20R1313-Note5.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND, PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DR., STE. 100

PEARL HARBOR, HI 96860-3134

Notice No. 5

9 October 2020

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

RFP N62742-20-R-1313

FY20 MCAF P-9021/PAF189021 APSI – AIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT, PHASE 1 AND FY20

MCAF P-9022/PAF189022 APSI – PARKING APRON, TINIAN INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT, TINIAN, CNMI

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.

74. P9021 Drawings, A1 / CP500. Detail A1 on Sheet CP500 shows details for signs and Signposts. However, the signs R1-2, R6-1L, ER1-2 and W1-5R, do not appear to be used on this project. Please confirm theses signs are not required for Base Bid Item 0001AA P-9021 or provide corrected drawings with the locations of these signs.

ANSWER: Correct. The R1-2, ER1-2 and W1-5R signs are not included on this project. R6-1L is used. Please see sheet CP105. CP500 is updated in Amendment No. 0007 to reflect the signs used on this project.

75. P9021 Drawings, C1/CP104 & A1/CP500. On the P9021 drawings, sheet CP104 detail C1, Keynote 261 the Contractor is instructed to provide a “Warning Curve Sign W1-2, RE:

XX/CP500.”

1) The detail reference “XX” does not exist on CP500. Please confirm this keynote is referring to detail A1 on CP500.

No sign “W1-2” is shown in detail A1 on CP500. Please provide the sign detail for sign “Warning Curve Sign W1-2.”

ANSWER: A1/CP500 is revised with this sign added. CP104 is also updated to reference A1/CP500. Please refer to the drawings in Amendment No. 0007.

76. P9021 Drawing Page CD-100. In reference to the Drawing CD-100, Will the Government please specify sizes and height range of trees to be removed? This is necessary to determine the correct equipment and level of effort required to complete the clearing and grubbing.

ANSWER: A note has been added to CD100 to provide guidance on what trees were observed.

Please refer to the drawings in Amendment No. 0007.

77. Specs 31 11 00, 3.2. In reference to Specs Section 31 11 00 para. 3.2, the Contractor is instructed to trim dead branches, trim all branches to heights as directed, and paint the cuts with tree-wound paint. However, designation of the tress which are to remain was provided. In order to accurately price this scope of work, the Contractor needs to know the which trees are to remain. Please clarify which trees will require trimming tree-wound painting as specified in this paragraph.

ANSWER: Contractor shall disregard this paragraph and bid full tree removal in the areas indicated. At this time, no trees have been designated to remain within the clearing limits. A revised specification will be provided in a future response.

78. Specs 31 11 00, 3.6.2. In the specifications Section 31 11 00, Par. 3.6.2, Sentence 2, indicates that grubbed material shall be disposed in the designated waste disposal area, however, no designated tree/stump/wood disposal area is indicated on the drawings.

1) Please confirm it is the Contractor’s responsibility to locate a suitable disposal location and that a disposal location will not be provided by the Government.

If a tree/stump/wood disposal will be provided by the Government, please indicate the location on a drawing or provide the distance from the project site.

ANSWER: It is the Contractor’s responsibility to locate a suitable disposal location.

79. P9021: GC500/CS119-CS122, B4/GC500 & C1/CS119-CS122. In detail B4/GC500 the length of the rock check dams in meters is defined as 4.5 x drainage area is hectares. However, in detail C1 on CS119 through CS122, the drainage area managed by the check dams is not defined or identified. Given this is a design-bid-build project, the DOR’s design should include the planned drainage area. In order to allow the Contractor to accurately price the rock check dam in accordance with the Government expectations, will the Government’s please have the Designer of Record identify their intended drainage area that will be controlled by the rock check dams?

2) When the project is awarded, the successful contractor will be required to produce a submittal for Storm Water Control in which the drainage area will need to be defined. If the area is defined now during the bid stage it will eliminate confusion project performance.

3) Additionally, please advise if any storm water management ponds or sequencing are required for this design-bid-build project? The Contract Documents do not show any type of storm water management pond for use during construction.

ANSWER: The rock check dams have been sized and are represented to scale on the grading plans. Please disregard the detail length and install the rock checks based on the grading contours. The CNMI is the governing body for stormwater control. Their notes, which provide guidance to their expectations, is included on GC100. Submittal of a Storm Water Control report which defines the project watersheds is not required. If the Contractor elects to use a sediment basin as a control measure, the Contractor must provide the basis for sizing the basin, which should be based on the drainage area created by the Contractor’s work area. This can be documented in the SWPPP. Please refer to revised GC500 within Amendment No. 0007, which updates detail B4 to refer to the grading plan for the width of the rock check dams.

80. 20R1313_P9021Dwgs, CU101/Detail B1. In Drawing CU101, water line profile, WL- 01, it is noted that the 100 mm PVC pipe is to be connected to existing 100 mm stub and 1- 200mm connection with PIV, Will the government please confirm that the Post Indicator valve (PIV) is existing and not part of new scope of work?

ANSWER: The PIV is new and included with this scope of work. Install using detail A1/CU101 included in the Amendment No. 0007 drawings.

81. 20R1313_P9022Dwgs, CU201/Detail C1, CU101/Area 1 Plan. In Drawing CU201, water line profile, WL-1, it is listed to use a 90-degree bend 400mm x 150 mm whereas in Drawing CU-101, it is listed to use 90 degree bend 300mm x 150mm. Will the government please confirm that 400 mm x 150 mm is a typo error and the Contractor is to provide a 300 mm x 150 mm 90 degree bend?

ANSWER: Correct. The 400mm is a typo and the fitting is 300mm x 150mm. Please find within Amendment No. 0007 the revised CU201.

82. 20R1313_P9022Dwgs, CU202/General Notes. In Drawing CU202, utility plan general note D, it is listed that “vertical tiedowns are required at all vertical bends.” Will the government please provide details and specs of the required vertical tiedowns?

ANSWER: Please find within Amendment No. 0007 the revised CU500 with the vertical tiedown detail.

83. P9021/P9022, Drawing CD-101. In reference to the Drawing CD-101, will the Government please provide construction as-builts of existing pavement to be removed? Will the Government please describe the material thickness of existing Gravel road and asphalt pavement?

ANSWER: Existing pavement thickness can be interpolated from the boring logs.

84. 20R1313_Specs_PARTB_Vol2of3 & 20R1313_Specs_PARTC_Vol3of3, Section 32 92

19. In reference to Specs Section 32 92 19 Seeding, will the Government please indicate on plans the limits and area of seeding work?

ANSWER: Contractor must seed all disturbed areas. Please refer to the overall grading plans for both projects. Disturbance may also occur in Contractor laydown areas and must be included in the limits of seeding.

85. 20R1313_Specs_PARTB_Vol2of3 & 20R1313_Specs_PARTC_Vol3of3, Section 32 05

33. In reference to Specs Section 32 05 33 Landscape Establishment, will the Government please indicate on plans the limits and area of landscaping work?

ANSWER: Landscape work is limited to seeding. Contractor must seed all disturbed areas.

Please refer to the overall grading plans for both projects. Disturbance may also occur in Contractor laydown areas and must be included in the limits of seeding.

86. 20R1313_P9021Dwgs, C-001, General Note P. In drawings for P9021, sheet C-001, General Note P, the Contractor is instructed to provide a “AIRFIELD CERTIFIED SAFETY

REPRESENTATIVE TO WALK THE SITE WITH THE AOA AT 0600.”

1) Will the Government please confirm that these this 0600 site walk will occur every work day only, and will not be required on weekends, holidays, or other non-work days?

Will the Government please confirm the requirement for the Contractor certified safety Representative to participate in the 0600 site walk will begin at the start of on-site construction, and will ne be required before site work begins?

ANSWER: The site walk is intended to occur after a day of construction to ensure the AOA is free of foreign object debris and penetrations into imaginary surfaces or clear of safety areas.

This shall be performed after a day of construction. Example, construction occurs Friday and walk through occurs on Saturday morning prior to normal operations. The Contractor may work with Airport and perform an inspection Friday night after all construction has ceased and equipment is returned to appropriate areas. This would allow the Contractor to not perform a walk through on Saturday or Sunday.

The Contractor Certified Safety Representative should be a competent person who understands the airfield environment, aviation communications, and has documented experience working construction within the AOA on a military or commercial installation serving jet aircraft. The Safety Representative shall have the authority to halt construction if a safety concern warranting the same arises.

87. 20R1313_P9021Dwgs, CS119,CS120, CS121, CS122, Key Notes: 220 & 222. In the drawings for P9021, sheet numbers CS119, CS120, CS121, & CS122 the site plan for the new 8th avenue is provided. On Sheet CS119, at STA 0+165 there is Keynote 220 indicating the road shall be constructed per A1/CS500. However, at STA 0+185 Keynote 222 is indicating the road shall be constructed per B4/CS500. In addition, the drawing legend provides the specified drawing hashing to indicate a Gravel Road per A1/CS500 and at STA 0+165 where Keynote 220 indicates the road shall be Gravel Road, the drawing does not match the legend.

A similar problem exists on sheet CS121 and CS122 where the legend does not match the drawing and keynotes.

On sheet CS122, STA 0+720 & STA 0+730, two different road types are indicated.

As currently shown, the Contractor is unclear on which detail will be used to construct 8th avenue. Will the Government please provide clarification on the limits of construction on CS119-CS122 for where details A1/CS500 and B4/CS500 will be used?

ANSWER: 8th Avenue alignment on CS119 through CS122 is gravel pavement per detail A1/CS500. The cross section for 8th Avenue is represented in B4/CS500, which provides the cross slopes for the crown road, the 1.2m shoulder, and the slopes into the roadside swales. The cross section in B4/CS500 is applicable along the entire 8th Avenue alignment (CS119-CS122).

88. 20R1313_P9021Dwgs, CS119,CS120, CS121, CS122, Key Notes: 220 & 222. In the drawings for P9021, sheet numbers CS119, CS120, CS121, the site plan for the new 8th avenue is provided.

Based on the drawings, 8th avenue will be constructed of Gravel Road per detail A1/CS500 starting at STA 0+210 and ending at STA 0+435. The remainder of 8th avenue work will be constructed of gravel pavement per B4/CS500.

Will the Government please confirm the design intent is to construct 8th avenue of the two different materials and details?

ANSWER: 8th Avenue alignment on CS119 through CS122 is gravel pavement per detail A1/CS500. The cross section for 8th Avenue is represented in B4/CS500, which provides the cross slopes for the crown road, the 1.2m shoulder, and the slopes into the roadside swales. The cross section in B4/CS500 is applicable along the entire 8th Avenue alignment (CS119-CS122).

89. 20R1313_P9021Dwgs, CS500 Detail B4. In the drawings for P9021, sheet number CS500, detail A1 clearly shows that the Gravel Pavement shall be constructed using aggregate complying with 32 15 00 Aggregate Surfacing. However, Detail B4 on CS500 does not indicate the specification and gradation requirements for the gravel access road.

Will the Government please clarify the specification requirements for material type, gradation, etc. that the gravel access road B4/CS500 must comply with?

ANSWER: The cross section for 8th Avenue is represented in B4/CS500, which provides the cross slopes for the crown road, the 1.2m shoulder, and the slopes into the roadside swales. The cross section in B4/CS500 is applicable along the entire 8th Avenue alignment (CS119-CS122). The pavement section for the gravel pavement is A1/CS500 and is applicable for the entire alignment of 8th Avenue (CS119-CS122).

90. 20R1212_SPECS_PARTB_Vol2of3, 31 23 00.00 20, paragraph 3.12. In the project specifications, section 01 57 19, page 19, paragraph 3.1 it is stated that, “Construction should be scheduled to minimize soil exposure in the rainy season (1 July-30 November) and during periods of coral spawning.”

Given that P9021 is almost exclusively an earth work project, minimizing soil exposure during the rainy season will effectively stop the project. This requirement will have a significant impact on the project schedule and project cost.

Given the instruction says the Contractor “Should” minimize soil exposure during the rainy season, it appears the Contractor is encouraged, but NOT required to halt or reduce earthwork during the rainy season.

During the performance of this contract, will the Contractor be required to stop earthwork during the rainy season?

ANSWER: The work stoppage requirement for corals is referenced as mitigation in the Final Divert Environmental Impact Statement and was referenced in the Essential Fish Habitat consultation and informal Section 7 consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Thus, the contractor would need to follow the work stoppage requirements.

91. 20R1212_SPECS_PARTB_Vol2of3, 31 23 00.00 20, paragraph 3.12. In the project specifications, section 01 57 19, page 19, paragraph 3.1 it is stated that, “The 2014 CNMI Water Quality Standards note that to avoid coral spawning, a stoppage period starting around the June or July full moon (to be determined by the Bureau of Environmental and Coastal Quality), may be required. The stoppage period, if determined to be applicable, shall be no less than twenty-one calendar days.”

The work stoppage during coral spawning indicates the minimum stoppage time, however no maximum stoppage time was provided. In order for the Contractor to effectively plan and price this project, the maximum stoppage time for coral spawning needs to be established.

Will the Government please provide the maximum stoppage time for coral spawning that should be assumed for this Contract?

The response to this RFI may offer critical impact to contract execution and force a demobilization of the Contractor for a minimum of 21 days or the maximum duration (tbd and per this RFI response). In order to ensure all bidders are clear on what to include in the bid, please confirm NAVFAC intends to provide clear direction on any work stoppage as requested by BECQ and that compensation for both time and cost reimbursement will be approved for this potential differing site condition.

ANSWER: The maximum stoppage time will be determined when obtaining permits from

CNMI BECQ.

92. 20R1313_P9021Dwgs, CG503. In the P9021 drawings, sheet CG503, the details for Storm Drain 3 (SD03) are provided.

In the SD03 profile, keynote 409 specifies the Outfall structure shall be as shown on CG503 details C1, C2 & C3. However, in Detail C2/CG503, there is a callout identifying the outfall structure as a “Storm Manhole A1/CG500.” Additionally, in detail C4/CG503, there is a callout identifying the outfall structure as a, “Catch Basin B4/CG500.”

As a result, CG503 identifies three (3) different details for the one (1) outfall structure.

Will the Government please clarify which details shall be used for the Outfall Structure?

ANSWER: Contractor may provide an outfall structure comprised of a catch basin using detail B4/CG500. Please find within Amendment No. 0007 the revised CG503 removing the reference to the storm manhole. The Contractor may also use the cast in place design included in P9022 for the catch basin in P9021. One of these details must be used for this structure.

93. 20R1313_P9021Dwgs, CG503. In the P9021 drawings, sheet CG503, the section details for the outfall structure are provided. However, the details appear to be conceptual only. No dimensions, wall thickness, rebar requirements, etc. are provided.

Will the Government please provide the additional design details for the outfall structure shown on CG503?

ANSWER: As noted in detail B4, the design is assumed to be precast where the Contractor is responsible for the design of the structure. Design loading is also provided, which is dependent on the structure location. The Contractor may use the cast in place design included in P9022 for the catch basin in P9021.

94. 20R1313_P9021Dwgs & 20R1313_P9022Dwgs, B4/CG500. IN the P9021 drawings sheet CG500, detail B4 a conceptual drawing for the Catch Basin is provided with note 1, instructing the contractor to provide the design of the catch basin. However, in the P9022 drawings sheet CG500, detail B4 a design for the catch basin is provided by the Government.

Will the Government please conform that the design for the catch basin from P9022 can be used for P9021 work?

ANSWER: Concur. The Contractor may use the cast in place design included in P9022 for the catch basin in P9021.

95. 20R1313_P9022Dwgs & 20R1313_P9022Dwgs, S-002, Foundation Notes X. and Y. On the drawings for P9021 and P9022, sheet S-002, foundation notes X and Y, the contractor is required to perform foundation probing to detect any significant size cavities.

Given the limited size of the structural scope of work for P9021 and P9022, and the high cost for performing this work on remote islands, will the Government remove the requirement to perform soil probing?

ANSWER: The Contractor shall bid the plans as shown.

96. 20R1313_P9022Dwgs, D-802. In the P9021 drawings, sheet D-802, there are two (2) tables for instrument list and the input/output list. However, the title for these two table is P- 9010 Well No. 2.

Please confirm the title P-9010 is an error, and that the data provided in these two tables is correct and applicable to P-9021.

ANSWER: Concur. The data included is related to the P9021 project and the well included within the plans. Please find within Amendment No. 0007 the revised D-802.

97. 20R1313_P9021Dwgs & 20R1313_Specs_PARTB_Vol2of3, C4/CG501 & Paragraph

2.1.6. For P9021, will the Government please confirm the Gravel Backfill specified in C4/CG501 is required to comply with paragraph 2.1.6 of section 31 23 00.00 20.

ANSWER: Concur. Refer to specification 31 23 00.00 20 section 2.1.6 for material to backfill the trench shown in detail C4/CG501.

98. 20R1313_P9021Dwgs, CD100. Tree clearing is identified to be the hashed markings on CD100. From other overall site plans and limits of new work, including fence lines at North end of project, it appears additional tree clearing will be required. Please confirm additional clearing will be required to address limits of work to the North of the project site as shown on CD100.

ANSWER: Concur. Please refer to the revised CD100, CD101, and CD102 within Amendment No. 0007.

99. 20R1313_P9021Dwgs, E-001. Please reference sheet E-001, General Note B which indicates that Electrical Drawings are diagrammatic and may not show all details and components. This is traditional for final tie-in locations, smaller connections or conduit pathways but not typical for ‘all components, materials, equipment for a complete and operable system within the intent indicated.’ Please confirm the existing documents offer a complete system as per design-bid-build customary standards as per AIA and NAVFAC standards.

ANSWER: The drawings indicate and schedule all major electrical mechanical, plumbing and fire protection equipment. They also show all exterior electrical equipment, ductbank /conduit routings, and descriptions of these items. The drawings do not show the conduit routing within the buildings (since this will require coordination with other trades), junction boxes, hangers, nuts, bolts, fittings, etc. All of these items are required for a complete installation. The drawings are per AIA, NAVFAC, NFPA, NESC, UFC, and IESNA standards.

100. 20R1313_P9021Dwgs, CG Series/CG201. Reference CG110: Please provide storm drainage profile for SD-03, structures 409 to 410 which appear to be missing from the Contract Documents.

ANSWER: Please refer to CG503 for the SD03 profile.

101. RFP. Please advise if NAVFAC has identified any CNMI or Tinian restrictions related to inadequate port facilities, lack of port stevedores, restricted channel entry to harbor or dock, use of small shipping vessels for entry into Tinian mandating multiple trips and multiple transshipping from Saipan to Tinian which may not be identified in the Contract Documents or available via public domain information.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

102. Volume 1 of Specifications, Munitions Response Explosives Safety Submission (MRESS), Section 01 57 19.03. Based on the information the Government has collected regarding MEC in the project area, what is maximum depth at which the contractor should assume MEC to be potentially present in “likely” areas?

ANSWER: The presence of MEC should be assumed and MEC clearance operations are required to construction depth or bedrock in likely areas.

103. Volume 1 of Specifications, Munitions Response Explosives Safety Submission (MRESS), Section 01 57 19.03. MRESS Annex A-01 references two documents in addition to the MRESS: Ref (b) Geotechnical Progress Reports from 2019 by Geo-Engineering & Testing, Inc. and Ref (c) Memo for CJRM. SUB: MEC Risk Decision on USAF APSI Tinian Divert Program (6 enclosures). Greeson, Joe L., OICC MCM. 13 Jan 2020. Please could the Government provide both of these references?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

104. Volume 1 of Specifications, Munitions Response Explosives Safety Submission (MRESS), Section 01 57 19.03. The MRESS requires UXO escort and anomaly avoidance to be conducted for “likely” areas, but the Special Conditions in Section 6.1.1, Part 5 clarify that “An escort is not required for site access of non-UXO qualified personnel who received the required annual 3R’s (Recognize, Retreat, and Report) UXO Awareness training and obtained written approval from the JRM ESO.” If contractor personnel receive 3R’s UXO Awareness training, would they be given written approval to work onsite without UXO Escort?

ANSWER: Written approval from JRM ESO is only given for certain circumstances. It is based off of the site conditions and SOW. In normal circumstances, a UXO escort is required for non- UXO qualified personnel.

105. Volume 1 of Specifications, Munitions Response Explosives Safety Submission (MRESS), Section 01 57 19.03. Based on the information the Government has collected regarding MEC in the project area, what is maximum depth at which the contractor should assume MEC to be potentially present in “likely” areas?

ANSWER: See response to Q102.

106. Volume 1 of Specifications, Munitions Response Explosives Safety Submission (MRESS), Section 01 57 19.03. MRESS Annex A-01 references two documents in addition to the MRESS: Ref (b) Geotechnical Progress Reports from 2019 by Geo-Engineering & Testing, Inc. and Ref (c) Memo for CJRM. SUB: MEC Risk Decision on USAF APSI Tinian Divert Program (6 enclosures). Greeson, Joe L., OICC MCM. 13 Jan 2020. Please could the Government provide both of these references?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

107. Volume 1 of Specifications, Munitions Response Explosives Safety Submission (MRESS), Section 01 57 19.03. The MRESS requires UXO escort and anomaly avoidance to be conducted for “likely” areas, but the Special Conditions in Section 6.1.1, Part 5 clarify that “An escort is not required for site access of non-UXO qualified personnel who received the required annual 3R’s (Recognize, Retreat, and Report) UXO Awareness training and obtained written approval from the JRM ESO.” If contractor personnel receive 3R’s UXO Awareness training, would they be given written approval to work onsite without UXO Escort?

ANSWER: See response to Q104.

108. Volume 1 of Specifications, Munitions Response Explosives Safety Submission (MRESS), Section 01 57 19.03. Some of the excavation required for this project extends over eight feet below ground surface (bgs). However, it is unlikely that munitions penetrated this deep into the ground. Can the Government confirm whether there is a maximum depth bgs to which MEC removal must be performed that is less than the required maximum excavation depths? Understanding reaching bedrock in many area’s will negate MEC removal needs but the documents are not clear of the depth of clearance efforts.

ANSWER: 6.1.4.2 in the MRESS states: Full Clearance Ahead of Construction requires the removal of all MEC/MPPEH equivalent to the approved TOI and larger, down to construction depth or bedrock. Unless an approved annex, waiver, or other document specifies otherwise for a project, MEC clearance operations should be used to construction depth or bedrock.

109. Contract Documents, DIV 01 / Contract Documents. Please provide the Geotechnical Reports and evaluations for the Tinian Project.

ANSWER: No Geotech information, other than information in specifications and drawings, will be issued.

110. 20R1313_P9021Dwgs, B-100, B-101, B-102. In the P9021 drawings, sheet B-100, the soil boring log locations are shown. Along 8th street, B-100 shows borings B2R-B6R were performed. However, the soil boring logs for B2R-B6R are not provided on B-101 or B-102.

Will the Government please provide the soil boring logs for B2R-B6R?

ANSWER: Please refer to the Amendment No. 0007 drawings with the logs provided.

111. 20R1313_P9022Dwgs, C3/CU500 & CS501. In the Drawings for P9022, sheet CU500 detail C3, shows a detail for carrier pipe. However, the site plans do not indicate where this detail shall apply. Will the Government please confirm detail C3 CU500 is not applicable to this project, or highlight where it shall be applied?

ANSWER: Please refer to drawings released with Amendment No. 0003, which revised the water crossing to an open cut installation. The carrier pipe detail no longer applies to the project.

112. 20R1313_P9022Dwgs, C3/CU500 & CS501. In the Drawings for P9022, sheet CU500 detail C3, it is specified that the airfield concrete above the carrier pipe shall be per D4/CS501.

However, sheet CS501 does not have detail D4. Will the Government please provide the missing detail D4/CS501

ANSWER: Please refer to drawings released with Amendment No. 0003, which revised the water crossing to an open cut installation. The carrier pipe detail no longer applies to the project.

113. 20R1313_P9021Dwgs, B-100, B-101, B-102. In the P9021 drawings, sheet B-100, the soil boring log locations are shown. Along 8th street, B-100 shows borings B2R-B6R were performed. However, the soil boring logs for B2R-B6R are not provided on B-101 or B-102.

Will the Government please provide the soil boring logs for B2R-B6R?

ANSWER: See response to Q110.

114. 20R1313_Specs_PARTA_Vol1of3, 01 57 19.03, Page 29, & Munitions Response Explosive Safety Submission (MRESS). In amendment 3, a revised section 01 57 19.03 was issued. On page 29 of 11 57 19.03, there is a note that MRESS February 2020 is deleted, and replaced with the new MRESS March 2020 Provided in amendment 3. As part of the MRESS February 2020 document, Annex A-01 was provided as Figure 3-1 to the Contractor, which specified the areas that are “Likely” and “Unlikely” for MEC items. Figure 3-1 is labeled February 2020, and a revised Figure 3-1 was NOT provided as part of the March 2020 MRESS.

1) Will the Government please confirm that Figure 3-1 (and supplemental reference images and information) from the February 2020 MRESS is still a contractual document?

If Figure 3-1 from the February 2020 MRESS has been deleted, will the Government please provided the March 2020 version of figure 3-1 (and supplemental reference images and information)?

ANSWER: The final and approved MRESS that came out in March is the guiding document.

Any approved annexes will further specify any change in categorization of likely or unlikely for certain areas. Annex A-01 was approved in May, figure 3-1 in the annex shows the map of likely and unlikely areas.

115. 20R1313_Specs_PARTA_Vol1of3, Section 01 57 19.03 & Munitions Response Explosive Safety Submission (MRESS). In the MRESS, the “likely” and “unlikely” areas for MEC are identified on figure 3-1. In section 6.1.3 or MRESS, the MEC procedures for Construction support specify that the MEC/MEPPEH team will be “On Call” during ground disturbances. This Paragraph further clarifies that in the event a MEC/MEPPEH is discovered in the “unlikely” area, work will be immediately stopped, and personnel will be relocated a safe distance away.

1) Once the earthwork personnel have been relocated a safe distance away from the suspected MEC/MPPEH, please confirm ground disturbance be allowed to proceed in areas a safe distance away from the suspected MEC/MPPEH?

2) What is the minimum required distance between the earthwork/ground disturbing crew and the potential MEC/MPPEH item that must be maintained to allow earthwork/ground disturbing work to continue while the MEC/MPPEH item is removed from the site?

Will ALL ground disturbance work within the area identified as “unlikely” on Figure 3-1 be required to stop until the MEC/MPPEH item is removed? This will cause delays in the project schedule and result in significant additional cost.

ANSWER: 1) If MEC/MPPEH is found in an unlikely area, no additional ground disturbing activities can continue in that area until a determination is made and approved by the government on a way forward.

2) All ground disturbance work within the “unlikely” area that the MEC/MPPEH is found will stop until a determination is made and approved by the government for the categorization and a way forward for that area.

116. 20R1313_Specs_PARTA_Vol1of3, Section 01 57 19.03 & Munitions Response Explosive Safety Submission (MRESS). In the MRESS, the “likely” and “unlikely” areas for MEC are identified on figure 3-1. In section 6.1.3 or MRESS, the MEC procedures for Construction support specify that the MEC/MEPPEH team will be “On Call” during ground disturbances. It is further clarified that in the event a MEC/MEPPEH is discovered in the “unlikely” area, work will be immediately stopped, and personnel will be relocated a safe distance away. Additionally, Item 6.1.3.4.d specifies that, “The discovery of MEC/MPPEH in an area designated unlikely requires immediate reassessment per section 1.3 of this document.”

However, in the RFP SF1442 note 1, page 3 of 4, the Contractor is instructed to base their pricing on the low and high likely hood designated in figure 3-1 of the Tinian ESS Annex A-01.

In the event an MEC/MPPEH is discovered within the designated unlikely area, and the area designation is changed from unlikely to likely from a reassessment, this will result is a significant cost and time increase for the Excavation and Earthwork. Given that CLIN item 0003 is specifically for the MEC/MPPEH team only, the cost for the earthwork/excavation crew to perform the work in the area revised from unlikely to likely are not covered by current contractual requirements.

Will the Government please confirm that in the event the area shown as “unlikely” on figure 3-1 of the MRESS is changed from “unlikely” to “likely” (based on a reassessment) that the added cost for the Earthwork crew to perform the excavation and grading will be owed to the Contractor as equitable adjustment?

ANSWER: Refer to FAR 52.236-2 Differing Site Conditions and DFARS 252.243-7002 Requests for Equitable Adjustment.

117. 20R1313_Specs_PARTA_Vol1of3, Section 01 57 19.03 & Munitions Response Explosive Safety Submission (MRESS). In the MRESS, the “likely” and “unlikely” areas for MEC are identified on figure 3-1. Additionally, Item 6.1.3.4.d specifies that, “The discovery of MEC/MPPEH in an area designated unlikely requires immediate reassessment per section 1.3 of this document.”

This is a very large area and changing the entire area from “unlikely” to “likely” will result is significant cost and time increases.

1) In the event one (1) MEC/MPPEH item is discovered within the area currently identified as “unlikely,” will the entire area be reclassified as “likely”?

2) Will the Government please provide the number of acres that should be assumed will change from unlikely to Likely via reassessment? This will clarify the scope of work and ensure all bidders are bidding to the same requirements.

ANSWER: The entire area that is designated as unlikely will be reassessed if any MEC/MPPEH is found in that area. A determination will be made about how all or part of the area will be reclassified but ground disturbing activity will stop in the entire area until a determination has been made.

118. 20R1313_Specs_PARTA_Vol1of3 & RFP SF1442, Section 01 57 19.03 Munitions Response Explosive Safety Submission (MRESS). In the MRESS, the “likely” and “unlikely” areas for MEC are identified on figure 3-1. In the RFP SF1442, page 4 of 4, item 2.b, the Contractor is informed that the intent of CLIN 0003 it to implement High Likelihood procedure in the area currently identified as low likelihood. Additionally, it is specified that the cost for CLIN 0003 is for the MEC/UXO crew and their incidental charges only.

However, CLIN 0003 does not address the delay cost that will be incurred while the earthwork crew is stopped due to the presence of a MEC/MPPEH in the unlikely area. CLIN 0003 also does not address the additional level of effort that will be required by the earthwork crew to perform the general excavation while the MEC item is removed.

1) Please confirm the added cost for delay time incurred by the earthwork crew during work stoppage due to MEC items discovered in the unlikely area will be considered a differing site condition for which equable adjustment will be owed.

Please confirm the additional cost for the increased level of effort to perform “full clearance ahead of construction” earthwork in lieu of “construction Support” In the area currently identified as unlikely on MRESS Figure 3-1 will be considered a differing site condition for which equable adjustment will be owed.

ANSWER: See response to Q116.

119. 20R1313-RFP, Document 00202; Part II; Section 2.2, Factor 3 – Management Plan (a).

Will the Government allow for the Management Plan page count to be increased to ten (10) single-sided pages, or five (5) double-sided pages? We respectfully request this to have sufficient space to adequately address the requirements of this section.

ANSWER: The page count limit for Factor 3 – Management Plan remains unchanged.

120. The pandemic, COVID-19, has created and may create future project delays which are unforeseeable as to specifics, but almost certainly will materialize. As such, contractors face substantial unexpected cost increases from uncontrollable events such as transport restrictions, local government restrictions on island ingress, material shortages, material damages from delays, and other drivers of cost. Please confirm the inclusion of a special provision which definitively provides for cost and schedule relief in the event of COVID-19 delays not the fault of the contractor. Such a provision will benefit the Government by eliminating the necessity of bidding large contingencies to cover the risk of undefined and uncontrollable cost increases.

ANSWER: Refer to FAR 52.249-10, Default (Fixed – Price Construction) (Apr 1984), located in Document 00700 of the RFP.

121. RFP, Price Proposal Schedule. Reference the Solicitation / Price Proposal Schedule.

Please confirm CLIN 0001 Base Item (P9021) and CLIN 0002 Option Item (P9022) will both be awarded at Contract Award. If this is not the case, please confirm exercise duration CLIN 0002 Option Item as no exercise duration exists.

ANSWER: Refer to FAR 52.217-7, Option for Increased Quantity-Separately priced Line Item (Mar 1989), located in Document 00700 of the RFP. CLIN 0002 Option Item (P-9022) will not be exercised at the time of contract award. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option by written notice to the Contractor within 360 calendar days from the date of contract award.

122. Drawing MP001 Note 4.N requires a "Government Acceptance Inspection."

Specification 33 52 43.13 Paragraph 3.12 provides details. Since the duration of the acceptance period will drive the requirements of dehydrating the piping system and filling with nitrogen, what is the anticipated duration of the acceptance period or can the acceptance occur in the field just after the camera inspection is completed? What is the acceptance criteria of the camera inspection?

ANSWER: The on-site Government Acceptance Inspection of the aviation fuel piping may occur any time after the Video Inspection Report and Inspector’s Certification has been submitted as long as 60 days notice is given, per Section 33 52 43.13 Paragraph 3.12. The duration of the on-site Government Acceptance Inspection is at the discretion of the Contracting Officer and the PACAF/AFIMSC DET 2 Fuels Engineer; for scheduling purposes assume two

(2) business days. Allow for 30 calendar days after the submission of the Video Inspection Report and Inspector’s Certification or 15 calendar days after the completion of the on-site Government Acceptance Inspection, whichever is later, for the Government to review the Video Inspection Report, Inspector’s Certification and on-site Government Acceptance Inspection findings. See revised Spec Section 33 52 43.13 issued in Amendment No. 0007.

123. Can the pipe supports identified in the isolation and crossover pits be made from SS material to eliminate coating/galvanizing issues in remote locations?

Specification 33 52.43.13 Paragraph 2.3.2.1 requires epoxy coating or hot-dip galvanized after all adjustments are made for field conditions making this difficult in remote installations.

ANSWER: At the contractor’s option the pipe supports located in the isolation valve pit and the crossover valve pit may be constructed of stainless steel.

124. CF101 Note 3 states "Provide manufactured fittings per specification for directional changes (factory forged 3D bend fittings). Minimum bend radius is three (3) times nominal diameter (900 mm)." Specification 33 52 43.13 Paragraph specifies long radius type (1.5D).

Specification 33 52 43.13 section 2.1.3.2.a states "Elbows located between the pig launcher and receiver must have a radius 1.5 times the pipe diameter." Confirm 3D bends (induction bending) to meet minimum wall thickness requirement in the 300 mm stainless steel piping between the Cross-Over Valve Pit and the Isolation Valve Pit will meet the requirement.

ANSWER: All bends/elbows in the DN300 piping must have a minimum bend radius of 3.0 times the pipe diameter. Factory forged 3D elbows or fabricated 3D induction bends with a minimum wall thickness of 6.35 mm are acceptable. See revised Spec Section 33 52 43.13 issued in Amendment No. 0007.

125. Specification 01 78 23.33 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUALS FOR AVIATION FUEL Paragraph 3.2 – includes training on fuel equipment installed. Since in this phase, the only equipment installed is Double Block and Bleed Valves, manual ball valves, check valves and hydrant pits and these require no formal training for operation confirm this can be excluded from the specification requirements.

ANSWER: Training on the maintenance of these components, though minimal, is required.

126. Confirm coating plans, qualifications and certifications associated with the tape application outlined in Specification 33 52 43.13 are not applicable. Tape to be installed per manufactures instructions and QC process.

• 2.1.2.1 Coating Work Plan – Confirm this does not include tape wrap application process as described in the specifications.

• 2.1.2.3 Qualifications of Coating Contractors for Field Coating – Confirm this does not include tape wrap application process as described in the specifications.

• 2.1.2.4 Qualifications of Coating Inspection Company for Field Coating – Confirm this does not include tape wrap application process as described in the specifications.

• 2.1.2.5 Qualifications of Coating Inspector for Field Coating – Confirm this does not include tape wrap application process as described in the specifications.

• 2.1.2.8 Field Coating Quality Control – Confirm this does not include tape wrap application process as described in the specifications.

ANSWER: The Coating Work Plan must address procedures for all components of the coating system, including field-applied tape wrap. Individuals applying tape wrap coating systems are not required to meet the Qualifications of Coating Contractors for Field Coating but must meet any training or qualification recommendations of the manufacturer. Field-applied tape wrap coatings must be inspected by a coating inspector employed by a coating inspection company meeting the qualifications in Section 33 52 43.13 paragraphs 2.1.2.4 and 2.1.2.5. Field quality control of field applied tape wrap coating systems must meet the requirements of Section 33 52

43.13 paragraph 2.1.2.8.

127. Specification 33 52 23.15 paragraph 3.3 outlines acceptance criteria for radiography and severe cyclic conditions however there is no acceptance criteria defined for phased array UT methods.

ANSWER: The acceptance criteria for Phased Array UT (PAUT) is the same as the acceptance criteria for radiography, as defined in Section 33 52 23.15 paragraph 3.3. The contractor should note that if the use of PAUT is selected in lieu of radiography, meeting the radiographic standards for PAUT requires a calibration standard within the requirements of ASME Section V, and meeting the diameter, thicknesses, and flaws that can be detected with radiography. See revised Spec Section 33 52 23.15 as part of Amendment No. 0007.

128. AWWA C215 coating systems are rarely applied to stainless steel materials and there are limited products/applicators (1 confirmed). The confirmed applicator is not SSPC QP3 nor ISO 9001. Will the Government consider other common coating systems for the stainless steel piping? These include spray on epoxy AWWA C210 and Fused polyethylene AWWA C225?

Please confirm that tape wrap will be prescribed for weld joint coatings for all any allowable pipe coating system.

ANSWER: Variances from the Qualifications of Pipe Coating Shop as specified in Section 33 52 43.13 paragraph 2.1.2.2 for applicators of AWWA C215 coating systems may be considered if sufficient justification is provided. Fused Polyolefin Coatings applied and tested in accordance with AWWA C225 are acceptable provided that all other requirements of Section 33 52 43.13 are met.

129. Please confirm that the available water source for hydrostatic testing and pipeline flushing will not pose a risk for microbial induced corrosion.

ANSWER: The available water source is a hydrant providing potable water. The contractor is responsible to coordinate with CUC for obtaining the water from the hydrant.

130. Please interpret 33 52 43.13-3.12.2 “Acceptance Inspection” for this portion of the work.

The current scope provides a hydrant loop with isolation valves. Training and testing would be limited. Can the Government clarify its intentions so that contractors can account for the appropriate time and cost of this effort?

ANSWER: The intent of the Government Acceptance Inspection is a visual inspection of the aviation fuel piping and components and an on-site review of the Video Inspection findings by the Contracting Officer and the PACAF/AFIMSC DET 2 Fuels Engineer. The duration of the on-site Government Acceptance Inspection is at the discretion of the Contracting Officer and the PACAF/AFIMSC DET 2 Fuels Engineer; for scheduling purposes assume two (2) business days.