Amendment_0004_3_Bay_Hangar.pdf

ACQR5362952

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

N62473-18-R-2242, DESIGN-BID-BUILD MCON PROJECT KC-46A AIRCRAFT 3-BAY MAINTENANCE HANGAR, TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA

SEE CONTINUATION PAGE 2

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 10

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Nov-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N6247318R2242

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Oct-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

21-Nov-2018

CODE

NAVFAC SOUTHWEST

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTRACT CORE

CODE: CIMAR

1220 PACIFIC HIGHWAY

SAN DIEGO CA 92132-5190

N62473 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6247318R2242

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMD 0004

AMENDMENT 0004 – DATED 21 NOVEMBER 2018

Contract: N62473-18-R-2242 CS/Phone: Christopher Rosario 619-532-3221 Solicitation Date: 26 October 2018 Subject: DESIGN-BID-BUILD MCON PROJECT KC-46A AIRCRAFT 3-BAY

MAINTENANCE HANGAR, TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA

This is an amendment to subject solicitation:

A. The Davis Bacon Wage Determination remains unchanged.

B. The proposal due date and time has changed from 2:00 P.M., local time, on 27 November 2018 to 2:00 P.M., local time, on 28 November 2018.

C. The first paragraph under “Basis of Evaluation” on page 15 of the solicitation shall be revised to the following:

This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 1 – Experience and past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources (including interim project performance evaluations). Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown.

D. The following are responses to RFIs

Question 1: The Proposal Submission Requirements for Factor 1 Experience, requires Offerors to submit relevant projects to demonstrate experience. The RFP further defines relevant projects as Multi-bay Aircraft Hangars / High Bay Industrial Facilities which must be valued at greater than $80,000,000 and completed within the past 5 years.

Quite simply, Hangar projects valued at greater than $80,000,000 are few and far between. Most recent military Hangar projects are valued between $30,0000,000 - $40,000,000. Some of the recently awarded KC-46A Hangar projects have a higher value, but that is because the Hangars are larger in size and include a significant amount of non-Hangar scope (i.e., airfield paving, site and infrastructure improvements, demolition). However, the KC-46A program is relatively new and most of those hangars are not yet complete. Please consider revising the definition for relevant projects to include projects greater than $30,000,000 completed within the past 5 year period.

Answer 1: Refer to Amendment 0003.

Question 2: Regarding Factor 1 – Experience criteria, contractor suggests revising the minimum criteria to one (1) project with a construction cost at time of award of $80,000,000 with all other projects having a minimum contract value of not less than $40,000,000 at time of award. All projects would still have to include at least two of the following elements to be considered relevant:

1. Construction of a Multi-bay aircraft hangar

2. Construction coordination with airfield operations

3. Construction of high bay industrial facilities Answer 2: Refer to Amendment 0003.

Question 3: The Proposal Submission Requirements for Factor 1 Experience, requires Offerors to submit relevant projects that can include “Multi-Bay Hangars”. Many Hangars include one “bay” that accommodates multiple aircraft. Is that configuration considered acceptable?

Answer 3: Single Bay Hangars housing multiple aircrafts are acceptable.

Question 4: It was discussed that flow testing of hydrants could be accomplished discharging the water on grade using chlorine tablets. Can that be confirmed?

Answer 4: During Pre-Bid meeting, Base Environmental emphasized that all water discharge from hydrants must follow Base Best Management Practices, which includes dechlorination of hydrant water flowed during testing Question 5: The project’s interior crane/monorail was described as having been removed from the project scope.

Can that be confirmed?

Answer 5: The Crane in the Hangar Bay has been deleted from the project.

Question 6: It was discussed that Cal Water is the water purveyor for the Base. Can you confirm?

Answer 6: All water system piping and construction shall meet CALWATER standards and Section 33 11 00 requirements, see Spec Section 33 11 00 and attachments.

Question 7: I understand the base fire alarm system to be a Monaco system. Can you confirm?

Answer 7: Confirmed

Question 8: What type of signals should the building fire alarm system transmit to the base fire alarm system? Will simple Alarm/Supervisory/Trouble signals be adequate and sufficient? Is communication of Point ID information

(e. g., addressable fire alarm system ‘point’/device names and locations) required?

Answer 8: See FA602, FA603 and UFC 3-600-01 9-18.3.3

Question 9: We were told that aircraft within the hangar would essentially be emptied of fuels – from the aircraft engine fuel tanks, and from the larger ‘transfer’ tanks.

Can you confirm?

Answer 9: Aircraft are fueled and does not affect the design. UFC requires the design to assume the aircraft are fueled.

Question 10: Existing buildings to be demolished are currently provided with automatic sprinkler systems including underground fire water supply features. What is the intended demolition scope of the existing underground fire water supply system?

Answer 10: See CD sheets for limits of above grade and below grade site and utility demolition.

Question 11: Is there a TAFB preference as to the manufacturer of new fire alarm system control panels and components? If yes, which manufacturer is preferred? FACP model number?

Answer 11: The system will meet the contract specification and design.

Question 12: Is there a TAFB preferred underground fire water system piping material? If yes, what type of pipe is preferred?

Answer 12: The preferred system will meet the contract specification and design

Question 13: Does the project require that cathodic protection of metallic underground fire water system component be provided?

Answer 13: See General Utility Note 2 on GC003 and Submittal in Section 33 11 00, and Para 3.2.2.1.

Question 14: The hangar bays include mechanical platforms and ‘catwalks’. Are these walking surfaces solid, or gridded/open?

Answer 14: See Note 2 on S-160, the mechanical platforms and catwalks floors are galvanized steel grating. Refer to drawings and spec section 05 50 13

Question 15: High expansion foam is understood to be required to be delivered to the aircraft ‘underwing’ areas via trench mounted foam generators. Has manufacturer/model, etc. been selected?

Answer 15: High expansion foam generators shall meet the specifications provided. The Government is unable to identify specific equipment manufacturers.

Question 16: I was unable to locate a fire alarm system specification in the downloaded project documentation. Is there a fire alarm system specification? How do I obtain a copy?

Answer 16: See Spec Section 28 31 76 INTERIOR FIRE ALARM AND MASS NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

Question 17: DEMO, 024119-Please confirm that the government will be considered the generator of any existing hazardous waste encountered at the site, and will sign all manifests.

Answer 17: Confirmed the Government is considered the generator of existing hazardous material/waste on the project site and is required to sign all manifests before leaving Travis AFB.

Question 18: PRICING SCHEDULE, SOLICITATION-The quantity of contaminated soil shown in the solicitation is 2,000 cy and the quantity shown on the Excel bid pricing schedule is 3,000 cy. Please confirm which is correct.

Answer 18: Refer to Amendment 0002 which includes an updated Offeor Schedule.

Question 19: PRICING SCHEDULE, PRICING SCHEDULE-The cells for contaminated soil, on the Excel pricing schedule, are blacked-out. Are we to provide a unit price for this item?

Answer 19: Refer to Amendment 0002 which includes an updated Offeor Schedule.

Question 20: UTILITY RATES, SOLICITATION-Page 67 of the solicitation requires that the contractor pay for all utility usage at the rate delivered to the jobsite. Please provide utility rates for any utilities that the contractor will need to pay for.

Answer 20: The Government will provide reasonable qualities of utilities to complete the project at no cost to the contractor, however the contractor will be required to coordinate with City Light and Power to provide and pay for connections fees.

Question 21: CERAMIC TILING, A706-A708-The finish schedule calls for tiling on certain walls in Rooms 412, 418, 522, and 626. However, there are no callouts on the finish floor plans, and there are no elevations provided.

Please provide elevations detailing the tile for these rooms.

Answer 21: Amended drawings will be issued to clarify. 412 will not have tile. (See files named: A-701 Room Finish Schedule, A-706 (attachment 1), Room Finish & Signage Plan – Area D, A-707 (attachment 2), Room Finish & Signage Plan – Area E, A-708 (attachment 3) Room Finish & Signage Plan – Area F)

Question 22: FLOORING, A701, A707, & A708-The finish schedule calls out Rooms 505 and 612 to be sealed concrete. The finish plans call out these rooms to be RF-1. Please confirm the floor finish in these rooms Answer 22: Room 612 to have a sealed concrete finish. Room 505 will have RF-1 finish.

Question 23: EARTHWORK, B100-B103-Please provide existing ground elevations for the boreholes and existing buildings.

Answer 23: Amended drawing B-100 to be issued with elevations noted at boring locations. File name: B-100 GEOTECHNICAL BORING PLAN (attachment 4) Question 24: MONORAIL, S590-Drawing B1 states trolley and hoist not in contract, please specify which parts of monorail hoist system are in contract.

Answer 24: For sheet S-590, the only components in the contract is the monorail and structure shown. No additional hoist or trolleys for sheet S-590. Intent is for users to provide trolley and beam in the future if/when equipment maintenance is necessary. In contrast, S-591 is a comprehensive monorail system including hangers, track, trolley, hoist, etc.

Question 25: EPOXY FLOOR BASE, A701-Please confirm the height of the epoxy floor base EF-2 Answer 25: EF-2 base height shall be same as EF-1; refer to spec section 09 67 23.16 3.4.1

Question 26: EXPANSION CONTROL, A208-Drawing A208 calls out a 16" expansion joint detailed on A615, A625, A551. Please provide a specification detailing the product to be used in this area.

Answer 26: Expansion joint is specified in spec section 05 50 13 (see attachment 5 titled A-502)

Question 27: FIREPROOFING, A1/A-541-Drawings A1/A541 calls for 2HR Rated intumescent coating at all exposed brackets, columns and exposed steel girts along column line 20. Please confirm that this occurs at the 2HR rated walls on column lines 11 and 20 and does not occur at any other locations.

Answer 27: 2 hr fire rating is required along column lines 11 and 20

Question 28: STEEL, INSULATION, B1/A-544-Drawing B1 on A-544 shows a wall assembly containing steel members, drywall, and insulation. The interior of this wall, specifically the steel members, are hatched as if the member is to be filled with material. Please clarify if this is the intent of the detail and if so, what the material should be.

Answer 28: Metal studs are filled with batt insulation. Tube steel is not filled (see attachment 6 titled A-544).

Question 29: PRICING SCHEDULE, SPEC VOLUME 1-The pricing schedule in volume 1 of the specs is different that the Excel pricing schedule provided. There are no lines for the FF&E and AV HARs. Please advise which pricing schedule should be used.

Answer 29: Refer to Amendment 0002 which includes an updated Offeror Schedule.

Question 30: Regarding specification 1 45 00.00 20 QUALITY CONTROL, section 1.6 QUALITY CONTROL (QC) PLAN, is the intent of the project requirements that the Prime Contractor submit the QC plan?

Answer 30: Yes, the intent of the project requirements is that the Prime Contractor submit the QC plan

Question 31: Regarding specification 1 45 00.00 20, section 1.12.2 Invoice Certification, is the intent of the project requirements that the referenced QC Manager be an direct employee of the Prime Contractor?

Answer 31: Yes, the intent of the project requirements is that the referenced QC Manager be an direct employee of the Prime Contractor

Question 32: Regarding specification 21 13 13.00 10 WET PIPE AND DRY PIPE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, FIRE PROTECTION, section 1.4.1 Fire Protection Specialist, is the intent of the project requirements that the Fire Protection Specialist be a direct employee of the Automatic Sprinkler Sub-contractor?

Answer 32: See specification 01 45 00.00 20 section 1.5.7

Question 33: Regarding specification 21 13 13.00 10, section 1.4.1 Fire Protection Specialist, is the intent of the project requirements that a California Registered Professional Engineer in Fire Protection have acceptable qualifications to serve as the Fire Protection Specialist?

Answer 33: All the requirements are in specification 21 13 13.00 10, section 1.4.1 and specification 01 45 00.00 20 section 1.5.7.

Question 34: Regarding specification 21 13 13.00 10, section 2.5.1.1, is it intended that all interior fire sprinkler system piping be schedule 40 piping, regardless of pipe diameter?

Answer 34: All sizes of piping are required to be schedule 40.

Question 35: Regarding specification 21 13 13.00 10, sections 2.5.3.1 and 2.5.3.4, is it intended that both OS&Y and butterfly valves are acceptable for this project?

Answer 35: See FX601, where not otherwise indicated either valve is acceptable.

Question 36: Is it the intent of the project design documents that the Fire Protection Specialist review and approve for compliance with applicable technical Specifications the fire alarm system and fire suppression systems (automatic sprinkler, and hi-expansion foam) submittals prepared by the appropriate Sub-contractors? If yes, please identify appropriate citations from the Project Manual.

Answer 36: See specification 21 13 13.00 10 section 1.4.1, 28 31 76 section 1.7.1.1, 21 30 00 section 1.7.1, 21 13

25.00 10 section 1.5.1, 01 45 00.00 20 section 1.5.7 and multiple reference to UFC 3-600-01 leading to 1-7.

Question 37: Regarding specification 21 13 13.00 10, section 3.4.10, is it intended that sprinkler system piping dedicated to Electrical and Communications Rooms include a control valve dedicated to systems serving such rooms?

Answer 37: Separate control valves are not required in this hangar office areas. The rooms in the hangar office area do not meet the criteria for separate valving/flow switches

Question 38: Regarding specification 21 13 25.00 10 HIGH EXPANSION FOAM (HI EX. FOAM) FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM, section 2.15.1.1, is there a preferred vendor and model of the intended HIGH EXPANSION FOAM GENERATORS? (this is asked because the foam generators are understood to be intended to be ‘trench mounted’) Answer 38: This is an Air Force Base project that does NOT use low expansion foam grate nozzles.

Question 39: Regarding specification 21 13 25.00 10, section 3.6 TRAINING, is it required by the Project that such training be accomplished by the Fire Protection Engineer? Is it intended that such training be accomplished by the fire protection sub-contractor?

Answer 39: Training is not required to be conducted by the FPE.

Question 40: Regarding specification 21 13 25.00 10, page 16 of the document presenting Preliminary & Final Hangar Fire Suppression/Detection Acceptance Testing (PAT & FAT), does the Fire Protection Engineer have any responsibilities beyond “witnessing and/or review of testing/reports as outlined in this section.”?

Answer 40: Yes, see specification 21 13 13.00 10 section 1.4.1, 28 31 76 section 1.7.1.1, 21 30 00 section 1.7.1, 21 13 25.00 10 section 1.5.1, 01 45 00.00 20 section 1.5.7 and multiple references to UFC 3-600-01 leading to 1-7

Question 41: Regarding specification 21 30 00 FIRE PUMPS, section 3.9.1 Field Training, is it required by the Project that such training be accomplished by the Fire Protection Engineer? Is it intended that such training be accomplished by the fire protection sub-contractor and/or fire pump manufacturer’s representative?

Answer 41: Training is not required to be conducted by the FPE.

Question 42: Regarding specification 28 31 76 INTERIOR FIRE ALARM AND MASS NOTIFICATION SYSTEM, section 2.5.5 Installation-Wide Control, does TAFB currently have an installation-wide control system for mass notification?

Answer 42: Yes, through the Monaco

Question 43: Regarding specification 28 31 76, section 2.11 CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS, this section simply describes surface-mounted detectors having a UL Listing, but does not provide any other information.

Where are carbon monoxide detectors required, and at what spacing?

Answer 43: See FA101. FA 102, FA103 and UFC 3-600-01 9-19.

Question 44: Generally regarding specification 28 31 76, two system components are clearly specified, the Det- Tronics X3301 (Hangar Mode) Multispectrum IR Flame Detector, and the Det-Tronics Eagle Quantum Premier Fire Detection/Releasing System (see section 2.15). Is there a preference for other Interior Fire Alarm and Mass Notification System components?

Answer 44: Unless otherwise specified the systems shall meet the design and specifications.

Question 45: Regarding specification 28 31 76, section 3.5.2 Testing Procedures, this section describes a project requirement, in part, to “Submit detailed test procedures, prepared and signed by a registered professional engineer for the fire detection and alarm system 60 days prior to performing system tests. …” Is this ‘registered professional engineer’ required to be the same person as the “Registered Fire Protection Engineer” required by specification 01 45 00.00 20 QUALITY CONTROL, section 1.5.7?

Answer 45: Yes. See also specification 21 13 13.00 10 section 1.4.1, 28 31 76 section 1.7.1.1, 21 30 00 section 1.7.1, 21 13 25.00 10 section 1.5.1, 01 45 00.00 20 section 1.5.7 and multiple references to UFC 3-600-01 leading to 1-7

Question 46: ELECTRICAL, PRICING SCHEDULE-Optional price A - Please confirm that this price is to include just the cord reals and cables and the converters are in the base price.

Answer 46: That is correct per the description of the bid option

Question 47: ELECTRICAL, PRICING SCHEDULE-Item 4 -Connection Fee $103,960 Is this "connection fee" to cover ALL costs associated with the utility company scope of work as detailed on drawing ED101 notes 2 and 3?

Contact shown on drawing, Barbara Ely, will need several weeks to complete her estimate. If the $103,960 fee does not include ALL utility provided services how are we to proceed?

Answer 47: The contractor shall contact CLP for all associated cost that is indicated to be part of CLP scope.

Question 48: ELECTRICAL, ED104-Note 3F CLP to provide demolition of existing street lighting and conductors. Are the light fixtures indicated by key note 5 part of CLPs scope?

Answer 48: No, light fixture indicated with Keyed Note 5 shall be removed by the contractor.

Question 49: FALL PROTECTION, SPEC 11 01 50, S-140-143, S-545, S-546-Specification section 11 01 50 Rigid Rail Fall Protection Systems calls for the contractor to design, furnish and install enclosed track rigid rail fall arrest systems. However, the complete systems including layout, member sizes and connection details are shown on drawings S-140-143 and S-545 & S546. Please confirm that the scope for the fall protection contractor is limited to furnishing and installing the required fall arrest trolleys, self-retracting lifelines and taglines as well as performing the user training and the operational test as indicated in the above referenced specification.

Answer 49: Confirmed, scope is limited to furnishing and installing the required fall arrest trolleys, self retracting lifelines/taglines, user training and operational test.

Question 50: DEMO, SITE VISIT-Several demolition subcontractors are requesting an additional site visit. Can one be scheduled?

Answer 50: No, additional site visit is not feasible at this time

Question 51: DEMO, EXISTING BLDGS-Are there any drawings of the existing buildings that are to be demolished?

Answer 51: all available drawings have been provided

Question 52: FF&E, I-110, I-111-The equipment schedules on drawings I110 and I111 show items that the contractor is responsible to "move" and "install", please clarify where the contractor will receive the items that are to be moved.

Answer 52: Items to be moved are currently located in other buildings in Travis AFB and will need to be moved/installed into new 3-Bay hangar facility. Coordinate with base representative.

Question 53: PRICING SCHEDULE, SPEC VOLUME 1 AND AMENDMENT 2-The pricing schedule in volume 1 of the specs lists Option D-Furnishings, the Excel pricing schedule shows Option D-NOT USED and includes an allowance for a FF&E package. Please clarify if Option D-Furnishings is to be priced and what items are part of option D and what items are part of the FF&E package.

Answer 53: Refer to the updated Offeror Sheet in Amendment 0002. Option D is not used.

Question 54: STRUCTRUAL STEEL, 1.3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-In spec section 1.3.1 General Requirements - It states that all steel fabricators must be AISC Certified. Can this requirement be waved? Please advise.

Answer 54: This requirement cannot be waived.

Question 55: FF&E, I-112,113,114-Items shown half toned and dashed are GFGI, please clarify what the significance is of furniture and equipment items shown half toned but not dashed on these pages Answer 55: Items showed half-toned with an equipment code are GFGI as well.

Question 56: PAINTING, A-701-Sheet A-701 Remark #2 states: "Provide epoxy paint for all painted surfaces".

However, in the "Remarks"\ column of the schedule, no rooms have a 2 in them. Please advise if epoxy paint is to be used, and in which rooms/surfaces.

Answer 56: AMENDED DRAWINGS WILL BE PROVIDED TO CLARIFY. GYPSUM SURFACES IN HANGAR AND RESTROOMS TO BE EPOXY PAINTED (see attachment 7 titled A-701)

Question 57: PAINTING, A-410-Sheet A-410 calls for the handrails on the catwalk platform to be painted (Keynote 3.1). Please advise if the entire catwalk system (caged ladder, stairs, and platform) is to be painted or just the handrails.

Answer 57: All railings and exposed steel are painted. Caged ladders and gratings are galvanized.

Question 58: FIRE PROTECTION, 211325-Please confirm sizing of surge tanks for the fire protection water can be sized in accordance with UFC 4-211-01?

Answer 58: Confirmed

Question 59: SITE UTILITY, CU510-Please provide specifications for tank indicated on CU510.

Answer 59: See Notes 2, 3 and 6 on CU510

Question 60: SITE UTILITY, CU510-Dwg 510, detail A2 shows a 40' long tank with 8' diameter. This size tank is approximately 15,000 gallons. However, note 6 requires 15,000-gal capacity below the pipe invert (which is only 3' above the tank floor, which would require a much larger tank. Please verify that the total capacity of the tank is 15,000 gal or provide the dimensions of the tank to satisfy note #6.

Answer 60: Invert refers to invert into the side of the tank of 51.75 as indicated on Profile CU206, not invert at bottom of turned down pipe. Total volume as noted of 15,000 gallons

Question 61: SITE UTILITY, CU510-There is no diverter valve for the industrial waste piping which feeds the containment tank on CU106. We assume that all waste discharge (both general cleaning water and also fire protection foam) from the trench drains inside the hangar will be captured by the containment tank. Please clarify.

Answer 61: This is correct.

Question 62: CONTRACT, SOLICITATION-The liquidated damages for this contract are $51,500/day. These damages seem much higher than we typically see on projects of similar mission critical importance. The Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 11 establishes regulation for implementation of liquidated damages under “Policy” and calculating the value under “Procedures”. This subpart states that “liquidated damages are used to compensate the Government for probable damages and must be a reasonable forecast of just compensation for the harm that is caused by late delivery or untimely performance of a particular contract.” 11.502 states that the liquidated damages rate “should include the estimated daily cost of Government inspection and superintendence as well as other expected expenses associated with delayed completion such as renting substitute property.” A hangar similar to this project was contracted at McConnell Air Force Base within the past few years and its procurement fell under the same acquisition regulation, but with $7,320/day in liquidated damages. This is a large disparity between the estimated liquidated damage amounts given both of these facilities will serve the same purpose. Will the Government consider reducing the liquidated damages to a calculated value much closer to values experienced on almost identical projects?

Answer 62: No

Question 63: CONTRACT, SOLICITATION-Given the current value of liquidated damages of $51,500/day, many small businesses will be extremely hesitant to propose on this work. This may make it near impossible for the Contractor to meet the small business goals (66.94%) established in this RFP. Will the Government considering lowering the liquidated damages to help attract more small businesses to propose on the project? If the Government will not lower the amount of liquidated damages will consideration be given to lowering the already lofty small business goals in order to make them realistically achievable?

Answer 63: No

Question 64: We have submitted multiple RFI’s which are still pending response by the Government. We cannot determine if we are eligible to submit until those RFI’s are responded to. We hereby request an extension of a minimum of 3 weeks from the date on which the RFI responses are provided.

Answer 64: See Amendment 0004.

Question 65: EARTHWORK, SOLICITATION-Please provide a full geotechnical report with soil testing results.

Answer 65: See attachment 4 (FOR REFERENCE ONLY).

Question 66: FF&E, I-110, I-111-An FF&E package attachment is referenced throughout bid docs and drawings, is there a separate attachment?

Answer 66: See revised Specs 01 30 01.00 20 (attachment 8) and FF&E list 01 30 01.00 20 (attachment 9).

Question 67: FENCING, DETAIL B1/CS507 -Spec and drawings conflict. The existing crash gate is by Ameristar with impasse gauntlet style pales on it. In the written specs 323113 2.3 vehicle gate is calling for 1” square pickets.

Detail B1/CS507 is calling to match pickets on existing fence.

Answer 67: Match existing per the drawings

Question 68: FLOORING, A701, A707, & A708-The finish schedule calls out Rooms 511 and 624 to be RF-1.

The finish plans show these rooms to be blank (similar to sealed concrete). Which floor finish should go in these rooms?

Answer 68: Room 511 to be RF-1, per finish schedule, 624 CF, per finish schedule.

Question 69: EXTERIOR COATING OF STEEL STRUCTURES, 09 97 13.27-It seems that all structural steel not visible from the exterior and the enclosure of the hangar comes pre-finished. Please advise if Spec Section 09 97

13.27 - Exterior Coating of Steel Structures is to be used on this project.

Answer 69: Confirmed, Spec Section 09 97 13.27 - Exterior Coating of Steel Structures is to be used on this project.

Question 70: CONCRETE SEALER / HARDENER, 03 30 00-Please confirm if 3 coats of the concrete hardener are necessary as stated in Spec Section 033000, subsection 3.10.1.6.

Answer 70: Confirmed, provide 3 coats of concrete hardener per the spec section 033000, subsection 3.10.1.6

Question 71: BLAST-RATED DOORS, 08 11 13-Spec Section 08 11 13 refers to blast-rated openings and mentions a standoff distance. However, no standoff distance can be found on the drawings. Please advise.

Answer 71: Standoff distance is shown on the Civil drawings and blast rated openings are required.

Question 72: EPP, 014500-9-The specifications mention that an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) will be reviewed at the Pre-Construction meeting but there is no spec section for the EPP or Environmental Management Plan (EMP). Will one be required on this project?

Answer 72: Yes, an EPP or Environmental Management Plan (EMP) will be required.

Attachments: (1) A-706

(2) A-707

(3) A-708

(4) Geotechnical Boring Plan

(5) A-502

(6) A-544

(7) A-701

(8) Revised Specs 01 30 01.00 20

(9) FF&E list 01 30 01.00 20

Note:

1. The offeror must acknowledge receipt of all amendments on the offer schedule.

2. All other paragraphs, provisions, and conditions to this solicitation remain unchanged.

(End of Summary of Changes)