s mission by exposing refurbished depots, installed HVAC and fire-protection systems, and stored medical supplies to water ingress, moisture damage, and thermal instability. In practice, the roof is the primary protective layer safeguarding the entire refurbishment investment and the MOH’s medical-logistics capability at Bardo;

a failure of this layer would undermine warehouse availability, increase unplanned maintenance costs, and risk disruption of national medical-supply distribution. Clear minimum corrosion and warranty requirements for the roof panels are therefore essential to protect both the project investment and the MOH’s operational reliability.

24 During the site visit, we observed that the recessed annex located in front of Depots 2 and 3—which the SOW and drawings refer to as the “Depot office / electrical distribution panel”—is currently used as an administrative office space while also housing the main low-voltage distribution panels feeding the existing depots. As the SOW anticipates upgrading the overall electrical capacity, we are concerned that keeping primary distribution switchgear in an occupied office area is not optimal from a safety, maintainability, or future-expandability standpoint.

The Bardo site already has a building/area near the perimeter wall referred to as electrical substation that appears to be a more appropriate location for upgraded main electrical distribution. To improve safety and long-term operability, while preserving the Depot 2/3 annex as office space for MOH staff, we propose the following concept:

1. Relocate the existing main low voltage distribution panels that currently feed all the depots from the Depot 2/3 office annex to a new dedicated main electrical/generator room located in or adjacent to the building next to the perimeter wall.

2. Upgrade and consolidate the main distribution panels in this new room to:

• Interface with the existing transformer and any upgraded utility supply.

• Provide main feeders to Depots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 from a single, coordinated point.

Contract is a Design-Build contract, intending the Designer of Record needs to provide an electrical design in compliance with the host nation regulations, intent of the project for new equipment, and ensure safety maintainability, and operability. Concur the Government intent is to consolidate the electrical system for the Depot complex into a contained operable area that can include use of the existing perimeter building, or a new location as long as it meets the host nation code requirements, water tight, safe, and operable. The

• Accommodate the connection of new standby generators (with appropriate change over/switchgear) in that same perimeter/transformer area.

3. Disconnect and remove the main depot supply panels from the Depot 2/3 office annex, so that this recessed space can function purely as office/administrative area without primary electrical switchgear in the same continuously occupied zone.

Request:

• Please confirm whether the Government agrees in principle that the main low voltage distribution for all depots should be relocated from the Depot 2/3 “Depot office / electrical distribution panel” annex to a new dedicated electrical/generator room near the perimeter wall.

• If acceptable, may offerors develop their electrical designs assuming:

- New or upgraded main distribution boards in that perimeter/transformer building;

-All depot feeders (including any re feed of existing depots such as Depot 4) originating from this point;

and -The current Depot 2/3 annex being retained and refurbished solely as office/administrative space, with only normal local panelboards suitable for office use?

Clarification on this point will allow us to design a safer, more coherent site wide electrical distribution (including future generator integration) while maintaining the intended administrative function of the Depot 2/3 office annex for the Ministry of Health.

entire electrical distribution system needs to be coordinated from the main distribution to each of the depots.

25 SOW Section 1.2.2 “Sustainable Design” SOW Section 3.3.2 “Thermal Façade” SOW Sections D1.1, D2.1, D3.1, D5.1, D6.1 – Cargo roll-up doors The SOW places strong emphasis on sustainable, energy-efficient design, including insulated roof systems, thermal façades on exterior walls, upgraded windows, and improved HVAC performance and setpoints. At the same time, the depot scopes for each building (D1.1, D2.1, D3.1, D5.1, D6.1) describe the large cargo roll-up doors as elements to be “repaired, refurbished, or replaced,” but do not specify whether these doors are to be thermally insulated or may remain as simple uninsulated metal slat doors.

From our site visit, it appears that the existing cargo roll-up doors are basic, uninsulated metal curtain doors. Even when refurbished and functioning mechanically, such doors have essentially no thermal resistance and represent a significant weak point in the envelope, leading to substantial cooling losses in summer and undermining the thermal performance gains achieved by insulated roofs, thermal façades, and upgraded windows. In other words, if the main loading doors remain uninsulated metal slats, they will continue to be a major path for heat gain/loss, even if all other envelope components meet improved U-values.

Government has revised sections to be clear that the roll-up door requirement at each Depot 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 is for a “Replace rolling main door for thermally insulated modern roll-up door.”

To ensure we align our design with the Government’s energy-efficiency and thermal-comfort objectives, we respectfully request clarification on the following:

1. For each depot, does the Government intend that the existing cargo roll up doors be repaired only (i.e., kept as uninsulated metal slat doors), provided they are operational and secure, or

2. Does the Government require or prefer that these cargo doors be replaced with thermally insulated roll up (or sectional) doors with defined thermal performance (e.g., specified U value or panel thickness) consistent with the overall envelope strategy?

If insulated doors are required or preferred, please indicate:

• The minimum thermal performance (e.g., target U value or panel thickness for the door curtain/panels).

• Whether this requirement applies to all large cargo doors in Depots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, or only to specific doors/locations.

Clarifying the intended treatment and performance requirements for the cargo roll up doors will allow us to design a coherent thermal envelope for each depot that is consistent with the SOW’s energy efficiency goals and avoids the situation where the largest opening in the building remains the primary thermal weak point.

26 The solicitation states that award will be made on a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) basis and that proposals will be evaluated starting with the lowest price and then assessed for technical acceptability under Factors 1–4. In this framework, the Factor 1 – Technical Approach narrative is the primary vehicle for demonstrating that the offeror’s proposed design build team and methods are technically compliant for a complex, multi discipline scope (design, permitting, phasing, depot operations continuity, construction, commissioning, and turnover). However, Section L does not specify any level of detail guidance for the Factor 1 Technical Approach narrative or page limitation.

As an international prime, we want to provide the Government with sufficient, clear evidence that we fully understand and can competently execute the entire scope from initial design through final acceptance.