Notice No. 6.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND, PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DR., STE. 100

PEARL HARBOR, HI 96860-3134

Notice No. 6 27 April 2020

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

RFP N62742-20-R-1331

J017-II UTILITIES & SITE IMPROVEMENTS PHASE II MAIN AND COMMERCIAL

GATES, US NAVSUPPACT MARINE CORPS BASE, GUAM

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.

RESPONSES DIFFERED FROM NOTICE NO. 5 DATED 21 APRIL 2020.

99. 01 57 19.03. The Main Gate site limits will not allow access to the proposed temporary access road while MEC operations are being conducted due to the 450’ Exclusion Zone requirements. Will work restrictions be placed on the contractor, such as limited work hours, when the temporary access area falls within the MEC Exclusion Zone.

ANSWER: Work restrictions such as night work or reduced hours during the normal work day (0600-1800) will be placed on the Contractor if the Exclusion Zone (EZ) impacts access during peak traffic hours (0600-0800) and (1560-1730) through the temporary access gate. As long as access to the Main Cantonment can be maintained through one of the gates, Main or Commercial, there will not be a need to restrict MEC clearance activities.

101. 01.14.00.1.4.1.2. Specification section 01 14 00.1.4.1.2 states that the Main Gate temporary access point will be required to be opened within 60 days of NTP. Based on passed experience MEC clearance plans take approximately 5 months for approval. Also considering, safety plans, submittals and other deliverables must be submitted and approved prior to construction taking place on site, it does not seem realistic to assume a contractor would be able to construct the temporary access within 60 days from NTP. Please consider revising this requirement or provide a solution to expedite submittal and approval requirements.

ANSWER: OICC states that if MEC Work Plans are complete without major revisions required, they can meet the 30 day requirement of the specification for review, often they are much quicker in returning the MEC Work Plan as approved or needing revision. It is up to the Prime and their MEC subcontractor to submit a plan that can be approved quickly. This requires the MEC Work Plan to be submitted within the first 30 days after award. The required Prime Contractor’s APP would also need to be submitted early and of quality that it could at least be tentatively accepted.

258 MAKALAPA DR., STE. 100

PEARL HARBOR, HI 96860-3134

110. 01 57 19.03. The Main Gate site limits will not allow access to the proposed temporary access road while MEC operations are being conducted due to the 450’ MEC Exclusion Zone requirements. Will work restrictions be placed on the contractor, such as limited work hours, when the temporary access area falls within the MEC Exclusion Zone.

ANSWER: Work restrictions such as night work or reduced hours during the normal work day (0600-1800) will be placed on the Contractor if the Exclusion Zone (EZ) impacts access during peak traffic hours (0600-0800) and (1560-1730) through the temporary access gate. As long as access to the Main Cantonment can be maintained through one of the gates, Main or Commercial, there will not be a need to restrict MEC clearance activities.

112. 01 14 00.1.4.1.2. Specification section 01 14 00.1.4.1.2 states that the Main Gate temporary access point will be required to be opened within 60 days of NTP. Based on passed experience MEC clearance plans take approximately 5 months for approval. Also considering, safety plans, submittals and other deliverables must be submitted and approved prior to construction taking place on site, it does not seem realistic to assume a contractor would be able to construct the temporary access within 60 days from NTP. Please consider revising this requirement or provide a solution to expedite submittal and approval requirements.

ANSWER: OICC states that if MEC Work Plans are complete without major revisions required, they can meet the 30 day requirement of the specification for review, often they are much quicker in returning the MEC Work Plan as approved or needing revision. It is up to the Prime and their MEC subcontractor to submit a plan that can be approved quickly. This requires the MEC Work Plan to be submitted within the first 30 days after award. The required Prime Contractor’s APP would also need to be submitted early and of quality that it could at least be tentatively accepted.

129. Will a Passive Post and Beam system with a M50/P2 crash rating that is listed on the DoD Anti-Ram Vehicle Barrier List be acceptable for this project in lieu of a passive cable barrier system?

ANSWER: No, a passive post and beam system is not acceptable in lieu of a passive cable barrier system.

130. All of the Passive Cable barrier system listed on the DoD Anti-Ram Vehicle Barrier List do not integrate to a chain link fence. Can the passive cable barrier be installed next to the chain link fence but not connected or integrated to the chain link fence?

ANSWER: Yes, the passive cable barrier may be installed next to the chain link fence.

131. E-608 shows that there is a Main Control Panel at the Gatehouse and the Overwatch Tower. Spec Section 2.5.2 Main Control Panel references only 1 Main Control Panel per ACP.

Typically, there can only be one main control panel. It is generally in the gatehouse and the overwatch only has a remote “slave” desktop console that consists of an audible alarm, Audible

Silence Button, A Wrong Way Light, and an EFO mushroom button. An additional EFO push button is on the exterior of the overwatch structure. This wouldn’t be a Main Control Panel as shown on E-608 for the overwatch tower.

ANSWER: The Main Control Panel will be located at the Gatehouse and the Remote Control Panel will be located at the Overwatch Tower. An amendment will be issued for this revision, see Amendment 007.

133. The passive vehicle barrier system has been stated in the RFI responses that it needs to have a M50/P2 crash rating and be listed on the Dod Anti-Ram Vehicle Barrier List. The concrete filled bollards called out as key note #38, drawing detail C4/CS508 are located on the project in the passive vehicle barrier perimeter opening at sidewalks, at generator fuel tank and by the vehicle inspection booths. Do we provide the bollard as shown on drawing detail C4/CS508 or do we need to provide a bollard with a M50/P2 crash rating and listed on the Dod Anti-Ram Vehicle Barrier List?

ANSWER: Provide the bollard shown on the plans.

134. 34 71 13.19 – Active Vehicle Barrier specification, section Part 2 – Product, 2.1 – Retractable Barriers states that when in the raised position, the total retractable barrier heights shall be no less than 38 inches above the roadway surface and shall be 144 inches (12 ft) wide.

Layout drawing CS404 shows the active vehicle wedge barriers for both the Main and Commercial Gates. Scaling and measuring the wedge barrier widths on CS404, the main gate wedges are 15’ wide and the commercial gate wedges are 14’ and 11’ wide. Should the wedge barrier widths be per the spec of 144”(12ft) or per the CS404 drawing?

ANSWER: The minimum widths of the Active Vehicle Barriers shall be as shown on Detail B1 / Drawing CS505. Proprietary models may vary in width. Actual widths shall be as required to ensure a gap of no more than 3.0’ between the Active Vehicle Barrier and passive barrier.

135. What is the minimum required gap between the active vehicle wedge barriers and the passive vehicle barrier or concrete median barrier?

ANSWER: The minimum gap is as required by the manufacturer for the proper function of the AVB. The maximum gap is 3.0’ as stated in Note 3 on Detail B1 / Drawing CS505. Dimensions between the AVB and passive barrier are added to Details A1 and C1/ Drawing CS404. See Amendment 007.

136. 34 71 13.19 – Active Vehicle Barrier specification, section 2.6.1.1.3-Speed Loops states that Two inductive loops whose output is used to signal the barrier controller of a vehicle approaching at a speed greater than the posted speed (25 mph or less (recommended)). The speed loops shall cause the barrier control panel to annunciate a warning sound alerting the guard to make a decision as to whether the barrier should be raised or not. The drawings do not show or call out “speed loops” for over speed vehicle detection. Please confirm if speed loops are required for both the main and commercial ACP gates?

ANSWER: Over speed detection loops are not required for the Main Gate and Commercial Gate ACPs.

137. 34 71 13.19 – Active Vehicle Barrier specification, section 2.6.1.1.4- Wrong Way Loops states that Two inductive loops whose output is used to signal the barrier control panel to annunciate a warning sound if a vehicle is attempting to enter the facility through the exit lane.

The warning sound will alert the guard to make a decision as to whether the barrier should be raised or not. The drawings do not show or call out “Wrong Way Loops” for wrong way vehicle detection. Please confirm if wrong way loops are required for both the main and commercial ACP gates?

ANSWER: Wrong way detection loops are not required for the Main Gate and Commercial Gate ACPs.

138. 34 71 13.19 – Active Vehicle Barrier specification, section 2.4.2 – AVBCS Processor states that the AVBCS processor shall be a Traffic Controller Unit (TCU) with a real time operating system and mappable inputs and outputs (I/O). The latest version of UFGS Standard Specification Section 34 71 13.19 (2/20) states that an AVBCS processor will be a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) and NOT a TCU. TCU’s are only used when the traffic signals for the Active Vehicle Barriers are co-located at a roadway intersection. Please verify that that AVBCS processor will be a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) and NOT a TCU?

ANSWER: The AVBCS processor will be a PLC. Specification 34 71 13.19 is reissued, see Amendment 007.

139. 31 31 16.196 para 2.1.2. Paragraph 2.1.2 of spec section 31 31 16.9 called for Basaltic Sand system as termite barrier. Confirm it is NAVFAC intention to use BTB (basalt termite barrier) in addition to chemical termite treatment. If yes, provide location and thickness of basaltic sand system.

ANSWER: Yes, use in addition to chemical termite control system. Refer to para 3.3 of 31 31

16.19 for additional information

140. 01 50 00 para 3.3.2b. ‘Reasonable amounts of the following utilities will be made available to the Contractor at the prevailing rates: Electricity & Water.’ Can the Government provide the prevailing rates the contractor will pay for Water and Electricity?

ANSWER: No utilities are available on site for Contractor use. 01 55 00 has been revised. See Amendment 007.

141. 08 81 00, 31 31 16.13, 31 32 11, 31 32 11. The documents are unclear on responsibility for the following warranties; Will Government please amend the documents to ensure the following are pass-through warranties from the manufacture or installer?

•Section 08 81 00 ~ Insulating Glass Units ~ 10 year warranty •Section 31 31 16.13 ~ Termite infestation ~ 5 year warranty •Section 31 32 11 ~ Temp Erosion Control Material ~ 1.5 year warranty •Section 31 32 11 ~ Perm Erosion Control Material ~ 3 year warranty

ANSWER: Contractor is responsible for warranting materials and workmanship as specified.

Specifications will not be amended.

142. Reference contract clause FAR 52.249-10, DEFAULT (FIXED - PRICE CONSTRUCTION) (APR 1984). Does the Government consider the COVID-19 pandemic to be an unforeseen event for the purposes of the referenced clause?

ANSWER: This situation will be handled on a case by case basis and contractors shall follow the procedures outlined in FAR 52.249-10 (b)(2).

143. Reference the current COVID-19 pandemic. Should the Contractor factor into his bid price the cost of current COVID-19 restrictions, impacts, shortages, and delays?

ANSWER: Contractors should price the work based on their understanding of current market conditions and their associated risks with regard to COVID-19.

144. Plan Sheet CG302, Profile A3 – SD-M-10 – The invert and top of structure elevations appear to be incorrect. Please advise.

ANSWER: Profile A3, SD-M-10, has been corrected, see Amendment 007.

145. Plan Sheet CG302, Profile A1 – SD-M-9 – A portion of the proposed grade is missing.

Please provide the complete profile.

ANSWER: A minor revision has been made to Profile A1, SD-M-9, on Drawing CG302. Note that the storm drain pipe crosses an area outside the grading limits. See Amendment 007.

146 Plan Sheet CG302, Profiles C1 & C4 – SD-M-7 and SD-M-8 – SD-I-15 is replicated on both lines, but the inlet elevation for the 24” line on SD-M-8 is omitted. Are we to assume the inlet elevations for the 18” and 24” lines are the same?

ANSWER: Yes, the inlet elevations for the 18” and 24” lines at Inlet SD-I-15 on Profile SD-M-8 are the same. See Amendment 007.

147. Plan Sheet CG301 – Profiles C3 and C5, Inlets 14-4-3 and 14-4-4 are apparently at the low point in runs with no outlet. Is this correct?

ANSWER: Inlets 14-4-3 and 14-4-4 are existing inlets connected to an existing storm drain pipe to remain. These inlets that are to remain and be converted to manholes. This has been clarified in Profiles C3 and C5 on Drawing CG301. See Amendment 007.

NOTICE NO. 6

148. With the current COVID 19 situations in Guam and US mainland, we would like to request for a two (2) week extension on the bid submission as we are still waiting on RFI response and pricings from suppliers, vendors and subcontractors being delayed due to having limited staff working on our request, with some are working from homes and some offices are still closed. We appreciate your reconsideration in our request.

ANSWER: No extension will be granted.

149. Spec 32 12 13. Section 2.2 calls for the use of SS-1h emulsified asphalt primer. Can we substitute CSS-1h in lieu of that specified, for reasons that for the past 30 years, we have been using Type CSS-1h emulsified asphalt primer and this has been an acceptable primer to all federal agencies of the base and tack coats.

ANSWER: The use of Type CSS-1h emulsified asphalt primer is acceptable.

150. Spec 32 12 16. Section 2.3 Asphalt cement binder, calls for the use of AR16000 Viscosity Grade Asphalt, please confirm the use of AR8000 in lieu of the specified, for the reasons that we have been using this binder in our design mixes for over 15 years and this has been acceptable to all federal agencies.

ANSWER: AR8000 asphalt cement binder may be used, with an additive, upon approval of the government. The additive shall be a Warm Mix or Polymer that shall modify the properties of AR8000 to meet or exceed AASHTO M 320, Standard Specifications for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder for PG 70-10. The equivalent PG Grade and True Performance Grade of the AR8000 with the additive shall be submitted with the Laboratory Job Mix Formula.

151. A5/A-803. Please provide a specification for the aluminum trellises.

ANSWER: Refer to specification section 05 50 13, para 2.2.7 and detail A5/A-803.

152. Notice 1, RFI #8. Response to RFI #8 in Notice 1 states that the staging and access roads will be cleared, grubbed and graded by the J-001B contractor. Drawing CD103 and CD104 indicate that clear and grub operations in the main gate area are included within this contract.

Please reissue drawings in an amendment to clarify if this scope of work is being removed from this project.

ANSWER: The entire project area including the staging area and access road will be cleared and grubbed by the J-001B contractor. Depending upon the timing of this activity, the timing of the start of the J-017-II contractor’s work, and the condition of the ground surface, certain areas may need to be cleared and grubbed again by the J-017-II Contractor. For the access road, Bidders shall follow the requirements of Section 01 14 00, Subsection 1.4.1.2. and make their own determination on how they will comply with these requirements.

153. CD101-CD112. The CD drawings show areas where clearing and grubbing is required, however based on the aerial photo provided in notice 1 (site visit cancelled), it appears that large portions, if not all areas have been cleared by the J-001B contractor. Please provide extents of clearing and grubbing operations that will be required under this project for fair bidding purposes.

ANSWER: Revised drawings to reflect area to be cleared and grubbed by J001B. See Amendment 006.

154. 01 57 19.03. The CD drawing set shows areas where clearing and grubbing is required, however based on the aerial photo provided in notice 1 (site visit cancelled), and the presence of Road 3 and Road 1, it appears that large portions, if not all areas have been cleared by the J- 001B contractor. Has MEC operations also been completed by the J-001B contractor in these areas, and if so to what depth? Please indicate areas that will require MEC operations under this project.

ANSWER: MEC clearance will be performed by J-001B Utilities and Site Improvement project to a depth of 2 feet below rough grade. See Amendment 006.

155. 01 57 19.03. The Main Gate site limits will not allow access to the proposed temporary access road while MEC operations are being conducted due to the 450’ MEC Exclusion Zone requirements. Will work restrictions be placed on the contractor, such as limited work hours, when the temporary access area falls within the MEC Exclusion Zone.

ANSWER: Work restrictions such as night work or reduced hours during the normal work day (0600-1800) will be placed on the Contractor if the Exclusion Zone (EZ) impacts access during peak traffic hours (0600-0800) and (1560-1730) through the temporary access gate. As long as access to the Main Cantonment can be maintained through one of the gates, Main or Commercial, there will not be a need to restrict MEC clearance activities.

156. 01 14 00.1.3.d. 01 14 00.1.3.d states that the Main Gate Entry Control point will be available on Dec 30, 2020. Section 1.4.1.2 of the same specification states that the temporary access control point and bypass roads must be open within 60 calendar days after NTP. If this project bids on May 1 as currently indicated, NTP would be issued at the latest in November 2020. At this point in time the area would not be ready for the contractor to construct the temporary access road. 60 days is already a very narrow window for this construction, and it would be reduced further if the contractor did not have access to the area when the NTP was issued. Please consider increasing the number of days required to construct the temporary access to 90 days, increasing the award period from 180 days to 210 days, or moving the bid date by one month.

ANSWER: Section 1.4.1.2 does not state that the bypass road must be open within 60 calendar days after NTP. The opening paragraph of this section is only referring to the connection of Road 3 to Route 3 and Road 1 to Route 3A to open the gates to through traffic. The second paragraph requires that these must be provided with temporary access control point for ID checks. The intent is to allow other construction contractors, workers, and government personnel to access their sites through the main and commercial gate access roads. The construction and timing of the bypass road(s) are based upon the Contractor’s means and methods and should be detailed in the Temporary Access Control Point & Bypass Road Plan required in the last sentence of the second paragraph of this section.

157. 01 14 00.1.4.1.2. Specification section 01 14 00.1.4.1.2 states that the Main Gate temporary access point will be required to be opened within 60 days of NTP. Based on passed experience MEC clearance plans take approximately 5 months for approval. Also considering, safety plans, submittals and other deliverables must be submitted and approved prior to construction taking place on site, it does not seem realistic to assume a contractor would be able to construct the temporary access within 60 days from NTP. Please consider revising this requirement or provide a solution to expedite submittal and approval requirements.

ANSWER: OICC states that if MEC Work Plans are complete without major revisions required, they can meet the 30 day requirement of the specification for review, often they are much quicker in returning the MEC Work Plan as approved or needing revision. It is up to the Prime and their MEC subcontractor to submit a plan that can be approved quickly. This requires the MEC Work Plan to be submitted within the first 30 days after award. The required Prime Contractor’s APP would also need to be submitted early and of quality that it could at least be tentatively accepted.

158. 01 14 00.1.4.1.2. Please confirm that bidders are required to provide the competent staff to check DBIDS at the temporary guard booths for the duration of the project.

ANSWER: Yes confirmed.

159. 01 14 00.1.4.1.2. Please provide the definition of “competent staff” as it relates to checking DBIDS.

ANSWER: For this role on this project the definition of Competent Person (CP) is as follows:

The CP is a person designated in writing, who, through training, knowledge and experience, is capable of identifying, evaluating, and determining the validity of identification documents; and redirecting visitors who are not authorized to enter; and if required notifying the appropriate authorities in the event of a breach or other security concerns of a vehicle or person(s) trying to enter the facility. The CP will not be required to be armed or required or expected to manage aggressive or violent behavior, or engage in use of force or restraint.

160. Spec Table of Contents. Table of contents lists specification 01 91 00.15, however this specification is not provided. If full building commissioning is required, please provide this specification. In addition, if building commissioning is required we respectfully request an additional three weeks be added to the bid date, as we currently would not have enough time to solicit Cx contractors and expect to receive their proposals by the current bid date.

ANSWER: Full building commissioning is not required. Spec section 01 91 00.15 is not applicable. The Project Table of Contents has been revised. See Amendment 006.

161. Fire Sprinkler. Drawing F-001 Fire Sprinkler Note 4 Only lists the Comm/Elec Room & Generator Room both or which are associated with the Utility Building. It also lists the Overwatch Tower. Drawing F-101 only shows Fire Alarm for the Visitor Control Center and no Sprinkler Piping. Drawings F-102 & F-501 have notes stating that Sprinklers are to be provided for “Main Gate Utility Building Only”. Drawing CU-101 does not show a firewater point of connection for Overwatch Tower, Building F, associated with the Main Gate. Drawing CU-102 only shows one firewater point of connection for the Utility Building, Building E1, associated with the Main Gate. Drawing CU-103 only shows one firewater point of connection for the Overwatch Tower, Building K, associated with the Commercial Gate. Please confirm the intention is to provide Fire Sprinklers at the Utility Building, Building E1, associated with the Main Gate and the Overwatch Tower, Building K, associated with the Commercial Gate only and not in any other building.

ANSWER: Confirmed only Main Gate Utility Building and Commercial Gate Overwatch Tower are only buildings to provide fire sprinkler protection.

162. C2/A-401C. Per Detail C2/A-401C, the backsplash is called out to be W4.2, which is a porcelain wall tile per A-601. Per the section cuts on A-804, this is a Solid Surface Backsplash with no Porcelain shown. Please confirm what is required.

ANSWER: Backsplash at Breakroom is glazed porcelain tile (W4.2). Refer to A-601 for color and sizes.

163. A-402C. No specifications provided for Resin Panels as indicated on Elevations on A-402C. Please provide.

ANSWER: Resin Panel is RP1, Refer to List of Material on A-601.

164. A-401J, A-401D. Countertops in Details A4/A-401J & B4/A-401D exceed the allowable length without supports. Please provide additional information on intermediate supports.

ANSWER: Provide 1 ½”x 8” x 6”x ¼” thk metal support 3’-0” o.c.. Painted to match adjacent wall color.

165. Specification 05 50 13.2.7. Per Specification 05 50 13, paragraph 2.7, chrome plated cast downspout nozzle and flange are to be provided. There is currently nothing indicated in the drawings. Please provide direction.

ANSWER: Provide painted cast iron for exposed downspout and PVC for embedded downspout.

166. A-301E. Per Drawing A4/A-301E, the cast iron downspout transitions into an embedded downspout. Should the embedded portion be PVC?

ANSWER: Provide painted cast iron for exposed downspout and PVC for embedded downspout.

167. A-101H. Per Drawing A4/A-101H, the type of downspout is not called out. Please confirm this should be PVC in the column and embedded in the concrete island.

ANSWER: Downspout for Building H is PVC embedded in the concrete column and concrete floor slab to daylight, see A-101H.

168. Specification 22 00 00.2.6.2. Please confirm specification section 22 00 00 paragraph

2.6.2 Roof Drains is in regard to the Architectural drawings roof plans for (12) buildings as roof drains are not shown on any of the plumbing drawings.

ANSWER: Yes confirmed.

169. Specification 08 71 00. Hardware set 14 has discrepancies between the door numbers and descriptions. The door material called out on the specification does not match the door schedule please verify which one is correct.

ANSWER: Doors C106 & J104 should be Type F Solid core wood door and metal frame. Doors C109, C111, D104 & J103 are correct as Type F.

170. A-301C, Example page. Detail calls for spray insulation, no spray insulation specification is provided. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Buildings with spray insulation under roof slab with gypsum board drop ceiling is not required intumescent coating on the insulation. See Amendment 007.

171. A-201D, Example page. Details call for intumescent paint on buildings D, E, and J.

Other details on the same drawings show spray insulation only with no intumescent paint listed.

In addition, no Intumescent paint specification is provided. Please clarify which buildings are to receive intumescent paint and provide a specifications.

ANSWER: Buildings with exposed spray insulation under roof slab without drop ceiling shall be provided with intumescent coating on the insulation. See Amendment 007.