Atch (6)_Government Response to PBI-Amend 0002_22B6500.pdf

Attachment (6): Government Response to PBI Amendment 0002 Solicitation No. N4008422B6500 REPAIR DAMAGED SEAWALL, MAIN BASE AT CFAS, JAPAN

Question No.

Reference (Sect/Para/Page)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

SPEC

Sect 01 30 00.00 Para1.6.1

It is indicated in the spec SEC 01 30 00.00 33 PARA 1.6.1 that “Have at least one qualified superintendent, or competent alternate, capable of reading, writing, and conversing fluently in the English language, on the job-site at all times during the performance of contract work. In addition, if a Quality Control (QC) representative is required on the contract, then that individual must also have fluent English communication skills.”

However, there is a requirement for interpreter in the spec SEC 01

30 00.00 33 PARA 1.8.

Could we arrange an interpreter who meets a requirement stated in

PARA 1.8?

The paragraph 1.6.1 Minimum Communication Requirements has updated.

Please see Attachment (5) 1608338_Revised SPEC Seawall at CFAS-Amend 0002.

SPEC

Sect 01 45 00.00 Para 1.5.1.2

According to the spec SEC 01 45 00.00 33 PARA 1.5.1.2, QC Manager for this project must be a graduate of a four-year accredited college or university program in one of the following disciplines: Engineering, Architecture, Construction Management, Engineering Technology, Building Construction, or Building Science, with a minimum of 10years experience as a Project Superintendent, QC Manager, Project Manager, Project Engineer or Construction Manager on similar size and type construction contracts which included the major trades that are part of this Contract. QC Manager must have at least two years experience as a QC Manager.

Also, the spec SEC 01 45 00.00 33 PARA 1.5.3 states that the qualification requirements for the Alternate QC Manager must be the same as for the QC Manager.

It seems difficult for us to meet these requirements.

Is it possible for the Government to ease the requirement that QC Manager for this project must be a graduate of a four-year accredited college or university?

Paragraph 1.5.1.2 Qualifications has updated.

Drawing C-601～C-610

The seawall repair quantity list is included in the drawing. If there is a difference between the quantity that will be repaired in actual site work and the quantity on the list, will the Government accept the change?

Will FAR 52.211-18 “Variation in Estimated Quantity.” be applied to this project?

No, it does not. There is no unit items that apply FAR 52.211-18 under this requirement.

Reference (Sect/Para/Page)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Should temporary fences be installed if we repair the areas where the security fences are currently installed?

Section 01 50 00.00 33 paragraph 3.5 has updated Please see Attachment (5) 1608338_Revised SPEC Seawall at CFAS-Amend 0002.

Solicitation

(SF1442)

Sec 00 21 13, Para. 6, PDF Page 10 of

This section instructs bidders to exempt gasoline taxes from the contract (bid) price. As reported by local news outlets in Mar of 2022, gasoline in Japan is taxed at 53.8 JPY per liter.

Can the Government provide guidance and/or forms which contractors can use to recoup taxes paid on gasoline from the local tax office?

Yes.

The Contractor shall submit “Certification for Diesel Oil Delivery Tax Exemption (KEIYU TORIHIKI MENZEI SHOUMEISHO) to contract office.

SPEC

Sec 00 22 13.00 33, Para. 1.2.a, Sec 01 11 00.00 33, Para. 1.4.1, Subparagraph (1.2.a) states that Government could award CLIN 0002 to CLIN 0006 at (bid) proposed (firm fixed) prices within 120 calendar days after award and that no provision would be made for economic price adjustment.

Paragraph 1.4.1 lists the period of performance as 1,359 days, which is a considerable long time.

In the interest of fair and balanced bidding, and in light of supply chain issues brought about by the global pandemic and ongoing conflict in Europe, can the Government advise bidders on a percentage which should be added as a contingency?

If adding a contingency is not feasible, can the successful contractor plan on recouping any significant cost increase through a request for equitable adjustment (REA)?

No. The Government does not accept contingency.

See FAR 52.249-10-17 Default clause for delay.

Sec 01 11 00.00 33, Para. 1.4.1, Paragraph 1.4.1 lists the period of performance as 1,359 days, which includes the 90 days for preparatory work (mailing and permit application) and 30 days for clean-up.

For planning purposes, can the Government specify a duration for each of the option CLINs (CLINs 002 to 006)?

No, the Government does not provide duration for each options.

Reference (Sect/Para/Page)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Sec 01 14 00.00 33, Para. 1.2.1.a.

(3) & 1.2.2, Subparagraph 1.2.1.a (3) advises bidders on “Government Emergency Use Scheduling Requirements” and advises that work can be suspended at unknown intervals for a maximum of 90 days without additional cost to the Government nor revision to the contract completion date.

Paragraph 1.2.2 states that contractor will be compensated for all delays, costs, as appropriate, in accordance with the FAR 52.242.14 Suspension of Work clause.

Two questions:

1. Can the Government clarify if the 90 days stated in subparagraph

1.2.1.a (3) working days or calendar days?

2. Can the Government clarify the contradicting statements

“compensation to the contractor under FAR 52.242.14” stated in 1.2.2 and “at no additional cost to the Government” stated in 1.2.1.a (3)?

Question 1: 90 days should be counted as working days.

Question 2: The additional cost to the Government should be applied.

Paragraph 1.2.1 has updated.

Sec 01 14 00.00 33, Para. 1.2.3.g, The referenced paragraph states that contractor is to abate all material containing lead (MCL)/paint with lead (PWL) within 14 calendar days at each berth, and that the 14 calendar days is to include a submission of clearance sampling to the Government.

PWL is defined as paint which contains lead at detectable concentrations that are below the regulatory levels of equal or more than 0.5 percent by weight (40 CFR § 745.223 – Definitions, and JEGS 2020). Can the Government specify the acceptance criteria for PWL clearance sampling, or provide a CFR, UFGS, or other standard that bidders can reference in order to ensure compliance?

No. The Government does not provide any standards, etc.

because there are not the related regulations in particular.

Paragraph 1.2.3 has updated.

Sec 01 30 00.00 33, Para. 1.6.1 & 1.8, Pages 2 & 3

Paragraph 1.6.2 states that superintendent and QC representative must be capable of reading, writing, and conversing fluently in the English language.

Paragraph 1.8 states that contractor is required to have an interpreter at the site, and that the interpreter is to accompany superintendent and/or QC manager (rep) when the latter communicate with Government representatives.

Qualified superintendents and QC reps that are both fluent in the English language, and experienced in marine construction, are extremely rare in Japan; can the Government clarify the redundancy of these two key positions needing to be fluent in English - while at the same time requiring an interpreter?

Please see question No.1 Same response.

Reference (Sect/Para/Page)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

SPEC

Sec 01 33 00.00 33, Para. 1.4, The referenced paragraph states that (hardcopy) submittals are to be sent by overnight express mail service at that costs for doing so are to be borne by the Contractor.

Can the Government confirm that hardcopies of submittals, and other contract documentation, are actually required?

Paragraph 1.4.1 has updated.

Sec 01 45 00.00 33, Para. 1.5.4, Page 4 & 5

Paragraph 1.5.4 requires the contractor to have an independent third party underwater QC team perform surveillance and inspection. This paragraph goes on to say that the underwater QC team must have a minimum of five (5) years’ experience with “underwater inspections”.

Since there aren’t many local dive firms which specialize solely in underwater third party surveillance and inspection services, would the Government consider an additional dive company hired by the contractor (and separate from primary dive company tasked with actual underwater work) which has at least five (5) years’ experience inspecting underwater conditions of seabed, piles, welding and concrete work, etc. in support of their own activities, as satisfying the third party independency and minimum years of experience in inspection requirements?

An independent third party who meets the criteria set forth in 1.5.4 would be acceptable.

Paragraph 1.5.5 Diving method has added.

Sec 02 41 00.00 33, Para. 3.2.1, Paragraph 3.2.1 states that “while removing existing materials as indicated on drawings, also remove the materials which are made no use for remaining materials or new works, unless otherwise indicated or specified.” Can the Government clarify what it meant by “remove the materials which are made no use for remaining materials or new works”?

An example for this is bollard removal. Removal of appurtenant bolts, nuts, and washers may not be indicated but will probably become useless and will not be reused for the new bollards. Therefore, they must also be removed.

Sec 02 41 00.00 33, Para. 3.2.2.1.1, The Government provided test results referenced in this paragraph do not show definitively through photos and/or location map where the samples were collected. Can the Government clarify where the sample locations for these test results are from?

Section 02 41 00.00 33 paragraph 3.2.2.1.1 has updated.

Reference (Sect/Para/Page)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

SPEC

Sec 02 41 00.00 33, Para. 3.2.2.1.1, It is not clear if the Government provided test results referenced in this paragraph are from samples collected by an inspector or risk assessor trained and certified by an US EPA authorized certification and accreditation program (as per paragraph 3.2.2.1.2), or (as per paragraph 3.2.2.1.2) if the testing laboratory a participant in the EPA National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP), accredited by either the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) or the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) and successfully participates in the Environmental Lead Proficiency Analytical Testing (ELPAT) program to perform sample analysis.

Can the Government clarify if the provided test results are recognized and accepted under the applicable codes and standards?

The analysis of the paint sampled during the site investigation was conducted in accordance with the Ordinance on Prevention of Lead Poisoning (鉛中毒予防 規則) (Japanese law) for lead content.

Sec 02 41 00.00 33, Para. 3.2.2.1.2, This paragraph instructs bidders to conduct their own lead, cadmium, and chromium (VI) survey in accordance with EPA Title X and EPA RRP Rule prior to starting removal work. In the interest of fair and balanced bidding, can the Government provide a list of components to be sampled, abated, and disposed of by the contractors?

Paragraph 3.2.2.1.2 has updated.

Sec 02 41 00.00 33, Para. 3.2.2.1.2, The second part of paragraph 02 41 00.00 33 references a table under another paragraph titled “GOVERNMENT ASSUMPTION WITHOUT TEST DATA”; can the Government advise where in the specifications or drawings contractors may find the referenced table and/or paragraph?

Paragraph 3.2.2.1.2 has updated.

Sec 02 83 00.00 33, Para. 1.6.7, This section describes the very costly negative air containment systems for full blown enclosures required for removing LBP/PWL using scraping methods which could result in lead dust becoming airborne.

For contractors who plan on removing LBP/PWL with chemical peel / chemical strippers / chemical paint removers (as allowed by industry standards and as recognized by section 01 57 19.00 33, para. 3.19, page 22), can the Government clarify if it expects contractors to still use full blown negative air containments even if using the chemical peel method?

Government will provide response by next Amendment.

Reference (Sect/Para/Page)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

SPEC

Sec 03 01 30.71 33, Para. 3.4, Paragraph 3.4 instructs bidders to conduct bollard pull testing in accordance with UFC 4-150-08 Mooring Hardware Inspection. Section 5-3 of Appendix B in UFC 4-150-08 provides three different levels of pull testing which can be done to test mooring hardware. The three (3) levels of pull testing available are described below and as described by UFC 4-150-08 pull testing is to consist of one of the levels (i.e. - level I, or level II, or level III).

- Level I – bolt pull tension test - required by Table B-1 of Appendix B for all new bollard installations

- Level II – indirect line load simulated by pulling from one bollard to another bollard.

- Level III – simulated or real load applied in actual direction of mooring line force.

At the time of initial bollard installation only level I pull testing is mandatory, but level II and level III pull testing are not.

In the interest of fair and balanced bidding, can the Government specify which pull testing level (I or II or III) is to be done?

The Level II pulling test should be conducted.

Sec 00 22 13.00 33, Para. 1. 1, Pages 1, 2 & 3

In consideration of the 1,359 days period of performance, will the Government allow partial turnovers for work completed under each of the CLINs?

Yes. The Government allow it per individual CLIN.

Sec 01 11 00.00 33, Para. 1.4.1, The work to be performed is in US Navy controlled areas which are adjacent to areas used by the Japanese Navy and the SSK shipyard contractor.

Is there an “Exclusionary Period” (e.g. 01 April to 31 October) in which work solicited under this effort cannot be performed?

No, there is no Exclusionary Period designated.

Reference (Sect/Para/Page)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

SPEC

Sec 03 01 30.71 33, Para. 3.3.1 (2), As allowed by Japanese regulations concerning (特別管理産業廃棄物 / Industrial Waste Subject to Special Control) the contractor plans on disposing of the LBP coated bollards with most of the LBP coating still in place (i.e. not abated at the site). To do this, the contractor plans on removing the bollards from their current locations by abating (through chemical peel) only enough of the LBP coating from the anchor bolts and/or bollard base necessary in order to remain compliant with US regulations.

The LBP coated bollards would then be removed and disposed of as a whole, the presence of LBP on bollards would be clearly indicated to the disposal facility contracted, and a disposal waste manifest would be provided to the Government as closeout document.

Can the Government confirm that it recognizes this approach as legally compliant and thus acceptable?

Yes. This method is good as the Government remove LBP on bollards.

SPEC

Sec 01 14 00.00 33, Para. 1.2.2, The second part of paragraph 1.2.2 states that contractor must remove all construction equipment and material during “Government Emergency Use” periods.

Can the contractor’s scaffolding platforms, erected in support of the work, be left in place as long as the presence of the scaffolding doesn’t interfere with any DoD activity?

The scaffolding may be left in place after the KTR confirms if it interferes with the Government and gets approval of leaving it on a case-by-case basis.

SPEC

Sec 01 14 00.00 33, Para. 1.2.2, The second part of paragraph 1.2.2 states that contractor must remove all construction equipment and material during “Government Emergency Use” periods.

In the interest of fair and balanced biding, can the Government provide a maximum number of complete demobilizations needed in support of “Government Emergency Use” periods?

No. The Government cannot provide a maximum number of complete demobilizations.

SPEC

Sec 01 14 00.00 33, Para. 1.2, Page 1

Can the Government confirm if work areas will be cleared of all military owned equipment and vessels prior to the contractor starting field work?

Shall be cleared of all Government’s owned items by the Government.

SPEC

Sec 01 11 00.00 33, Para. 1.2.1, Can the Government confirm that any out of scope quantities and work tasks, required but not listed in the solicitation specifications and/or drawings, would be treated as unforeseen conditions and subject to a contract modification?

The contractor should follow FAR 52.236-2 Differing Site Conditions.

Reference (Sect/Para/Page)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

SPEC

Sec 02 83 00.00 33, Para. 3.5.2.d, Page 19 and 20

This paragraph states that lead, cadmium, chromium VI contaminated materials are to be disposed at GOJ approved off-base facilities AND turned in to the (US) Government’s storage facility as (US) Government property.

Can the Government clarify which of the two is correct?

Government will provide response by next Amendment.

Sec 03 01 30.71 33, Para. 3.4, Solicitation documents did not include any as-built drawings or studies (structural analysis) for the concrete on which the new mooring bollards are to be installed. As part of installing the anchors for the new bollards, large diameter cores will have to be drilled into the existing concrete and these bores will inevitably cut through some of the existing rebars.

When conducting pull testing on mooring hardware installed on existing concrete, the following concerns must be considered.

- Level I (bolt pull tension testing) – this level carries the least risk because the pull forces would be limited to just upward motions and the number of anchor bolts being tested at any given time can be as low as one (1).

- Level II & level III – (indirect load or directional load) – either of these two levels carry the same amount of risk for all the forces applied during pull testing are lateral. If the thickness of the concrete on which the bollards being tested is not thick enough, or if the location of the bollards are too close to the edge, the likelihood of damage during pull testing is significant.

If the Government cannot provide as-built drawings and/or a structural analysis specific to the facility being worked on, will the contractor be held liable for damages to the concrete structure which occurs during UFC 4-150-08 compliant pull testing?

Paragraph 3.4 has updated.

Reference (Sect/Para/Page)

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Attachment 3, Appendix 4, Reference Photos, Photos 1-1 & 11-2, Pages 509 &

Some of the concrete repair work is to be done on surfaces which have fences or handrails which are not scheduled for removal. The concrete repair process would require full access to workers for the safe and proper application of the concrete repair materials, and surface preparation (surface chipping and/or V cutting), as well as for scaffolding (for side repairs).

Will the Government allow contractors to remove sections of fences and handrails during the concrete repair process?

Please see SPEC Section 02.41 00.00 33 para 1.8

RELOCATIONS.