AMENDMENT 0006.pdf

AMENDMENT 0006

RFP NO: N62470-26-R-0008

FX74 Strategic Airlift Hanger, Naval Station Rota, Spain

Date Issued: 09 April 2026

The purpose of this amendment is to provide the following:

1. Revise the Solicitation

2. Respond to pre-proposal inquiries (PPIs)

3. Provide Attachments

4. Provide Site Visit Log

1. Revise the Solicitation

CURRENT:

1.1.5 The contract completion time for FX74 is 630 calendar days from Notice to Proceed.

REVISED TO:

1.1.5 The contract completion time for FX74 is 1200 calendar days from Notice to Proceed.

CURRENT:

2.2.2 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE

Contract Timing: Regardless of when performance and payment bonds or the Performance Guarantee and Performance Guarantee Letter are provided, the contract time for purposes of fixing the completion date, default, and liquidated damages shall begin to run 630 days from the notice to proceed.

REVISED TO:

Contract Timing: Regardless of when performance and payment bonds or the Performance Guarantee and Performance Guarantee Letter are provided, the contract time for purposes of fixing the completion date, default, and liquidated damages shall begin to run 1200 calendar days from the notice to proceed.

2. Response to PPIs 72-138

72. Inquiry: The contract specifications and drawings appear to establish a steel-framed structural system as the basis of design. Please confirm whether the Government will consider alternate primary structural systems, including aluminum, provided the proposed system:

• Fully complies with UFC, NFPA 409, NAVFAC criteria, and all performance requirements

• Meets or exceeds required fire resistance ratings and structural performance

• Is sealed by the Contractor’s Engineer of Record

• Does not increase cost or schedule risk to the Government

Justification: The offeror has successfully delivered large-span aircraft hangars utilizing alternate structural systems on comparable military installations, including Naval Station Rota, and seeks to determine whether such systems may be proposed as an approved substitution while maintaining full

N6247026R0008 Amendment 0006 compliance with the contract requirements and Government performance objectives. Structures in alternative materials are already present on the Rota base and other Spanish military facilities.

Response: The Government will not consider alternative structural systems.

73. Inquiry: The drawing AR200 shows the zones and the location of the draft curtain. However, no details about them are provided. Please provide the necessary information in order to identify the type of material and the fixing method.

Response: Refer to Drawing AR200 Detail A4 and Specification 05 50 13 paragraphs 2.11 and 3.12.

74. Inquiry: In the Price Schedule, there are the line items 1A Primary Facility – Hangar and 1B Primary Facility – Office and Breakroom Inhabited Areas. Our understanding is that these items are indivisible because the foundation, structure, and building envelope are integral parts of the building and they cannot be evaluated separately. Please clarify if Item 1B includes only the openings, finishes, and interior installations of rooms 100–101.

Response: Item 1B includes all elements of construction. It is anticipated that the overall primary facility cost per square foot be applied to the area of the Office and Breakroom, with this amount being deducted from the hangar primary facility costs, to create a breakout of funding for those areas.

75. Inquiry: Regarding the Gantt Chart required under Factor 2 – Technical Solutions, our understanding is that it must be represented in working days. Please provide an approximate project start date in order to represent the Gantt Chart using “Show Primary Dates”. Another option is to present the Gantt Chart using the Timescale Format” using “Show Ordinal Dates”. Please clarify.

Response: Choose a date that represents an expected award date. Evaluation will be based on the requirements noted in the solicitation.

76. Inquiry: According to Factor 2 – Technical Solution, the narrative shall not exceed ten single-sided pages, and the Gantt Chart shall not exceed five pages, which do not count against the narrative page limitations. Please clarify whether the Gantt Narrative must be included within the ten narrative pages or within the five Gantt Chart pages.

Response: The narrative for the Gantt chart is included in the narrative page limitation. Combined, you may have ten (10) plus five (5) pages, totaling a maximum of fifteen (15) pages.

77. Inquiry: According to drawing CG611, Test of Surcharge must be carried out in two zones (the two northern corners of the building. Please confirm that these tests are only required in these two locations and not in the rest of the building.

Response: Confirmed, the proposed surcharge material and settlement monitoring is only required within the limits indicated on Drawing CG611.

78. Inquiry: According to paragraph 2.2.1 Settlement Plates: “Provide connectable riser pipes and protective casing consisting of galvanized steel”. Could this be a Vertical Wick Drains System? If so, please provide the distribution of the riser pipes.

Response: The riser pipes are connected to the settlement plates so that readings can be collected as the fill is built up over the settlement plates. Refer to Drawing CG611 of the Plans for the detail where the

"riser pipes" are denoted as "steel pipe, 2.5cm dia." The riser pipes are not related and cannot be replaced with wick drains.

79. Inquiry: The site access is identified on the plans as being from Enriquez Street, along the east side of the water tanks (building #70). Is this the only access that can be used to reach the project site, or could an existing access lane from the tow way (north of Enriquez Street) also be used to access the site from the southeast corner of the plot?

Response: The smaller vehicle access gate along Tow Way North will be the primary access gate to the site. Alternate access from Enrique Street at the Southwest corner of the site may be used if approved by Contracting Officer and Airfield Operations. See revised Drawings C-100, C-101, CE100, CE110, and

CE120.

80. Inquiry: The project documents indicate that the contractor must attend a sponsor-mandated vehicle operator or foreign object debris/damage (FOD) control training course. If access to the project site is from Enriquez Street and a temporary FOD control and separation barrier is installed at the point where the project site meets the existing apron pavement, are all contractor and subcontractor vehicles entering the site required to complete this training course? Or is it only required for vehicles that will be driving on the flight line pavement?

Response: Access to the project site would be done by from Enriquez Street and/or Tow Way, so as long as an adequate temporary FOD control and separation barrier is installed at the project site, the drivers of contractor and subcontractor vehicles will not be required to take a sponsor FOD training as long as they do not circulate at any moment on active areas of the flightline. Otherwise, enforceable FOD provisions shall apply, including but not limited to training for vehicles drivers.

81. Inquiry: The project site is located within the flight-line area. What measures should the contractor take to control construction personnel within this area? Can personnel freely enter and exit the work zone? Are special access permits required? Is it the contractor's responsibility to monitor and control personnel access to the work zone?

Response: As long as the construction site and the access are isolated and properly fenced from the active flightline so it is adequately segregated and access to unauthorized areas prevented, prime contractor will control their own personnel as well as subcontractor and supplier’s personnel in accordance with standard regulations for construction sites at NS Rota. However, the personnel accessing active areas of flightline will follow enforceable regulations such as the ones included in EM-385-1-1 "Airfield Operations" and other contractual ones. See revised Drawings C-101, C-102 & C-103.

82. Inquiry: There are currently large trees on the project site that need to be cut down. Is it necessary to obtain any environmental permits to cut down any tree species within the base?

Response: The installation has an agreement with the Junta de Andalusia to enumerate the number and species of trees that will be removed as a part of the project. Mitigation for native trees will be accomplished in accordance with the Lorax Plan and Landscaping Guidelines. See Attachment M - Lorax Plan Tree List and Attachment N – NAVSTA Rota Landscaping Guidelines.

83. Inquiry: The RFP documents specify, under environmental protection measures, that the site will require the capture and translocation of chameleons; however, we found no further details on the procedures, authorizations, or qualifications required to carry out this work. Please indicate the regulations or specific requirements so that we can assess the effort and cost associated with this work.

Alternatively, please indicate whether this task falls under the responsibility of the base's environmental agency.

Response: Procedures, authorizations and qualifications must be approved by the Junta de Andulusia. It is the responsibility of the contractor to capture and translocate chameleons on site. Refer to Amendment 0004 – Attachment J -Chameleon Survey, and Attachment K - NAVSTA Rota Protected Species Protocol for the Common Chameleon.

84. Inquiry: The specifications indicate that earthwork must be monitored for the presence of archaeological artifacts.”, Is there any specific requirement, or qualification to perform such monitoring tasks? Is it required to submit a specific work plan for excavations in an archaeological zone? Please indicate the regulations or specific requirements so that we can assess the effort and cost associated with this work.

Response: Refer to Specification 01 57 19.00 22, Paragraph 1.5.A.e.

85. Inquiry: We note that the hangar’s steel structure has been fully designed, while the contractor must submit, certify, and coordinate all fire protection design elements through a third-party Licensed Fire Protection Engineer with a minimum of 5 years of relevant experience. Does the Government anticipate that the additional loads associated with the fire protection system (e.g., pipework dead loads, water-filled conditions, hangers/supports) could have a significant impact on the structural load distribution? If so, should the current structural design be reviewed, or potentially partially reengineered, to verify compliance with the applicable structural codes? If so, would the contractor be responsible for ensuring structure code-compliance?

Response: Building structure has been designed to account for MEP equipment, piping, etc. loads. Loads from utility systems imposed onto the structure identified in Contractor shop drawing submittals will be reviewed by the Government during construction to confirm consistency with building design.

86. Inquiry: The project documents specify a vertical lift fabric door system for the hangar’s main door.

Based on our experience with military hangars of similar span and operational requirements, sliding/rolling hangar door systems offer several advantages, including simplified ground level maintenance (eliminating the need for aerial equipment) and the ability to manually operate the doors in the event of a power failure, thereby maintaining hangar accessibility with minimal operational disruption. We also note that the design includes two storage rooms located on each side of the main door opening (Rooms 103A and 103B). From a technical standpoint, these spaces appear suitable to serve as door pockets to accommodate a horizontal rolling door configuration. In this context, we request clarification on the following: Would the Government consider the use of a sliding hangar door system compliant with UFGS 08 34 16.10 Horizontal Rolling Steel Doors, utilizing Rooms 103A and 103B as door pockets, in lieu of the specified vertical lift fabric door system? We would appreciate confirmation on whether this alternative system would be acceptable for technical evaluation under the project requirements.

Response: The suggested alternative system, horizontal rolling steel doors, are not acceptable for this project.

87. Inquiry: After a thorough review of the solicitation, we have determined that the scope and complexity of the project, together with the extensive volume of technical documentation, drawings, specifications, and contractual requirements, require additional time to ensure a complete, accurate, and cost-effective proposal. Our objective is to provide the Government with the highest quality submission, supported by fully developed technical solutions and robust pricing that reflects a comprehensive understanding of the project requirements. Furthermore, several clarification questions have been submitted to the Government. The responses to these inquiries will require careful technical review and subsequent incorporation into our design approach, cost modeling, and schedule development. Adequate time is essential to evaluate the Government’s answers and translate their impacts into our final proposal.

In light of the above, we respectfully request the following:

1. An extension of the proposal due date of at least fifteen (15) working days from the current submission deadline.

2. A minimum two-week period between the Government’s issuance of all responses to industry questions and the final proposal due date, to allow sufficient time for analysis and integration of any changes affecting scope, cost, or design.

This extension will enable us to prepare a proposal that ensures full compliance with the solicitation requirements while maximizing cost effectiveness and technical value for the Government.

Response: See Amendment 0005 – proposal extended to 16 April 2026.

88. Inquiry: On Page 3 of Amendment 0001, inquiry No. 1, the client response refers to a revised solicitation. Amendment 0001 does not seem to include said Solicitation. Please confirm that a revised solicitation is forthcoming to address Inquiry No. 1.

Response: Refer to PPI#1 in Amendment 0001 and solicitation revisions in Amendment 0002; an offer guarantee is not required.

89. Inquiry: For scheduling purposes related to the technical approach, please indicate when we should consider the award of option CLINS: at the award date or 365 Calendar days after the award? Especially for the option CLINS 0005 and 0006, the section 00 22 13.00 20 p.6 of Attachment_E_FX74_Specifications, also states that “If awarded, the FF&E and A/V modification will be awarded at least six months prior to the contract completion date”, which is 450 Calendar Days after award and not 365 Calendar Days, as stated in the Solicitation

Response: Options can be awarded at any time within 365 days after initial award. CLINs 0004, 0005, and 0006 have additional notations that allow negotiated modifications to occur later than 365 days after initial award. The technical approach must consider the entirety of the contract requirements.

90. Inquiry: Please confirm whether there are any font specifications for the Gantt chart of the technical approach. The 5-page specification will limit the level of WBS analysis if the 12-point Times New Roman font must be used.

Response: Complete Gantt chart in accordance with the solicitation. The Gantt chart remains limited to five (5) pages.

91. Inquiry: 1) DFARS 252.204-7019 dictates that contractors will be required to provide NIST SP 800- 171 assessments and reporting under DFARS 252.204-7020. Are subcontractors required to comply with NIST SP 800-171 assessments and reporting requirements under DFARS 252.204-7020? 2) On Sheet E- 603 it appears to show a Govt Furnished Generator and MTS Quick Connect Box. Please confirm that the VLF Door Main Control Panel will only require a set of contacts and PLC programming to recognize when the MTS is engaged to recognize the VLF Door is on Emergency Generator Power.

Response: 1) Yes. 2) Refer to Amendment 0004 – Amended UFGS 08 34 16.20.

92. Inquiry: For Offerors that are a joint venture, is a signed bank reference letter required from the JV or each JV partner?

Response: If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), the requirement shall be from the JV.

93. Inquiry: Each contracting company and its subcontractors shall be responsible for assuring, upon submission of a bid for a contract of $500,000 euros or more, that they are registered at the Register of Bidders contractors of the Spanish Ministry of finance with the classification applicable to the type of project to be performed. It is the responsibility of contracting companies to ensure they are properly following Spanish contracting law and classification requirements. Each Offeror SHALL fill out and sign the certification provided at Attachment (G) and include it with its proposal. Failure to submit such information shall prevent the Government from being able to determine whether an offeror is responsible.

Does the Certificates of Classification Requirement apply to companies outside of Spain that are furnishing OEM equipment LABOR ONLY proposals (under $500,000 Euros) to the prime contracting companies?

Response: Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Labor would not be expected to have Spanish Classifications if performed outside of Spain for general construction activities on site.

94. Inquiry: According to the symbols of the demolition legend in drawings CD 101 and 102, the contractor is only required to perform Clearing and Grubbing Limits. However, during the site visit we observed that there are a significant amount of weeds and existing trees that are not reflected in these drawings. Please clarify whether the contractor is only required to carry out the Clearing and Grubbing Limits indicated in the drawings or the project scope also includes removing all the existing woodland.

Response: The clearing and grubbing limits shown on CD101 and CD102 reflect the site grading limits.

The contractor is responsible for performing all clearing and grubbing necessary to construct the site in accordance with Specification 31 00 00, Paragraph 3.3.1, and to provide the required fenceline clear space shown on Drawings CS101 and CS102, Keynote 24.

95. Inquiry: According to detail B1 of drawing CP501, the thickness of AC 16 SURF S “Bituminous Surface Course” is the same as the detail B2. Please clarify this, because based on our experience, both thicknesses should be different.

Response: Both B1 and B2 details on Drawings CP501 are correct and are in accordance with UFC 3-201-01 (2022), Section 4-1.3 and UFC 3-250-01 Table 7-2 for PCASE design.

96. Inquiry: Note S-19.C mentions fire protection but does not specify the required fire resistance (R-30, R-60, R-90). What is the required fire resistance for the main structure, and what type of intumescent paint or sprayed mortar should be budgeted for?

Response: Reference Specification 07 81 00 for allowable types of fireproofing.

97. Inquiry: The borehole profiles (such as BH-30-1) show medium/high plasticity clays in the first few meters. What is the exact thickness of "expansive soil" that the designer considers necessary to remove under the hangar slab? (You need to know if it's 50 cm, 100 cm, or until the granular stratum is reached to measure the excavation.

Response: The overexcavation should extend the depths noted in the Plans (Drawings CG503 and CG601) and Specification 31 00 00 Paragraph 3.4.4.

98. Inquiry: The geotechnical report classifies the materials. Is the excavated material intended for compacted fill in road areas, or should its transport to an authorized landfill and the purchase of borrow material be budgeted for?

Response: The excavated material may be used surcharge material as shown on Drawing CG611;

however, the excavated soils are not acceptable for use as Structure Backfill or Embankment Fill in accordance with Specification 31 00 00. The contractor shall be prepared to transport excess material to an authorized landfill and purchase borrowed material meeting the requirements of the project specifications.

99. Inquiry: Water is present in several boreholes at varying depths. Should the budget include an item for water removal (pumping) during the construction of the deepest footings?

Response: Refer to submittal and work requirements outlined in Specification 31 00 00.

100. Inquiry: The structural criteria note F-2 specifies a value of 145 kPa, but soundings show significant variations. Should a plate load test or a bottom excavation approval report be performed for each footing before pouring the lean concrete?

Response: The note "F-2" and "145 kpa" value indicated in this question could not be referenced; please clarify the sheet number this is referencing. Regarding required testing or documentation for the lean concrete below the footings, the material should be observed by a Geotechnical Engineer per Drawing S- 002 Note F-4 and the subgrade should be prepared in accordance with Specification 31 00 00. Plate load tests or bottom excavation approval reports are not indicated as required submittals.

101. Inquiry: With the chemical analyses of the soil in hand, is it necessary to use sulfate-resistant (SR) cement for the concrete of the foundations and buried walls?

Response: Concrete should be in accordance with the maximum water/cement ratios and exposure categories listed in Specification 03 00 00 Paragraph 2.5.1h.

102. Inquiry: Note S-20 requires permanent markings and specific paint in these areas. What type of marking paint (color, composition) should be budgeted for, and how many signage plates per gantry have been estimated?

Response: Indicate protected areas in accordance with details shown on Drawings S-540 thru S-549 and Specification 09 90 00, Paragraph 3.13.2.2. Provide one signage plate per shaded, protected area. Refer to signage detail added to Drawing I-504.

103. Inquiry: Regarding CLIN number 4, 'Option number 3 - ESS/IDS/CCTV', I would like to confirm the scope of the items. Should the security systems for both the site and the entire building be included, or is the scope limited exclusively to the site starting 1.5 meters above the hangar?

Response: The ESS/IDS/CCTV scope is pathway infrastructure only. The devices, wiring & equipment are under a separate contract.

104. Inquiry: I would like to confirm the delimitation of CLIN Number 5. "Option number 4 - Audiovisual." Should the audiovisual system cover the entire building and the surrounding area, or is it restricted only to the exterior area located more than 1.5 meters from the hangar?

Response: Audiovisual is restricted to only a few TV locations within the building. Lobby L100 and Breakroom 100.

105. Inquiry: Regarding CLIN Number 6, "Option number 5 - Furniture and equipment", does the scope include the supply of all areas of the project, hangar and urbanization, or is it limited only to certain areas?

Response: CLIN Number 6, "Option item 5" covers all work in connection with labor, material, equipment, transportation and supervision required for the FF&E items listed on Drawings IF110 - IF116.

and per Specification 12 00 01.00 20. Site Furnishings are cover by Drawings L-103 and L-502 and Specification 12 93 00 as part of base bid.

106. Inquiry: A graphic symbol (marked in the red box of the attached screenshot) has been identified whose meaning could not be determined. After a thorough review, it was confirmed that this symbol does not appear in the Standard Legend Sheet, the General Telecommunications Notes, or in the specific symbology of drawing T-112, of the document: "Attachment_F_FX74_DWGs_Volume17of17".

Response: The symbol shall be removed. The Fire alarm will communicate via Monaco antenna system.

See revised Drawing T-112.

107. Inquiry: In Drawing CD101, a line marked with the ‘Remove linar utility’ symbology has been identified without an associated Demolition Keynote. As this utility is located within a demolition zone, could the designer please clarify the nature of this service?

Response: The item highlighted shown to be removed is an existing airfield pavement marking.

108. Inquiry: Clarification is requested regarding the criteria for applying the demolition notes on Drawing CD101. It is observed that both Keynote 3 (Sawcut) and Keynote 23 (Double Sawcut) are used to define pavement demolition limits without a graphical distinction that justifies the change in procedure.

Could the designer specify the exact sections where the double sawcut takes precedence over the single sawcut to ensure proper measurement?

Response: Double sawcut as indicated on CD101 Keynote 23 is to take place on the limits of existing airfield concrete removal area, Keynote 16. See revised Drawing CD101

109. Inquiry: With regard to Keynote 1 on Drawing CD101, should the contractor allow for the installation of a physical perimeter fence (safety enclosure) to delineate the work area, or is it intended solely as a delineation of the intervention zone? If a fence is required, please confirm whether the standard to be adopted should be that specified in Section 01 50 00 (2.00 m rigid fencing).

Response: Work within the apron may occur outside of the temporary fence line, subject to coordination with airfield operations. See Updated Sheet C-101, C-102, C-103 and CS507.

110. Inquiry: The legend numbering is not indicated on drawing CS101, but it is assumed to be the same as that indicated on the subsequent drawings (CS102 and CS103). Please confirm. Thank you.

Response: Confirmed. Legends are the same between sheets. See revised Drawing CS101.

111. Inquiry: Since drawing C-100 does not specify whether access to the construction site will be from inside or outside the Airfield Area—leaving this decision to the KO and Airfield Operations—could you please confirm whether, in the event access is required from inside the airfield, there would be any operational interferences or partial/total time restrictions during the execution of the works?

Response: The smaller vehicle access gate along Tow Way North will be the primary access gate to the site. Alternate access from Enrique Street at the Southwest corner of the site may be used if approved by KO and Airfield Ops. See revised DrawingC-100.

112. Inquiry: Given that the project duration is set at 630 days—including the preparation and approval of pre-construction documents, mobilization, commissioning, testing, training, inspections, visits, and demobilization—and considering that similar projects within the Naval Base, with smaller built areas, have been assigned longer schedules, could you please confirm whether the client is considering a schedule extension or if the current duration is final?

Response: Per PPI# 8 in Amendment 0002 and the solicitation revisions in Amendment 0005, the project duration is set to 1200 days.

113. Inquiry: Regarding the certificates of classification required for this project, would it be possible to accomplish with the classification of a subcontractor? Would a letter of commitment between companies be necessary?

Response: Certificates of Classification must be provided by the contracting company and its subcontractors, not with the subcontractors only.

114. Inquiry: In order to properly set up the schedule, could you please inform us of the tentative Contract Award date?

Response: Choose a date that represents an expected award date. Evaluation will be based on the requirements noted in the solicitation.

115. Inquiry: Could you please confirm whether all options activities are required to be included in the schedule and covered within the total duration of 630 calendar days from the NTP?

Response: Schedule must include all major submittals and all major aspects of construction project, including the options. Per PPI# 8 in Amendment 0002 and the solicitation revisions above, the project duration is set to 1200 calendar days.

116. Inquiry: Given the volume of contract documentation issued, and the technical complexity associated with the measurement and pricing of the required activities, the current proposal preparation period may be insufficient to allow developing a fully coordinated, accurate, competitive offer.

Accordingly, we respectfully request an extension of the proposal submission deadline of at least six (6) weeks. This extension would improve the overall quality, accuracy, and competitiveness of submitted proposals.

Response: See Amendment 0005, proposals are due 16 April 2026.

117. Inquiry: Point "b" of section 13 of the Solicitation states that a bid bond must be submitted, but no information or template for it has been attached to the solicitation. Please clarify if this is a mistake, and if this bid guarantee is not necessary.

Response: Refer to PPI#1 in Amendment 0001 and solicitation revisions in Amendment 0002; an offer guarantee is not required.

118. Inquiry: About Fire Protection, the project currently requires dual compliance with US Criteria (UFC, NFPA) and Host Nation (Spain) Codes (CTE, RSCIEI, RIPCI, UNE), with the "most stringent" requirement prevailing. This may create significant risks for technical execution. Examples:

- Certification conflicts, as many Spanish-sourced components (CE/UNE certified) lack US-specific listings (UL/FM). -Hybrid System Risks: Systems like the building water supply are being designed as "hybrids" (UNE 23500 for supply/redundancy but UFC/NFPA for design parameters).

-Passive Protection Discrepancies: Requirements for fire barrier extensions and duct dampers differ between codes, leading to potential architectural and mechanical design conflicts. - Given that structural and geotechnical designs are already being adjusted to Spanish codes for final submittal, will the Government all be adopting Host Nation (Spain) regulations as the primary design and equipment certification framework for all active and passive fire protection systems? This would ensure legal compliance, would facilitate local equipment sourcing, and would simplify the final inspection process by certified Spanish authorities.

Response: Per UFC 3-600-01, 1-2.1.3, the project must comply with the provisions of UFC 3-600-01, its referenced standards (NFPA & IBC), and the host nation's fire protection requirements. The design has implemented the more stringent requirements from UFCs and host nation's requirements. Equivalent CE listed/certified materials are permitted in lieu of UL listed materials.

119. Inquiry: Testing, Adjusting and Balancing. About Commissioning (Cx) and TAB, the contract documents require dual compliance with US Criteria (UFC, ASHRAE, AABC/NEBB) and Host Nation (Spain) Codes (RITE - RD 1027/2007). This dual-standard approach may introduce significant execution risks for testing and handover.

Examples:

- Methodological Conflicts: TAB procedures (AABC, NEBB, or TABB) and Commissioning (ASHRAE

202) - Seasonal Validation Discrepancies: The project mandates a two-season TAB verification (Season I and II), while Host Nation RITE regulations have specific commissioning timelines and operational validation requirements that may not align with the UFC's 6-month seasonal spread.

Given that the facility must comply with Spanish law for legal operation and that host nation regulations must be integrated into the commissioning process, will the Government allow the Contractor to harmonize all TAB and Commissioning activities primarily under Spanish RITE (RD 1027/2007) regulations? Seasonal Validation Discrepancies: The project mandates a two-season TAB verification (Season I and II), while Host Nation RITE regulations have specific commissioning timelines and operational validation requirements that may not align with the UFC's 6-month seasonal spread.

Given that the facility must comply with Spanish law for legal operation and that host nation regulations must be integrated into the commissioning process, will the Government allow the Contractor to harmonize all TAB and Commissioning activities primarily under Spanish RITE (RD 1027/2007) regulations?

Response: Propose in accordance with the specification which takes into account both United States and Canada criteria, as required by mutual agreement with both nations.

120. Inquiry: Regarding construction experience, we are currently executing a project at Moron Air Base, with an estimated completion date of April 2026. We have a CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) that is 75% complete, although the work itself is over 90% executed. As of the publication date of this solicitation, the hangars and the surrounding concrete slabs had been completed, which are items valued in this section. Considering this, could this project be submitted as construction experience?

Response: Per the solicitation, "Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past ten

(10) years of the date of issuance of this RFP".

121. Inquiry: Photovoltaic Panel Foundations The contract drawings indicate panel layout, mounting at grade, and provide soil information. However, no foundation type or structural details are included (foundation system, dimensions, embedment depth, reinforcement, etc.). Kindly confirm the required foundation solution or provide the corresponding structural details. Please advise which assumptions should be considered for BoQs purposes.

Response: The foundations for the photovoltaic (PV) system are to be designed/engineered by the PV system manufacturer/installer per updated specification Section 26 31 00.

Provide augured concrete piers in accordance with revised Drawing E-506.

122. Inquiry: Lean concrete Below Foundations. No lean concrete (blinding layer) is indicated in the structural sections beneath spread footings or foundation walls. Please confirm whether lean concrete is required and, if so, specify the required thickness and any relevant technical parameters.

Response: Overexcavation and lean concrete backfill is required ay all foundations per note F-3 on Drawing S-002 and Drawing CG503 Detail A3.

123. Inquiry: CLIN 1G vs. CLIN 1I and 1K Within the description of CLIN 1G (Supporting Site Work), references are made to fencing and landscaping. However, CLIN 1I (Site Fencing) and CLIN 1K (Landscaping) are listed as separate pay items. To avoid duplication or scope gaps, please confirm that fencing and landscaping costs shall be included exclusively under CLIN 1I and CLIN 1K, and not within CLIN 1G. As these items directly affect measured quantities and the final contract value, we would appreciate your clarification at your earlies convenience.

Response: Confirmed. The cost of SubLine 0001G does not include the fencing and landscaping costs, those costs are broken out exclusively in SubLine 0001I and SubLine 0001K.

124. Inquiry: Regarding the Period of Performance (POP), the specifications state that the POP is 630 calendar days from the issuance of the NTP. Please clarify the criteria the Government must meet to issue the NTP.

Response: Per PPI# 8 in Amendment 0002 and the solicitation revisions above, the project duration is set to 1200 days. Refer to Bonding and insurance requirements in Section 00 73 00, once completed then notice to proceed will be issued.

125. Inquiry: The project area is environmentally sensitive and requires an environmental study of the local chameleon population. The Host Nation requires this study to be submitted for approval, which can take over 2 months, and only after the contractor is allowed to have a specialist collect and relocate all chameleons from the construction area before any field work starts. Given the duration of the approval process by the local authorities, and the already tight POP of 630 calendar days after the NTP, can the Government confirm that the NTP will only be issued after the environmental study is approved?

Response: The 2-month survey approval process is confirmed by both the Base EV office and LANT EV office.

126. Inquiry: Following the specification requirements for HVAC commissioning strictly, the official process includes multiple stages of testing, submission of test reports and certifications, and waiting for government approval before proceeding to the next stage of testing. Each submission step requires the schedule to allow 20 working days for Government approval. Given the number of steps, from the Duct Air Leakage Test (DALT) to the final HVAC approval, we are noting around 6 months, where the vast majority of the time is waiting for Government approval before the contractors are allowed to proceed with the following test. The 6-month commissioning period significantly reduces the remaining time from the intended POP of 21 months (630 calendar days). Given the size and complexity of the project, and the issues described in this and other questions, please consider extending the POP to 30 months (912 calendar days).

Response: Per PPI# 8 in Amendment 0002 and the solicitation revisions above, the project duration is set to 1200 calendar days.

127. Inquiry: The design wind speed used for calculations of the metal structure, under the Host Nation regulations (drawing S-001, Note DC/3, B, 1), is 29 m/s, which is lower than January 2026 recorded wind speed what was recorded in January 2026 (over 30 m/s). Can you confirm that the structure calculations foil, including fluid dynamics, from multiple angles, and using the required wind strength, and that such effort is not expected to be the responsibility of the contractor.

Response: Refer to design wind speed included in the contract documents. Structural calculations for wind speed is not the responsibility of the contractor.

128. Inquiry: The response to Question 12 states that the specification section related to option items in Attachment_E_FX74_Specificitions has been removed under Amendment 0001. However, our review of N6247026R0008_Amendment_0001.pdf does not identify any explicit reference to the removal of option items.

To ensure full alignment, please clarify the following:

(a) Confirm whether Amendment 0001 is the only amendment associated with this change, or identify any additional amendment or document where the removal of the option items specification is formally stated.

(b) Confirm that Section 1.3, PLANNED MODIFICATION BID NOTES (page 30 of Attachment_E_FX74_Specificitions), remains in effect with no revisions. Specifically, confirm that there are no changes to the provisions related to FF&E and A/N modification CLINs, including the stated potential award timing of up to six months prior to the contract completion date.

Response: The option items have not been deleted. Specification 00 22 13.00 20 was deleted in Amendment 0001. The Price Schedule was revised in Amendment 0004-Attachment B. Section 1.3, PLANNED MODIFICATION BID NOTES remain the same with no changes. Choose a date that represents an expected award date, evaluation will be based on the requirements noted in the solicitation.

129. Inquiry: The responses to PPIs in Amendment_0004.pdf (e.g., PPIs 26, 27, 29), along with references in PPI_Continuation_Sheet_FX74.pdf, indicate that certain drawings and sheets have been updated or revised. However, these updated documents do not appear to have been included in any amendment file package issued to date.

To ensure all offerors are working from the same complete set of documents, please clarify:

(a) Whether the referenced updated drawings and sheets will be formally issued as part of a forthcoming amendment.

(b) If so, confirm that these documents will be incorporated into the official solicitation package prior to proposal submission.

(c) If not, identify where these updated drawings and sheets can currently be accessed.

Response: Refer to Amendment 0006 Specifications.

130. Inquiry: Amendment 04, Attachment B Price Schedule REVISED, shows all amounts in US Dollars “$”. Specification section 00 22 13.00 20 Supplementary Instructions to Offers, paragraph 1.2 General Bid Notes, item b, states must submit their bid in Euros, which is correct?

Response: As “Award will be made in U.S. Dollars” per the solicitation and Attachment B specifies U.S.

Dollars, Proposal submissions will only be accepted in U.S. Dollars.

131. Inquiry: Will the Government accept projects that are at least 75% completed?

Response: The solicitation requires "Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past ten (10) years of the date of issuance of this RFP".

132. Inquiry: Heavy Duty sealed aluminum casing with 8mm minimum stainless steel wire rope. Self- Retracting Lifelines (SRLs) with 8mm cable are not currently manufactured. Standard SRLs use a 3/16” (4.76mm) cable. Are 3/16” SRLs acceptable?

Response: Yes, 3/16" (approximately 4.8 mm) stainless steel wire rope is acceptable for the self-retracting lifeline. Assure the fall protection system is signed and sealed by a qualified fall protection engineer.

133. Inquiry: With reference to the design criteria specified for the HVAC hydronic system associated with the four-pipe heat pump installation, we have noted that the project documentation indicates a design temperature difference (ΔT) of 12 °C for the heating circuit and 5 °C for the cooling circuit. We would appreciate confirmation that these values are correct, as such a difference in design temperature spread would result in significantly different water flow rates between the heating and cooling circuits for equivalent thermal capacities.

As per the standard heat transfer relationship: Q = ṁ · cₚ · ΔT a lower temperature difference requires proportionally higher water flow to deliver the same thermal capacity. Consequently, a 5 °C ΔT in cooling and a 12 °C ΔT in heating would imply that the cooling circuit flow rate is approximately 2.4 times higher than the heating circuit flow rate for the same load. This condition may have several implications for the hydraulic design of the installation, including:

• Different sizing requirements for pumps and hydraulic distribution networks between the heating and cooling circuits.

• Potential mismatch with the design operating conditions of terminal units (e.g., coils in fan coil units or air handling units) if they are not specifically designed for these flow regimes.

• Possible challenges in maintaining appropriate water velocities within the pipework under both operating modes.

• Impacts on hydraulic balancing, control valve operation, and overall system stability.

In many four-pipe hydronic systems, the design temperature differences between heating and cooling circuits are typically more balanced, unless specific terminal unit or equipment requirements justify otherwise. For this reason, we kindly request confirmation that the specified ΔT values of 12 °C in heating and 5 °C in cooling are intentional and aligned with the design basis of the terminal equipment and hydraulic network.

Response: The specified design ΔT values of 11.1 °C (20 °F) for heating and 8.3 °C (15 °F) for cooling are intentional and are consistent with the design basis of both the terminal equipment and the overall hydraulic network. The chiller heater system utilizes separate chilled water and hot water loops, reflecting the different heating and cooling loads for each zone. The system is designed to operate with a chilled water supply temperature of 6.7 °C (44 °F) and a return temperature of 15 °C (59 °F), resulting in a chilled water ΔT of 8.3 °C (15 °F). Likewise, the hot water system is designed for a supply temperature of

48.9 °C (120 °F) and a return temperature of 37.8 °C (100 °F), providing a ΔT of 11.1 °C (20 °F). The selected chilled water ΔT complies with the requirements of ASHRAE 90.1 2019, Section 6.5.4.7. Hot water supply and return temperatures are based on the manufacturer provided performance data for the chiller heater plant. All coils have been selected using these design conditions, and the resulting flow rates have been applied to pipe sizing, pumps selection, and hydraulic calculations. Distribution system velocities have been evaluated for both heating and cooling modes and are within acceptable limits.

134. Inquiry: Specification Section 08 60 45 states in Paragraph 1.1 SUMMARY, that translucent panel systems “must meet requirements of UFC 4-010-01.” However, the specifications and drawings do not provide specific blast design criteria (e.g., design loads, analysis method, or performance requirements) for translucent panel systems (Types A2 and A3).

While UFC 4-010-01 establishes minimum ATFP requirements, it does not directly define prescriptive design procedures for proprietary translucent panel systems, which are typically addressed using either validated testing or simplified equivalent static loads.

Please confirm that translucent panel systems are required to meet blast/ATFP design requirements in accordance with UFC 4-010-01.

Response: The translucent panels systems are located in the "low occupancy" area of the building. As such, they are not required to meet the provisions of UFC 4-010-01.

135. Inquiry: Specification Section 08 60 45 states in Paragraph 1.1 SUMMARY, that translucent panel systems “must meet requirements of UFC 4-010-01.” However, the specifications and drawings do not provide specific blast design criteria (e.g., design loads, analysis method, or performance requirements) for translucent panel systems (Types A2 and A3).

While UFC 4-010-01 establishes minimum ATFP requirements, it does not directly define prescriptive design procedures for proprietary translucent panel systems, which are typically addressed using either validated testing or simplified equivalent static loads. If an equivalent static load method is acceptable, please provide the required design loads and performance criteria (e.g., allowable hazard level, support rotation limits, etc.).

Please confirm the acceptable design approach for translucent panels - Dynamic blast analysis, or Equivalent static load method

Response: The translucent panels systems are located in the "low occupancy" area of the building. As such, they are not required to meet the provisions of UFC 4-010-01.

136. Inquiry: Specification Section 08 60 45 states in Paragraph 1.1 SUMMARY, that translucent panel systems “must meet requirements of UFC 4-010-01.” However, the specifications and drawings do not provide specific blast design criteria (e.g., design loads, analysis method, or performance requirements) for translucent panel systems (Types A2 and A3).

While UFC 4-010-01 establishes minimum ATFP requirements, it does not directly define prescriptive design procedures for proprietary translucent panel systems, which are typically addressed using either validated testing or simplified equivalent static loads. If an equivalent static load method is acceptable, please provide the required design loads and performance criteria (e.g., allowable hazard level, support rotation limits, etc.).

Please whether compliance may be demonstrated through manufacturer testing and certification in lieu of project-specific blast analysis.

Response: Refer to the provision requirements in UFC 4-010-01.

137. Inquiry: Please, provide clarification of the required blast/ATFP design methodology and criteria for translucent panel systems to demonstrate compliance with UFC 4-010-01.

Response: Refer to the provision requirements in UFC 4-010-01.

138. Inquiry: We respectfully request clarification regarding the blast design criteria indicated in the project specifications for exterior windows and doors.

The specifications section 08 11 16 notes in paragraph 1.2.1.1 that, as an alternative to analytical methods, testing may be used to demonstrate compliance using a blast load defined as P = 40 kPa (5.8 psi) and I = 285 kPa-ms (41 psi-ms). Upon review, these values do not appear to correspond to Explosive Weight II at any standoff distance. Rather, they seem more consistent with Explosive Weight I.

At the same time, the specifications explicitly reference Explosive Weight II, which we understand is appropriate for facilities within controlled-access installations. This has led us to believe there may be an inconsistency in the listed criteria.

To ensure the design is developed in full compliance with project requirements, we kindly request confirmation of the intended blast design basis. If available, it would be greatly appreciated if you could provide either: 1) Confirmation of the correct blast parameters associated with Explosive Weight II, or 2) The site plan (or standoff distances from each building façade to the nearest roadway or parking area), so that the applicable blast loads can be determined.

Response: Explosive Weight II at a 12m standoff distance, as shown on drawings CS101 and A-110, results in a 158 kPa (23 psi) peak positive pressure and 462 kPa-ms (67 psi-ms) peak positive phase impulse. The 3-sec duration equivalent static pressure is 5650 Pa (118 psf). See revised Amendment 0006-Specifications, Sections 08 11 16 and 08 51 13.

3. Provide Attachments:

Attachment M – Lorax Plan Tree list Attachment N – NAVSTA Rota Landscaping Guidelines Amendment 0006 - Specifications

4. Provide Site Visit Log

Name Company Email Miguel Gomez ECC miguel.gomez@ecc.net Jason Brooke Gaptek jk.brokke@gaptek.es Javier Guindo LCS juan@lcsdefense.eu Juan Rodriguez LCS juan@lcsdefense.eu Miguel A. Toro SEMI matoro@gruposemi.com Fran Poley SEMI fpoley@gruposemi.com Angel Rodriguez UTE Castellano-Cobra arodriguezj@grupocobra.com Miguel Falcon Dragados mafalcons@dragados.com Jose Luis Ruiz Dragados jlruizm@dragados.com Pablo Rollan Eiffage Pablo.rollanmateos@eiffage.com Jose Toranzo Ferrovial jtoranzo@ferrovial.com Gonzalo Fernandez Ferrovial g.fernandezmaldonado@ferrovial.com Pablo Baldoy ECC pbaldoy@ecc.net mailto:miguel.gomez@ecc.net mailto:jk.brokke@gaptek.es mailto:juan@lcsdefense.eu mailto:juan@lcsdefense.eu mailto:matoro@gruposemi.com mailto:fpoley@gruposemi.com mailto:arodriguezj@grupocobra.com mailto:mafalcons@dragados.com mailto:jlruizm@dragados.com…