N4008424R0053 FIRE IDS NAFA Notice 3pdf.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND FAR EAST

PSC 473 BOX 13

FPO AP 96349

Notice No. 3 23 October 2024

RFP N40084-24-R-0053

MAINTENACE SERVICES FOR FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS, INTRUSION DETECTION

SYSTEMS. AND VARIOUS ELECTRICAL AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS CONTRACT

AT

U.S. NAVAL AIR FACILITY, ATSUGI, JAPAN

1. The purpose of this notice is for INFORMATION ONLY, to provide the Government’s responses to received Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPI). The RFP remains unchanged unless it is amended in writing on a Standard Form 30.

Attached Enclosure (1) N4008424R0053_Question_Form_10-23-2024_Rev1 provides the updated Government Response to Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPI).

No. Date Received

Ref:

(Document, i.e. PWS, RFP)

Ref: Page# Ref: Section Questions Government Response Response Provided Change to the combined soliciation/synopsis?

1 11 Oct. 2024 PWS P288 Inventory In the case of buildings such as bldg. 206 and bldg. 1342, where the inventory list has not been updated, should the inspection costs be adjusted to reflect the current equipment, or should we submit a revised estimate after the updates are made? (This is important because the addition of Kingfisher system significantly affects the maintenance costs.)

Bldg 206 and 1342 has recently been renovated and the equipment has been updated accordingly. Updated information about the installed equipment and inventory list is not available at this time. The Offeror is responsible for completing maintenance to the systems in accordance with the PWS and inventory list, therefore proposals should be based off current inventory list. If a change occurs due to updated inventory list, negotiation will be handled at that time by the Contracting Officer.

Notice 1 10/22/2024

NO

2 11 Oct. 2024 PWS P57 P355

1502000-3.2.1 J-1502000-09

When is there a difference between the manufacturer's OEM and the 5-year pressure resistance requirement in the UFC, which should take precedence? (This is crucial because we cannot calculate maintenance costs without knowing this in advance.)

Per Attachment J-1502000-09 various maintenance tasks should align with UFC requirements, including periodic testing and inspections; however, the spec does not explicitly address conflicts between OEM guidelines and UFC standards or specify which should take precedence. When a conflict arises between a manufacturer’s guidelines (OEM) and UFC requirements, the UFC standards takes precedence unless a specific contract modification indicates otherwise. This approach ensures consistency with military standards and safety protocols.

Notice 1 10/22/2024

NO

3 11 Oct. 2024 PWS P355 J-1502000-09 Confirming the operability proper of the proportioner, cleaning the strainer (internal inspection), and conducting pressure tests on the water discharge outlet every 5 years according to UFC regulations, there are impossible to perform without letting even a drop of AFFF foam escape. Could you please advise us on how to proceed? (Is it acceptable not to perform these tasks, or if they must be done, could you suggest alternative methods since the usual procedures are not feasible?

Currently, full flow testing for AFFF containing PFOS is not permitted, so in the inventory list column for all buildings that have an AFFF system, the following sentence has been included: "Notes on AFFF System "2 Year" Full Flow Test: The Contractor does not have to perform a “2 Year” full flow test for Bldg.” In addition "some" language has been removed from J-1502000-08 and J-1502000-09. Revised PWS will be incorporated in the next Amendment.

Notice 2 10/23/2024

YES

Amendment 0002

Enclosure (1) Question & Answer Form

MAINTENACE SERVICES FOR FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS, INTRUSION DETECTION SYSTEMS. AND VARIOUS ELECTRICAL AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS CONTRACT

AT U.S. NAVAL AIR FACILITY, ATSUGI, JAPAN

N40084-24-R-0053 for

4 11 Oct. 2024 PWS P288 P352

Inventory J-1502000-08 #4

If the release of foam is permitted, is it correct that the costs associated with that release will be submitted at that time?

“Notes on AFFF System "2 Year" Full Flow Test:

The Contractor does not have to perform a “2 Year” full flow test for Bldg.” Revised PWS will be incorporated in the next Amendment.

Notice 1 10/22/2024

NO

5 11 Oct. 2024 PWS P143 J-0200000-01

UNIT PRICED

LABOR (UPL)

HOUR

Including Kingfisher in the UPL standards results in exceeding 300,000 yen for one hour of work. Regarding Kingfisher, is it acceptable to divide the estimate for task orders and other related costs by the time as it is? Or would it be better to align it with the maximum value for the UPL?

It is not acceptable to divide the estimate for task orders and other related costs, please follow procedures for non-recurring work for work that exceeds the limit of liability.

Notice 1 10/22/2024

NO

6 11 Oct. 2024 PWS P57 1502000-3.2.1 The Single Station Smoke Detector (SSSD) and smoke detectors in housing and UH have mostly exceeded their expiration dates according to current NFPA standards and housing regulations.

Should the replacement costs be included in the inspection fees, or will they be handled as task orders for each building?

Please advise which approach we should take? (This is important as it can significantly affect the maintenance costs by several tens of millions of yen.)

The replacement of smoke detectors that have already expired prior to the contract and were identified during preventive maintenance (PM) work is considered a corrective action, which goes beyond routine maintenance. As such, these replacements are not included in the periodic inspection fee. Instead, the replacement cost should be treated as a task order under the non-recurring work provisions, as outlined in Specification Item 2.15 (Non-Recurring Work Procedures). Therefore, the correct approach is to handle the replacement of smoke detectors as a task order for each building, rather than as part of the periodic inspection fee .

Notice 1 10/22/2024

NO

7 11 Oct. 2024 PWS P57 1502000-3.2.1 The pressure resistance of the CO2 fire suppression system (bldg. 1400) has currently exceeded the manufacturer's service life. (This does not meet the standards of the contract, including NFPA, UFC, and the manufacturer's OEM.) According to the manufacturer, conducting a pressure test is also impossible, and the replacement cost exceeds several tens of millions of yen. Should this replacement cost be included in the maintenance fees, or is it acceptable to proceed with only the regular maintenance until a task order for replacement is issued?

The replacement of CO2 fire suppression system, given the high cost and the fact that it goes beyond regular maintenance, should not be included in the regular maintenance fees.

Instead, this should be handled as a task order under the non-recurring work provisions, as described in Specification Item 2.15 (Non- Recurring Work Procedures). Therefore, it is acceptable to proceed with only the regular maintenance of the system for now, and the replacement should be addressed through a separate task order, once issued.

Notice 1 10/22/2024

NO

8 11 Oct. 2024 PWS P57 1502000-3.2.1 Currently, more than 70% of the Fire Alarm and Sprinkler systems installed at Atsugi Air Base are made in Japan based on Japanese fire regulations.

Most of the equipment and piping has deteriorated over time as passing the NFPA standards and OEM expiration dates.

Therefore, it is difficult to follow the UFC standards for maintenance methods and service orders, is it correct that we should consult with the officer in charge and follow the manufacturer's instructions in each case?

The specification does not directly address how to handle the maintenance of fire alarm and sprinkler systems installed under Japanese regulations when conflicts arise with UFC standards. However, Spec Item 3.2.1 indicates that maintenance should follow UFC, NFPA, and OEM standards where possible. Therefore, consulting with the officer in charge and following the manufacturer’s instructions when UFC standards cannot be applied is reasonable, especially considering the unique regulatory and system context.

Notice 1 10/22/2024

NO

9 11 Oct. 2024 PWS P57 P355

1502000-3.2.1 J-1502000-09

Regarding the pressure resistance tests conducted in accordance with the UFC standards for the multi-story car park in bldgs. 1442, 1443, and 1444 and the mobile powder fire extinguishing system in bldg. 1400, 958, the cost of replacing the entire system would be less expensive since the replacement system would be installed, and pressure resistance tests would be conducted at other locations. In the current contract, we replaced more than 40 units at a cost of more than 10,000,000yen.

If we follow the contract and UFC, replacement will be required every 5 years. Would that be reflected in the maintenance fee? Or if there is another way, please let us know how to do that.

Regarding the pressure resistance tests, please follow the UFC guidelines unless otherwise specified in the contract. These tests, along with the replacement cycle every five years as mandated by the UFC, should be included in the Preventive Maintenance (PM) Program. This ensures the regular inspection, testing, and replacement of systems in compliance with UFC standards. The recurring nature of these tasks should also be reflected in the maintenance fee, unless another approach is outlined in the contract specifications.

Notice 1 10/22/2024

NO

10 11 Oct. 2024 PWS P299 Inventory Bldg.

The pre-action system is missing from the inventory list of bldg. 497. Would it be okay to remove it from the inspection items?

Pre-action system equipment for Bldg 497 has been added to the inventory list. Revised PWS will be provided in the next Amendment

Notice 2 10/23/2024

YES

Amendment 0002

11 11 Oct. 2024 Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation

P12 9. NOTICE OF

NIST SPECIAL

PUBLICATION

(SP) 800-171

DOD

ASSESSMENT

REQUIREMENTS

Please give us more details on the following part.

“Combined Synopsis/Solicitation page 12, Section 9 NOTICE OF

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

(NIST) SPECIAL

PUBLICATION (SP) 800-171 DOD ASSESSMENT

REQUIREMENTS”

We have read the description, however there are many things that are unclear, such as whether there is anything to submit, or whether it is simply a matter of installing a security system that complies with NIST SP 800-171. Please inform us about the specific measures to be taken.

Contractor must complete Basic level of assessment. NIST related provisions and clause will be incorporated into the solicitation/synopsis in full text in the next amendment. Please complete assessment following NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements to be considerd eligible for award.

NIST provision FAR 252.204-7019 and clause FAR 252.204-7020 will be incorporated by full text instead of by reference in the solicitation/synopsis.

Notice 2 10/23/2024

YES

Amendment 0002

12 11 Oct. 2024 Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation

P2 CONTRACT

INFORMATION

The contract start date for the next fiscal year is April 1, 2025, however the last day of this year's contract is the end of April, so there will be remaining inspections, etc. in April. How should we perform inspections and service orders during that time?

The intention is to provide 30 calendar days for mobilization, with the idea there will be no gap in service between contracts and inspections will start under this contract in May 2025.

Notice 1 10/22/2024

NO

13 11 Oct. 2024 N/A N/A N/A Since the answer to these questions will considerably change the quoted price, is there any possibility that the bidding schedule will be extended depending on the timing for the answer?

Responses to timely submitted PPI are targeted for release 22 October 2024. If additional time is needed to submit proposal after responses have been received, please request extension via email for Government consideration.

Notice 1 10/22/2024

LATE

14 16 Oct. 2024 Combined Synopsis/Soli citation

P16 (1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements- Completed Representation & Certifications

– Section K of the Solicitation

We don’t know the details to corresponding parts of Section K of the Solicitation that is on pg.16. Could you give us details to that corresponding part that explains that.

Fill out provisions that have areas for completion in the combined solicitation/synopsis. Some may already be completed as part of your SAM.gov profile, in which case submit the already completed provisions. Please ensure all provisions have been addressed, either within your SAM.gov profile or manually completing.

"Section K" language will be removed in the next amendment.

Notice 2 10/23/2024

YES

Amendment 0002

15 23 Oct. 2024 Question & Answer Form

No. 5 Government Response

We think you misunderstood our response to No. 5 of the Question_Form.

The question is about Unit Priced Laber (UPL) in non-recurring work.

For example, let's say you use a contractor named "A" and he charges 10,000 yen per hour.

On the other hand, if Kingfisher charges 300,000 yen per hour, there is a large difference between the hourly rates of these two companies.

If the UPL is set at 15,000 yen, the work performed by contractor A can submit an appropriate number of hours, but if the work is performed by kingfisher, the number of hours will increase significantly when the billed amount is divided by 15,000 yen.

If we use a contractor with an extremely high hourly rate, such as Kingfisher, should we just submit the number of hours divided by the UPL that we have provided?

Or should we calculate the UPL according to the contractor with the higher hourly rate?

It is up to the Offeror to determine their best pricing strategy. Offerors are encouraged to submit their most competitive offer based off the information provided in the solicitation, PWS and supporting documents.

Notice 3 10/23/2024

NO

16 23 Oct. 2024 Question & Answer Form

No. 7 Government Response

For the according question of the Question_Form of No. 7. We have another unclear answer so we have a question which is , when CO2 equipment is replaced in a task order, a pressure test is required once every 5 years in accordance with UFC standards.

The cost of this pressure test is several tens of millions of yen.

Do we need to include the amount of money for the actual replacement and subsequent pressure resistance test as part of the normal maintenance cost?

Or will a modification of the amount be issued when the pressure resistance is actually performed?

The response provided in Notice 1 does answer the initial question. The actual replacement and pressure resistant test will be handled as a separate Task Order and not included with the normal maintenance cost

Notice 3 10/23/2024