Notice No. 1.pdf
PDF 22 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FY18 MCON P-877 MOKAPU GATE ENTRY CONTROL AT/FP COMPLIANCE MARINE CORPS BASE HAWAII, KANEOHE BAY, HAWAII
- Solicitation number
- N62742-20-R-1304
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for construction services at Marine Corps Base Hawaii. The solicitation seeks proposals to construct an entry control point with facilities including an over watch tower, generator and toilet buildings, gate houses, and a privately owned vehicle inspection canopy. Anticipated value is between $10-25 million with a 450 calendar day period of performance. Technical factors to be evaluated are experience on similar $10 million or greater projects, past performance, and safety. The pre-proposal questions and answers provide clarification on drawings, submission requirements, and specifications.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Notice No. 3.pdf | ||
| Notice No. 2.pdf | ||
| Site Visit Sign In.pdf | ||
| N6274220R1304 Amd No. 0001.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND, PACIFIC
258 MAKALAPA DR., STE. 100
PEARL HARBOR, HI 96860-3134
Notice No. 1 18 June 2020
PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
RFP N62742-20-R-1304
FY18 P-877 MOKAPU GATE ENTRY CONTROL AT/FP COMPLIANCE MARINE COPRS
BASE HAWAII, KANEOHE BAY, HAWAII
NOTE: The following questions and answers are provided for INFORMATION ONLY. The RFP remains unchanged unless it is amended in writing on a Standard Form 30.
1. Review of the contract drawings reveal a discrepancy on the ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN(s). Pages E-109, Site plan 5 through E-110, site plan 8. Pages appear to be missing and match lines are incorrect. Please provide revised drawings with accurate match lines.
ANSWER: Pages are not missing. Match lines have been revised per Amendment No. 0001.
2. Is PREAWARD SURVEY/RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION required to be submitted with proposals?
ANSWER: Yes, it is required pursuant to Section 1.1 of the Document 00100.
3. For Factor 1 Experience requires projects with approximately $10M or more in dollar value. We have many relevant projects greater than $5M but none greater than $10M. Since the procurement is a total small business set-aside, can the requirement be reduced to $5M or more in dollar value? This will allow more small business to submit competitive proposals.
ANSWER: See Amendment No. 0002.
4. The last page of the RFP, page 77, states that there is an attached “State of Hawaii General Wage…” document. We do not see such document attached.
ANSWER: See Amendment No. 0001.
5. In reviewing the bid, it is an apparent that the structure as designed and specified in Sheet S-111 may be suitable for the loads but is not in accordance with accepted design practices for tensioned fabric designs for structures of this size. For example, where ever fabric comes in contact with steel, the profile of choice is always round. Sharp edges on square tubes, especially I-Beams will lead to early wear and tear and ultimate failure of the fabric. Also, for this type structure, the rafters are normally bent. Bent tubes will allow the tensioning of the fabrics into an anti-clastic state. Samples of anti-clastic fabric structures can be seen at:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Anticlastic+fabric+structures&sxsrf=ALeKk02CI5cTJ9MR5l PIc6lL2G1jR9Tc4g:1592004258548&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtxb6Ctv 3pAhW1IDQIHdIPDdQQ_AUoAXoECBEQAw&biw=1529&bih=513&dpr=2.25
ANSWER: Response deferred.
6. I got an email from a supplier stating that they will need the Buy American Act FAR clause by this week to bid this project (it takes their vendors 2 weeks to quote the project).
Would you be able to get the BAA FAR clause?
ANSWER: Document 00100 incorporates FAR 52.225-12 Notice of Buy American Requirement
– Construction Materials Under Trade Agreements (May 2014). Document 00700 incorporates FAR 52.225-11 Buy American – Construction Materials Under Trade Agreements (Oct 2019).
7. Section 1.2 Instructions for obtaining the request for proposal notes:
“For proposal preparation purposes only, the Contracting Officer approves the release of the RFP drawings and specifications to subcontractors who have the need-to-know. The NAVFAC drawings are marked “Unclassified//For Official Use Only”, therefore, the NAVFAC drawings are considered “covered defense information.”
Please advise if we are able to share the RFP with our subs via a secured link.
ANSWER: Yes, pursuant to Section 1.2 of the Document 00100, RFP drawings and specifications can be transmitted to subcontractors on a need to know basis for proposal preparation purposes.
8. Spec 08 71 00. Please advise when a hardware schedule will be issued. Spec section 087100 does not include one although hardware group numbers are assigned on the door schedule.
ANSWER: Response deferred.
9. Asbestos and Lead Paint Survey. Provide the "Final Report, Asbestos and Lead Paint Survey, FY18 MCON Project P-877 Mokapu Gate Entry Control AT/FP Compliance, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii" dated September 2019". The specifications note that the report is appended at the end, the report cannot be found at the end.
ANSWER: Response deferred.
10. Provide Geotechnical Report.
11. Provide Rebar specification.
ANSWER: Response deferred.
12. S-101. Concrete footing called to be 36”, but on detail A1/S-501 same footing is called to be 4’-0”. Please clarify.
ANSWER: Response deferred.
13. S-101. Wing walls from Barrier wall have no details on footing and wall width and their reinforcing. Please provide information.
ANSWER: Response deferred.
14. S-501. Detail C1 beam height shown to be 2’-4”. Architectural drawings C4/A-305 shows 3’-2” Please clarify.
ANSWER: Response deferred.
15. S-505. Please provide connection details between columns and Footing, walls and Beams.
ANSWER: Response deferred.
16. S-506. Detail A1 beam height shown to be 1’-1”. Architectural drawings C4/A-305 shows 3’-1” Please clarify.
ANSWER: Response deferred.
17. S-104. Floor plan, footing is shown to be 16”, detail C1/S-506 shows to be 2’-0”. Please clarify.
ANSWER: Response deferred.
18. CS-402. Please provide section details for vehicle barrier “A” & “B”. No concrete profile of reinforcement provided.
ANSWER: Response deferred.
19. S-107. Concrete footing called to be 36”, but on detail A1/S-503 same footing is called to be 4’-0”. Please clarify.
20. S-503. Where are details A2 and C4 referenced? Floor plan details for the Gate control House at the Entry Control Point are referencing some details from the Gate control House at the Perimeter Gate.
ANSWER: Response deferred.
21. Drawing S 101 is shown 36” width footing. However, it indicates 48” width footing on A1 / S-501. Please confirm which size is applicable.
ANSWER: Response deferred.
22. Mat foundation is 16 “thickness on drawing S 104. However, it is shown by 24” depth on drawing C3 / S 506. Please confirm depth of foundation.
23. Drawing S 104 omitted grid line. Please provide grid line to match drawing A 206.
24. Concrete beam (8” x 18”) is indicated on drawing S 104. All dimension should be referred by A1 / S506. However, it seems concrete wall (36" over high) in terms of drawing A
206. Please advise.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .