Attachment 7 - Question and Answers.docx

1. Question 1 – Please confirm whether drawings will be provided?

Answer 1 – No, there are no drawings to provide.

1. Question 2 – Who is responsible for the disposal of the existing tanks?

Answer 2 – Contractor will be responsible for the disposal of existing tanks.

1. Question 3 – Will the pumps be tested to confirm they are operational before the contractor removes them?

Answer 3 – The pumps are ran once a month, which has been done this month.

1. Questions 4 – Will the government permit any work to be performed at NNSY?

Answer 4 – All work will need to be performed off-site.

1. Question 5 – Are all pumps trailer-mounted? If so, will they remain trailer-mounted?

Answer 5 – All the pumps are trailer-mounted and will continue to remain trailer-mounted.

1. Question 6 - Can the government provide any contact information with the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) (Xylem – Godwin) to discuss retrofitting these units?

Answer 6 - Xylem Water Solutions & Water Technology 1190 Harmony Road, Norfolk, VA 23502 757-490-1300

1. Question 7 - Does the government have any technical specification data, O&M manuals, or other reference material on the existing units that can be shared with bidders?

Answer 7 – The engineers have detailed the necessary technical specifications in the statement of work, and the service must be carried out in compliance with this document. Additional technical specifications and drawings can be provided upon request to the awardee.

1. Question 8 - The existing unit max weight is 9,500lbs (skid weight only – not clear if that includes fuel weight, but if it doesn’t that’s another 700lbs for 100gal). The trailer GVWR is 11,000 lbs. The new double wall tank (may add approx. 1,000lbs – pending design and fabrication drawings) and fuel capacity (adds approx. 350lbs) may increase the weight of the equipment close to or beyond the capacity of the existing trailers they are mounted to, in which case alternate trailers would need to be furnished to mount the equipment on. This also does not take into consideration the weight of hoses to be attached and the weight of water in the hoses and system during pumping operations (we calculate approximately 1,000lbs of water weight will be borne by the trailer during pumping). When all this is taken into account, the weight of the trailers with the double wall 150gal tank during pumping operations will almost certainly exceed the trailer weight rating. In fact, it is probable that the existing unit with a full fuel tank during pumping is near or above the 11,000 GVWR rating of the trailer. Should the cost of higher weight rated trailers be included as an alternate?

Answer 8 – Yes, please do include a cost for upgrading current trailers and include a cost for higher weight rated trailers as alternates.

1. Question 9 - What are the fuel tank interior (if any) and exterior coating specifications? The unit that was presented during the site visit showed signs of exterior coating failure and corrosion, especially on the underside of the fuel tank, despite appearing to be relatively new and not subject to heavy use.

Answer 9 – The current base and fuel tank have been provided a factory-installed two-component high performance aromatic polyurea/polyurethane hybrid sprayed-on elastomeric coating. Coated surfaces of piping, casings, frames, blocks, etc. with two coats of white Duraplate 235 at 4 to 8 MILS dry film thickness. Applied over aforementioned elastomeric coating of base and tank.

1. Question 10 - Is the new tank required to replicate the forklift tunnels currently in place on the existing tank? Of note – we expect this requirement would constitute a significant added fabrication cost for a UL-142 double wall tank. Would it be permissible to have forklift tunnels under the tank instead of integrated as voids within the tank (note this approach would add additional height to the overall units, also note that in any case the new skid height/weight/center of gravity and trailer mounting situation ought to be subjected to engineering analysis to determine the “top-heaviness” of the refurbished units to ensure they will not be subject to tipping during use or towing).

Answer 10 – The forklift tunnels are not needed.

1. Question 11 - Before this work is conducted would the government be willing to assist in performing a functional test of each unit to ensure proper operability before the work is done?

Answer 11 – Part of the PM schedule is to turn the pumps on and run them for a short period once a month. If this does not suffice then the government might be able to assist in a functional test depending on what is needed by contractor.

1. Question 12 - Without technical specifications for the project (e.g. coating requirements, center of gravity analysis, – see above), the interpretation of requirements is subject to wide variability. Contractors seeking to perform this work “the right way” will almost certainly “price themselves out of the job” given that this is an LPTA procurement strategy. Can the government provide technical specifications to ensure uniformity of quality is demanded of bidders and/or consider other avenues to allow contractors to demonstrate technical acceptability? Or consider other acquisition strategies?

Answer 12 - The government engineers have performed an independent cost estimate for the provision of this service, which will be evaluated against all submitted proposals to ensure that all technically acceptable offers are fair and reasonable. The engineers have detailed the necessary technical specifications in the statement of work, and the service must be carried out in compliance with this document. If it is determined at the end of the solicitation that no technically acceptable offer were received, this requirement will be resolicited with supplementary information. Additional technical specifications and drawings can be provided upon request to the awardee.