PPI LOG 02 FOR P228.pdf

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRY ATTACHMENT

Solicitation Number: N40085-22-R-2504 Contractor Name:

Contractor POC (Name and email):

Instructions: DO NOT submit in PDF format. DO submit as a word document

Contractor

PPI#

Section of RFP or Page Number

Paragraph Reference

Drawing Number

Question RESPONSE AMENDMENT

1 RFP FOR

P228 ATC

TOWER

DD 1442 Can the Government extend the RFI due date from 12/03/22 to 12/11/22? Due the amount of information that is required to review, more time is needed to provide a good review of the RFP documents.

RESPONSE: No, the PPI due date remain unchanged and PPIs cutoff will be closed 10 calendar days before proposals are received.

AMEND 0001

2 RFP FOR

P228 ATC

TOWER

DD 1442 Can the Government extend the proposal due date from 12/13/22 to 01/13/22? Due the amount of information that is required to review, more time is needed to provide a good review of the RFP documents.

RESPONSE: No, proposal due date remains 12/13/22.

AMEND 0001

3 Detail 2 Detail 2 A401 &

A311 Detail 1/3

Can the Government provide the material for the desk in the

RESPONSE: PPI #3 – We do not have a Detail 2 on A401 or Detail 1/3 on A311 in the set.

Correct information will

AMEND 0001

Security Kiosk found in the entrance vestibule? It looks like possibly a metal stud/gypsum make up but no details to be sure. I could also assume solid surface countertops.

be needed to provide clarification.

4 21 13 13 1.2.3 Paragraph 1.2.3(a) indicates that the QFPE is required to seal shop drawings.

This appears to slightly conflict with 21 13 13:

1.3 which calls for the QFPE to review submittals.

Furthermore, UFC 3-600-01 paragraph

9.6.3.2 does not require a PE seal on shop drawings for Navy projects.

May the 2nd and 3rd sentences of 1.2.3(a) be deleted? We have seen (and done this) on other projects with NAVFAC

MIDLANT

concurrence.

Response: Clarification provided by Amendment 0003 Attachment.

AMEND 0003

5 28 31 76 1.3.2 Paragraph 1.3.2(a) indicates that the QFPE is required to seal shop drawings.

This appears to slightly conflict with 21 13 13:

1.5 which calls for the QFPE to review submittals.

Furthermore, UFC 3-600-01 paragraph

9.6.3.2 does not require a PE seal on shop drawings for Navy projects.

May the 2nd and 3rd sentences of 1.3.2(a) be deleted? We have seen (and done this) on other projects with NAVFAC

MIDLANT

concurrence.

Response: Clarification provided by Amendment 0003. See Attachment.

AMEND 0003

6 28 31 76 1.3.2 The Div 21 sections all refer back to 21 13 13 for a QFPE. Is it the intent that one QFPE be responsible for ALL fire protection matters across the project, including Div 21, Div 28, fire-rated construction, etc.? If so, will

Response: See Amendment 0003 Attachment for edits to specification Division 01 45 00.00 20.

Any references to the QFPE in division 21 and 28 must mean the contractor’s FPQC.

AMEND 0003

the government consider adding this requirement to 01 45 00.00 20 as part of the

QC

organization?

There is current language regarding this that we have seen utilized on other NAVFAC projects recently.

7 21 30 00 1.7.2 The fire pump specification section contains multiple references to a “fire protection specialist.” This UFGS has not been reissued since QFPE language was inserted into other Div 21 and Div 28 specification sections. Is a QFPE required to perform the items listed in 21 30 00 as being the Fire Protection Specialist’s responsibility?

Response: See Amendment 0003 Attachment. Any reference to fire protection specialist must mean the contractor’s FPQC.

AMEND 0003