J017_Note2.pdf
PDF 183 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N62742-20-R-1325
About this file
This document provides responses to questions from offerors on a request for proposal issued by the Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific for utilities and site improvements, phase II at Area Distribution Nodes and site telecom cabling at Marine Corps Base Guam under solicitation number N62742-20-R-1325. The responses clarify requirements around high security fencing, light pole design responsibility, conduit sizes, terminal block connections, cross connects, tie cables between the MEC room and telecom cabinets, innerduct requirements, door types, boring logs, excavation depths, and proposal due dates. Offerors were asked to provide questions by June 15th, with responses provided in this notice issued on June 23rd. The proposal due date remains July 1st at 1400 as specified in the original solicitation.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| J017_Note1.pdf | ||
| RFP_N6274220R1325.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
RFP N62742-20-R-1325
Notice No. 2
June 23, 2020
PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
N62742-20-R-1325
J-017 UTILITIES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS (U&SI), PHASE II, AREA DISTRIBUTION
NODES AND SITE TELECOM CABLING, US NAVSUPPACT
MARINE CORPS BASE GUAM
NOTE: The following questions and answers are provided for INFORMATION ONLY. The solicitation remains unchanged unless it is amended in writing on a Standard Form 30.
This is the last notice.
RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 1 ISSUED JUNE 15, 2020
21. Section 32 31 13.53 High Security Chain Link Fences and Gates. What is the maximum spacing of a cable section before it needs to be terminated?
ANSWER: The maximum spacing of a cable section before it needs to be terminated is 200 feet
(61 meters). Cables must be continuous from deadman to deadman; therefore, minimum distance will be 7.5 feet (2.3 meters). See UFC 4-022-03, UFC 710 Reinforcing Notes, Note 2
25. Drawing EL501A, Note 5. EL501A, Note 5 states “Contractor’s Engineer to provide light pole and light pole foundation design. Design shall be sealed by Structural Engineer licensed in the US and retained by Contractor.” Due to this project being design-bid-build, please remove the design responsibility by the Contractor and provide final light pole design with the bid documents.
ANSWER: Light pole foundation design will be dependent on the pole and fixture selected by the contractor. Note remains unchanged.
26. Drawing EL500A. EL500A series sheets, please provide a trench detail of the exterior lighting conduit including conduit size and if concrete encasement is required.
ANSWER: Conduit size is shown on Panel-L panel schedule. Direct Buried Conduit detail will be added to Sheet ES501A. See Amendment 0003 for added detail.
39. Reference drawing T-201A MDF Elevation Detail C2. Who’s responsibility for connections between COC/BET and the Terminal Blocks?
ANSWER: NCTS shall be responsible for cross connect on activation.
40. Reference drawing T-201A MDF Elevation Detail C2. For the Terminal Blocks, are RJ21 connectors acceptable for the equipment side? If not, what type of connection?
ANSWER: RJ21 acceptable. Please note type, male or female on terminal blocks.
41. Is there any requirements connection between the Telecom cabinets and the MDF for the copper?
ANSWER: A 50 pair tie cable is required between MDF and cabinet C05, ROW C for voice services within the ADN, see Amendment 0004.
42. Drawing T-113 is missing . Please Clarify if drawing T-113 is part of this project.
ANSWER: See Index of Drawings. T-113 is “RESERVED” (no drawing in the set).
43. Drawing T-122, T123, T124 & T125, conduit ductways details calls for 6 conduits , Please clarify if how many conduits will be required for the 3-3cell innerducts?
ANSWER: Innerducts are not required in that section of ductbank, see sheet T-504
44. Section 081116 Aluminum Doors and Frames, as per A-601, Door 107C, Type B (aluminum flush door) but as per Door panel note it is “AL2” please verify if this door is supposed to be Type C
ANSWER: Type B for Door 107C is correct. Door construction for Door 107C should be “AL1” instead of “AL2”, see Amendment 0004.
NOTICE NO. 2
46. Drawing Sheet# T-504 regarding duct bank conduit configuration 4C that contains 4-new conduits that is provided by this contract from TMH 237-16 to TMH 237-9-6-6 (dwg# 101 to
104).
a. Please clarify whether all other 4-4” dia. conduits of the same conduit configuration 4C that runs through existing TMH are also existing conduits provided by J-001B as shown in Dwg# T-105, T-111, t-112, T-119, T-120, T-134, T-138, T-139, T-145, and T-146
b. Please clarify whether all conduits for conduit configuration 6C, 2C, and 1C, that runs through existing TMH are also existing conduits provided by J-001B as shown in Dwg#
T-120, T-122 to T126
c. Please provide the number of 3-3”Innerduct required for conduit configurations 6C, 2C, and 1C
a. ANSWER: Refer to T-001, existing conduits (ductbank) are shown as “CUx” and new conduits (ductbank) are shown as “CU”. Existing conduits are provided by others, new conduits are provided by this contract.
b. Refer to T-001, existing conduits (ductbank) are shown as “CUx” and new conduits
(ductbank) are shown as “CU”. Existing conduits are provided by others, new conduits are provided by this contract.
c. Innerducts are not required in that section of ductbank, see sheet T-504.
47. Refer to amendment 2. Drawing sheet B-601A are the logs of ADN1 site. Will NAVFAC issue boring logs of ADN2?
ANSWER: No boring logs are currently available for ADN 2 site, however see Amendment
0004.
48. Refer to amendment 2 specification Section 31 23 00.00 20 paragraph 3.3.5 “If the exposed footing bottom is moderately hard to hard coralline limestone, scarify the top 100mm to 1500mm
……. . . If this cannot be achieved because the exposed surface is hard to excavate or scarify, clean the surface of loose particles to the extent possible, then fill the uneven limestone rock surface with lean concrete of flowable fill”
a. Please verify and confirm 1,500mm?
b. For the lean concrete, we will have no way to quantify at this time, will this be treated as change condition?
ANSWER:
a. Correction: Should be “150mm”, see Amendment 0004.
b. Bid as specified.
49. Reference SOW. Is there any portions of the project site that has been already cleared, whereas maximum of 6 inch lifts are not required during excavation / MEC work? *Background information – we (as most Guam contractors) received quotes from 2 competent local (Guam)
MEC contractors who perform the bulk of MEC work on base and there was a staggering amount of difference in price, and are concerned that one may have information not clearly identified within the SOW creating the offset.
ANSWER: Sites within the cantonment will be MEC-cleared to 4 feet below grade, or bedrock, if shallower. Any excavation below 4 feet must comply with JRM ESS requirements for MEC clearance.
50. Reference RFP. By our research, targeting to send the submittal package from Guam via courier to ensure delivery on July 1st by 1400 requires it to be sent on the 25th. Will the
Government consider extending the submission date and replying to question 1 of this RFI to promote bids being submitted in a timely manner as well as to mitigate Offerors inappropriately budgeting for the MEC burden?
ANSWER: Proposal due date remains unchanged.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .