22R1306_Note2.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

Notice No. 2 4 March 2022

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

RFP N62742-22-R-1306

FY19 MCAF P-9030/PAF189030 APSI - CARGO PAD WITH TAXIWAY EXTENSION

FY19 MCAF P-9040/PAF189040 APSI - MAINTENANCE SUPPORT FACILITY

FY20 MCAF P-9010/PAF189010 APSI - FUEL TANKS WITH RECEIPT PIPELINE &

HYDRANT SYSTEM

FY20 MCAF P-9021/PAF189021 APSI -AIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT PHASE 1 - ROADS

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.

20. Note 1 accompanying the price proposal Schedule SF1442 MEC/MPPEH Bases of Pricing

COMMENT:

Note 1 states that the Base Item CLIN 0001 thru CLIN 0003 and Option Item CLIN 0004 shall be based upon Low & High Likelihood areas of encountering MEC/MPPEH as designated in Figure 3.1 of the Tinian ESS Annex A-01 which accompanied the solicitation. Aside from the low likelihood areas designated for P-9030 APSI Cargo Pad with Taxiway Extension and P-9040 Maintenance Support Facility the remaining P-9010 and P-9021 area are not a feature of Figure

3.1 of the Tinian ESS Annex A-01.

QUESTIONS:

1. Please denote whether the areas associated with P-9010 and P-9021 fall within a Low & High Likelihood areas of encountering MEC/MPPEH.

2. In the event that Figure 3.1 of the Tinian ESS Annex A-01 were to indicate that P-9010, P- 9021, P-9030 & P-9040 or part thereof overlaid a high probability area would the cost associated with full MEC/MPPEH compliance be measured under CLIN’s 0005, 0006 and 0007 or the Base & Option Items.

3. Are CLIN’s 0005, 0006 and 0007 reserved only for MEC/MPPEH encounters in areas previously denoted as unlikely?

ANSWER:

Q1: Response is deferred.

Q2: The Base Items Q3: Yes, it is for areas previously identified as Low Likelihood

21. Canine Detection Dog Teams 01 57 19.01 20

COMMENT:

Clause 3.1.2.1 makes reference to inspections of 100% of the cargo or equipment both leaving Guam & entering Tinian. The clause also references quarantine facilities, qualified government canine detector dog teams and quarantine areas for cargo departing from Guam. What is not clear from the text is whether these services are provided by the port authority in the normal course of events for all cargo entering/departing Tinian?

QUESTIONS:

1. Is there a stipulated quarantine period, and if, so what is the duration?

2. Is the quarantine facility/area intended for all incoming cargo regardless?

3. Is the contractor required to provide their own quarantine facility/area?

4. Is it the contractor’s responsibility to separate cargo earmarked for the project from normal incoming cargo?

5. Are the services of the qualified government canine detector dog teams provide without cost to the contractor?

ANSWER:

1. As per CNMI Department of Land and Natural Resources Chapter 85-100 “Brown Treesnake Prevention Regulations” Section 85-100-105 (a) All high risk cargo shall be required to undergo a 72 hour quarantine in a snake exclusion area…” High risk is defined as (1) Any shipment leaving Guam by sea or air, including cargo (e.g., construction materials, pipes, machinery, lumber) or goods originating, transshipped, or consolidated in Guam, which has not received a Guam Snake Inspection Certificate; or, (2) Any shipment so identified by Division Agriculture- Quarantine or Division of Fish and Wildlife-Brown Treesnake staff.

Brown Treesnake exclusion areas on Tinian would also need to be used if the volume of cargo being offloaded at the port out paces the capacity for the canine team(s) to complete arrival inspections immediately after offload.

If an item fails to meet cleanliness standards per Armed Forces Pest Management Board Technical Guide 31 (AFPMB-TG 31 [DEC21]) for a non-BTS biosecurity related issues, delays due to mitigation efforts e.g., fumigation are likely to occur.

2. The quarantine area is intended to help mitigate the introduction of invasive species. Items will be quarantined in accordance with policy (see Q1 response); if they cannot be cleared immediately upon arrival; or if they fail and an initial biosecurity inspection and cannot be immediately mitigated.

3. Current BTS/Biosecurity requirements for the DIVERT project indicate that the permanent barriers located on Saipan and Tinian should be used for quarantining items in accordance with (IAW) CNMI and DoD regulations. If the quantity of cargo moved from Guam to Tinian to support DIVERT construction activities exceeds the capacity of the existing quarantine facility/area it is recommend that the contractor provides the required quarantine facility IAW with CNMI/DoD regulations.

4. *Clarified that the question relates to items departing to Tinian.* In a general sense, yes, it will be easier for the BTS/Biosecurity inspectors to inspect the DIVERT cargo if it has been separated from normal cargo.

5. This will depend on the volume of inspections required. If inspections for items departing Guam are coordinated/scheduled in advanced it is not anticipated there will be any additional support requirements i.e., additional costs for pre-departure canine inspections on Guam. If the volume of items arriving on Tinian exceed the capacity of the CNMI BTS detector dog team to support incoming cargo then additional support will be required. If the CNMI BTS Program is unable to provide additional canine inspection support, then additional support will require travel (airfare, lodging, etc.) for a USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services detector dog team(s) from Guam to Tinian to assist with inspections when cargo is off-loaded at the port and when containerized items are removed from containers at the construction site.

Please note that there will be HACCP requirements to ensure cleanliness of all project cargo moving into the Mariana Islands and interisland movements that may require redundant biosecurity/cleanliness assurance inspections for items prior to departing Guam and arriving on Tinian if not moving through Guam first. This also may require the additional cost to provide the necessary support to ensure timely inspections to prevent undue delays of cargo movement from the port to the construction site.

22. 01 57 19.01 20 Observance of ground disturbing construction Archaeological Resources

COMMENT:

Para 3.3.1 requires the contractor to provide qualified archaeologists to observe all ground disturbing construction

QUESTION:

Are the services of qualified archaeologists still required once the overburden has been removed and certifiable bedrock has been encountered?

ANSWER: Once all initial ground disturbance for all areas of construction has encountered bedrock there is no longer potential to affect historic properties and therefore archaeological monitoring is no longer warranted. Additional archaeological monitoring will be required should project redesigns or additional construction activities are added in undisturbed locations after initial ground disturbance.

23. Planned Modification CLINs 0005AA, 0006AA, & 0007AA - UNIT RATE FOR

MEC/MPPEH

COMMENT:

Each of the CLIN’s referenced above provide a daily unit of measure for full MEC/MPPEH clearance ahead of construction down to a TOI of 20mm in areas previously identified as unlikely. In each case the Governments stated quantity is 60 days. Furthermore, note 3 to Form SF1442 provides direction that the actual quantity will be based on the production rate proposed in the Management Plan Factor Document 00202. It is not clear from the description which takes precedence, the governments stated quantity or the detailed production rate provided in Document 00202.

QUESTION:

Are we to assume that with each Planned Modification full clearance is to be accomplished within the stated 60-day period. This would automatically drive the production rate for each of the differing site conditions? Alternatively, is the 60 days merely a nominal period and that the production rate is to be modelled on the overriding need to match the construction schedule for each activity

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

24. Munitions Response Explosives Safety Submission, Tinian Construction Support, March 2020 (Final). Para 6.1.3. Reference 01 57 19.03 Para 3.9. Per ESS para 6.1.3 A MEC safety briefing and awareness training for all site personnel will be provided by the general contractor conducting the work. If suspected MEC is discovered at any time, the contractor will relocate personnel to safe location away from the suspected MEC/MPPEH and contact NFM MEC PM and JRM ROC for the cognizant military EOD unit action per Section 6.4. Para 6.4.1 indicates the UXO Technician will make a preliminary determination as to the items classification and contact JRM Regional Operations Center at 671-349-4004.

QUESTIONS:

a. Is the Contractor to contact NFM MEC PM directly per 6.1.3 or must they first bring in their MEC “On Call” support to come to the site per Para 6.4.1 prior to contacting JRM?

b. Per Spec Section 01 57 19.03 Para 3.9 indicates “Notify the Contracting Officer and Government MEC QA within 4 hours of discovery.” Please confirm that the 4-hour notification will be done by the general contractor that has undertaken the awareness training per ESS Para

6.1.3. The contractor will implement the “On Call” support and mobilize the MEC Construction Support team to provide written notification and initial spot report within 24 hours. The contractor will secure the site until the Construction Support team arrives to make determination.

Please confirm our understanding is correct.

ANSWER:

Total process of finding suspected MEC/MPPEH:

Construction contractor:

If suspected MEC/MPPEH is discovered at any time during site activities (including ground disturbance activities), the contractor performing the work will immediately stop, relocate all personnel to a safe location away from the suspected MEC/MPPEH. Calls MEC contractor to respond to suspected MEC/MPPEH.

MEC contractor:

On site and Identifies if item is MEC/MPPEH using Tinian ESS page6-9, para. 6.4 MEC/MPPEH Disposition Process. In this process MEC contractor will contact JRM ROC for the cognizant military EOD unit action.

The Senior MEC supervisor should be with the Prime contractor when contacting the MFM MEC PM to be able to answer any questions that should arise. Same as contacting Contracting Officer and Government MEC QA within 4 hours of discovery.

25. Ref. Drawing; P-9010 : A-601, A-611 Batt Insulation Please confirm if wall type A6 need batt insulation as shown on Ref. Detail. D3/A-611.

ANSWER: Wall type A6 does not need batt insulation as indicated in rating notes in Wall type A on A-601. Door details C3 and D3 on A-611 to be updated in Amendment No. 0003 (forthcoming).

26. Ref. Drawing; P-9021 : CS101 – CS125 Signage and Pavement Marking Plan Please provide Drawing Sheets CP101 – CP117 as stated on Site Plan General Notes B : Refer to sheets CP101 – CP117 for Signage and Pavement Marking Plan.

ANSWER: Pavement marking is not included in the project. Please refer to Amendment No.

0003 (forthcoming) drawings with the note removed from sheets CS101 through CS125.

27. Soil Treatment/ Termite Control Barriers Please confirm if Soil Treatment and Termite Control Barrier are required in this project. If yes, please provide specifications.

ANSWER: Chemical Termite Control Specification 31 31 16.13 to be added in Amendment No. 0003 (forthcoming).

28. Ref. Drawing; P-9010 : A-601; P-9040 : A-601 Gypsum Board Per the supplier, 'paperless' glass mat gypsum is currently not available on the market. And due to shortage of raw materials, any manufacturer will not be able to provide a quotation for this specific item within the next few months. Please advise if Regular Gypsum Board can be used as a substitute.

ANSWER: Per MDACS part C1010.3, all gypsum board is to be paperless. Since this is a contract requirement, any variance will have to be approved by the government.

29. Ref. Drawing; P-9021 : CS103, CS104, CS105, CS119, CS120 and CS121 There is no visual indication of field work shown in the following Areas: Area R3-3 Sheet CS103, Area R3-4 Sheet CS104, Area R3-5 Sheet CS105, Area R5-1 & R5-2 Sheet CS119, Area R5-3 & R5-4 Sheet CS120, Area R5-5 & R5-6 Sheet CS121. Please confirm if our assumption is correct.

ANSWER: This is correct. There is no work on alignment R3 between 0+002.64 and 0+650, nor on alignment R5 between 0+050 and 1+500.

30. P-9030& P-9040: Spec Section 03 30 00 & Reinforcing Steel Notes P-9030: S-004 P-9040:

S-002 Reinforcement

Reinforcing Steel Notes for P-9030 & P-9040 indicate reinforcement to be in accordance with ASTM A706/A706M (Grade 420) while their respective specifications indicate ASTM A615/A615M (Grade 420) and Epoxy Coated conforming to ASTM A934/A934M. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Provide ASTM A706/A706M for P-9030 and P-9040 (Grade 420) as indicated on the drawings. Reinforcing steel does not need to be Epoxy Coated for P-9030 & P-9040.

Specifications will be amended in Amendment 0003 (forthcoming) to indicate that. Please note the epoxy coated rebar requirements for P-9010 still apply.

31. P-9021: Offsite Roadways Bid Form – CLIN 0007AA Planned Modification

(MEC/MPPEH)

Please confirm if the MEC/MPPEH areas of concern of low likelihood apply only to locations of disturbed areas for new gravel roadway (Drawing Sheets CS122 thru CS124) and portion of new asphalt paved roadway at Area R3-1 (Drawing Sheet CS101).

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

32. P-9021: Offsite Roadways Ref. Drawing CD101, CD102 Demolition Plan Please clarify if the existing asphalt road along Broadway Avenue will be removed/disposed and be replaced with new gravel roadway per reference sheets CS122 thru CS124. Demolition of existing asphalt roadway along this location is not shown anywhere in the demolition plans.

ANSWER: The existing road remains. The new gravel is placed on the existing road. Please see Amendment No. 0003 (forthcoming) drawings and details C4 and D4 on CS500.

33. P-9021: Offsite Roadways Ref. Drawing Detail A1/CS500, Drawing Sheets CS122 thru CS124 New Gravel Roadway Call out detail A1/CS500 for the new gravel roadway shows incorrect detail as this applies to asphalt overlay and not for gravel roadway section. Please provide correct detail information.

ANSWER: Please see Amendment No. 0003 (forthcoming) drawings and details C4 and D4 on

CS500.

34. Specs. Section 26 56 00, Para. 2.5 and Drawing E-612 Poles Specs. Section 26 56 00 Para. 2.5 calls for Tapered Anchor-base Concrete Poles while Detail on Drawing E-612 shows Direct-set Concrete Pole.

Please check and advise what is actually required. If Anchor-base type is required, please provide corresponding Pole Foundation Details.

ANSWER: See Amendment No. 0003 (forthcoming) for the revised 26 56 00, para 2.5 in P- 9010 specifications replacing “anchor-type” with “embedded type” and the removal of para 2.7

POLE FOUNDATIONS.

35. Where can we find a copy of the referenced explosives safety submission - Munitions Response Explosives Safety Submission Tinian Construction Support (Tinian ESS), Tinian ESS – Referenced in the Price Proposal Schedule.

ANSWER: Please see Amendment No. 0003 (forthcoming) which updates section 01 57 19.03 to include an updated MRESS.

36. Since the site walk was cancelled due to COVID, will a list of interested bidders / primes be published so small business specialty contractors such as UXO companies can reach out to provide support.

ANSWER: Please check sam.gov for a list of virtual site visit attendees.

37. Factor 4, Management Plan, states the following:

“Identify methodology/technology to be utilized, number of MEC munitions response teams/number of personnel on each team, identification of risks, logistics and resource management approach. Include a minimum production rate utilizing number of excavations in pursuit of anomalies per day that is the basis for Unit Cost per Calendar Day on the Price Proposal Schedule. Minimum production rates utilizing something other than number of excavations in pursuit of anomalies per day will be rated Unacceptable.”

We highly recommend that the Navy re-consider the production rate language as screening for 20mm rounds (which required is ¾ inch screen) is much easier to accomplish through soil screening versus trying to “dig” on each individual suspect target. Suggest that the Navy consider approaches such as soil screening and corresponding production measures such as cubic yard per day.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

38. P-9030: Cargo Pad & Taxiway Extension Spec Section 33 16 15 Drawing Detail A4/S-203 Fire Water Storage Steel Tank

a. For the design/manufacture/installation of the Fire Water Storage Tank, please clarify if a Bolted Steel type tank would be acceptable in lieu of the specified Welded Steel tank.

b. Steel Tank Ringwall Foundation and tank base preparation detail A4/S-203 shows sand layer under the steel tank floor/bottom. Please provide thickness of this sand layer cushion.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

39. P-9030: Cargo Pad & Taxiway Extension – Spec. Section 33 11 13 and Drawing Sheet CU104 Potable Water Supply Wells Drawing Sht. CU104 shows that the new 100mmØ waterline WL01 will connect to the existing water well. However, Spec. Section 33 11 13 specifies a new water well. Please clarify and/or confirm that there is NO new water well to be constructed for this bid.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

40. P-9030: Cargo Pad & Taxiway Extension Drawing Sht. S-002 – Foundation Notes- Item X.

Probing and Grouting Please clarify if the 370mm thick PCC pavement for Cargo Pad (detail D3/CS500) and 230mm thick Heavy Duty PCC Pavement (detail A4/CS500) for Biosecurity area will not require any probing and grouting.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

41. P-9010: Fuel Tank with Receipt Piping and Hydrant System Drawing Sheets SP104, SP502 Cut and Cover Steel Tank – Floor Plate Joints

Details C2 and C3 on Sht. SP502 show 5x50 steel backer bar at all tank floor plate joint weld connections. Please clarify if this steel backer bar is required to be cast with concrete slab base or if this can be installed post pour.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

42. P-9030: Cargo Pad & Taxiway Extension Spec Section 31 23 00.00 20 Drawing Details D1/CS500, C1/CS500, A4/CS500 Excavation and Subgrade Preparation, Basecourse for Structures, Pavements, Pads, Roadways Drawing detail states that basecourse under these structures should be extended a minimum of 610mm (2’-0”) beyond the edges.

Specification Section 31 23 00.00 20 paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 state that excavation and subgrade preparation for these structures should be extended by at least 1.0m and 1.50m respectively beyond the edges.

a. Please clarify if excavation and subgrade preparation extension beyond structure/pad edges should be 1.0m or 1.50m.

b. Does the above extension apply also to basecourse placing or should it be limited to only 0.610m per drawing detail?

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

43. P-9040: Maintenance Facility Ref. Specification 07 27 19.01 Self-Adhering Air Barrier

Per specifications, the product calls for a 40 mil permeable material consisting of rubberized asphalt on a HDPE carrier. Our US vendors state that HDPE material is a non-permeable type.

Please clarify this conflicting requirement.

44. P-9010 – Detail C1/CS506 and Spec Section 05 50 13 Fixed Bollard Diameter and Height above Grade Detail C1/CS506 calls for 4” diameter bollard, whereas spec. section 05 50 13 para. 2.4 calls for 6” diameter. Please clarify diameter as well as height of bollard above finish grade.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

45. P-9010 – Drawing CS105 Stop Sign and Stop Bar Drawing CS105 does not show any Stop Signs or painted Stop Bars along 8th Avenue asphalt entrances.

Please confirm if there are none required.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

46. P-9010 – Detail A4/CS503 Crosswalk Striping We were unable to locate where this detail applies within the P-9010 plans. Please clarify if there are any crosswalk locations on P-9010.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

47. P-9010 - CG601 Splash Pad – Storm Drain Line 7 Please provide dimensions and detail for Item 450 Splash Pad listed on Dwg CG601 under Storm Drain Line 7.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

48. P-9010 – Detail B4/CG501 Sloped End Treatment Detail We were unable to locate in the P-9010 grading plans where detail B4/CG501 would be applicable. Please advise if this detail applies to P-9010, and if so, provide locations.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

49. P-9010 - Spec Section 33 40 00 para 2.4 Storm Drain Manhole Ladder Please provide detail for Steel Ladder for Storm Drain Manhole showing top and bottom clearance dimensions.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

50. P-9010 – CG104 and Detail A1/CG502 Rip Rap locations P-9010 - It is our interpretation that rip rap is required only at the outfall control structures (Detail A1/CG502) and at headwall 411 as shown on CG105. Please confirm.

51. P-9010 – Civil Plans Landscape Hydroseed Limits Because the Site Grading (CG) plans do not show the limits of site improvements as shown in the Civil Site (CS) plan sheets (i.e., gravel road, asphalt, sidewalk limits, etc.), it is very difficult to define the hydroseed areas. In order for all Offerors to be bidding to the same parameters, we request that dedicated landscape plans be provided.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

52. P-9010 – POL Civil Plans (CF) Wire Fence Limits and Locations On the affected Pol Civil pipeline plan sheets, please provide the removal and replacement limits for the wire fence and/or gates, as well as detail call outs.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

53. P-9010 – POL Civil Plans (CF) Asphalt Pavement Removal and Replacement Detail We were unable to find where the existing asphalt pavement thickness was stated in the POL plans for the various roadways, as well as a detail for removal and replacement limits for the fuel pipe trench.

Please provide section detail showing asphalt and ABC/Subbase thickness (including shoulder improvement requirements) and asphalt removal limits beyond trench width.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

54. P-9010 – Drawing ES105 and detail C3/E-506 Keynote 010 – Bore Underneath Existing Pavement Drawing ES105 keynote 010 states to bore underneath existing pavement for new communication ductbank tie-in to an existing Handhole in West Street. As standard sawcut,, remove, and replace asphalt for POL pipe installation crossing the same roadway is to be performed about 50 feet away, we request that the option be availed to the Offeror to sawcut and remove asphalt, perform standard trench excavation and ductbank installation, and replace asphalt in this ductbank location. Please confirm this is acceptable.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

55. P-9010 – Pol Civil Plans (CF) POL Pipeline Erosion Control Measures Please provide temporary erosion control plans for the POL pipeline between the Seaport Wharf and P-9010 onsite site limits.

56. P-9010 – Drawing CF101 and Spec Section 33 52 43.13 para POL Pipeline Marker – Fiberglass Reinforced Resin Foundation Please provide foundation detail for the Fiberglass Reinforced Resin Pipeline Marker located in unpaved areas.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

57. P-9010 – Detail C1/E-506 Utility Marker - Concrete Dimension and Strength Please provide dimension and concrete strength for concrete base of utility marker as shown in detail C1/E-506.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

58. P-9030 – Drawing CG102 P-9040 – Drawing CG101 9040 Existing Grade Topography It appears the P-9040 drawing CG102 existing grade contours do not match the P-9030 drawing CG101 Existing Grade or Finish Grade contour lines. Please advise.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

59. P-9030 - Drawings CU104 and CU107 Utility Plan R1 Connection to Existing Water Well P-9030 drawing CU107 Structure Table Item 545 states “Connect to Water Well Line re: Well drawings for Connection.” Please provide Existing Well drawings for connection information.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

60. In Part D specifications for Project P-9010, Specification Sections 33 52 43.13 - Aviation Fuel Piping and 33 52 80 - Liquid Fuels Pipeline Coating Systems did not call out any requirements for interior coating (lining) of the carbon steel pipe and fittings, which is typically required for hydrant fuel systems. Please confirm that no interior coating is required for all carbon steel pipe and fittings on this project. It is assumed that all stainless steel pipe and fittings will not require any interior coating.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

61. On the POL pipeline alignment in areas of clearing and grubbing you show a typical note on Drawing CF131 which states: “Clearing and Grub 3m on each side of pipe.” This is not enough area to complete the construction of the pipeline. We feel you would need at a minimum about 12 meters total for a temporary easement for construction. Will we be allowed to use 12 meters for a temporary easement to construct the pipeline?

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

62. For Project P-9010, the mechanical drawings (MP010, MP011, MP103, MP021) appear to call out Extra Strong pipe for the Receipt Pipeline from the Marine Connection Pit to the Seaport

Pump House, including piping inside the Marine Header Valve Pit. These Extra Strong pipes are denoted as “DN250-CS(XS), DN200-CS(XS) and DN150-CS(XS)” on the drawings.

Specification Section 33 52 43.13 only calls out Schedule 40 for carbon steel piping DN65 through DN250 and does not mention Extra Strong wall thickness. Please confirm whether the Receipt Pipeline shall require Extra Strong pipe as noted in the mechanical drawings, and whether the fittings shall also require Extra Strong to match the pipe.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

63. For Project P-9010, Drawing B1/SP501 shows a requirement for Fuel Resistant Epoxy Resin coating to be applied below the 75mm grout surface below the steel tank flooring. In what specification section is this material specified?

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

64. For Project P-9010, Drawing B1/SP501 shows a waterproofing membrane to be placed (we are assuming) below the 50mm of grout on the tank slab foundation. We also see this requirement for the tank top roof slab waterproofing membrane below the 50mm grout. In what specification section is this material specified?

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

65. For Project P-9010, Drawing B1/SP501 shows a geonet material to be placed on the steel tank wall surface and covered with a geomembrane. Please provide the specification section in which the geonet and the geomembrane are specified

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

66. For Project P-9010, Drawing B1/SP501 shows a protection board and waterproofing membrane under all fill materials on the tank concrete wall surfaces. Please provide the specification section in which the protection board and waterproofing materials are specified

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

67. For Project P-9010, Part D, Specification Section 33 52 43.11, Paragraph 2.10, requires Scully modules to connect to PCP (dwg EI702, EI703), but Drawing EP111, Item 083 and EI801 indicate Scully Level Control Panel and Instrument schedule have float switches. Additional relay contacts for pump interlocks based on Specification section 33 09 53, Paragraph 3.3, Control System Sequence of Operation are required for hardwiring to each pump individual pump circuit. Due to this conflict, please identify which requirement to follow.

68. For Project P-9010, Part D, Specification Section 33 09 53, Paragraph 2.1.16.1, a desktop PC is specified with: “… recording, tracking, trending and printing software,” but no connections are indicated from devices to PC to provide monitoring (Pressure, Flow, Pump Status, Runtime, etc.). Specification 3.1.12 Personal Computer requires Screens with ability to make setpoint changes for devices that do not provide these abilities (Flow, Level and Pressure switches). No desktop PC is shown in the Control Room layout (EP111) and no Printer is specified.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

69. For Project P-9010, can the contractor assume that all time delay relays and control relays shown in Control Circuit Schematic drawings EI651-EI652 for Pump Control are to be located inside SPCP and HPCP and not in the Motor Control Center?

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

70. For Project P-9010, Part D, Specification Section 33 09 53, Paragraph 2.1.15, requires three horns and two sirens, but EI801 displays one buzzer, one horn, and one alarm strobe. No specification is provided for alarm buzzer or strobes. No devices are indicated on the building exterior layouts. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

71. The prevailing wage information provided in Amendment #2 states: “If the contract is entered into on or after January 30, 2022, or the contract is renewed or extended (e.g., an option is exercised) on or after January 30, 2022, Executive Order 14026 generally applies to the contract. The contractor must pay all covered workers at least $15.00 per hour (or the applicable wage rate on this wage determination, if it is higher) for all hour spent performing on that contact in 2022. The applicable Executive Order minimum wage will be adjusted annually.” Will the $15.00 per hour wage rate apply to this project? What are we to assume for adjusted annual minimum wages after this rate?

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

72. Proprietary products. Please identify which items are required from a proprietary manufacturer or specific model on this project. If there are any, please provide the Justification and Approval documentation for this and identify three viable manufacturers for each of the identified proprietary items for the contractors to contact to receive competitive quotations.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

73. The P-9010 project includes pricing for the ASTM A358 stainless steel pipe for the hydrant fuel loop. Given the 240-day evaluation period prior to award, the length of time between award, followed by approval of submittals prior to release of the stainless steel for fabrication, and the huge volatility of stainless-steel prices, we find a potential risk of approximately $250,000 to $500,000 for the stainless-steel pipe material in Section 33 52 43.13 - Aviation Fuel

Piping. To allow for more accurate price proposals without contingencies on the contractors, would the Government consider including an economic price adjustment clause such as FAR 52.216-2 Economic Price Adjustment-Standard Supplies, or a separate pricing CLIN that would allow for an adjustment in price if the market shifted more than 15% +/-?

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

74. For Project P-9010, Part D, Specification Section 33 52 43.13, Paragraph 2.1.5.4, is calling out insulating gaskets with fluoroelastomer (FKM), commonly referred to as Viton, O-ring sealing surfaces, mylar insulating sleeves, and phenolic insulating washers. The Insulating Flange Kit Detail on A1/EK506 shows G10 insulating gasket, G10 insulating sleeves, and G10 insulating washers, which is different than Specification Section 33 52 43.13, Paragraph 2.1.5.4.

Please clarify and confirm if the contractor is to provide insulating flange kits per Specification Section 33 52 43.13, Paragraph 2.1.5.4, or per Detail A1/EK506 with all G10 material.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

75. For Project P-9010, Part D, Specification Section 33 52 23.15, Paragraph 3.2.2 NDE Testing Frequency, states that all pipe field welds must be examined by radiographic methods to determine conformance to the paragraph ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS. Please confirm whether radiographic testing equipment will be allowed on the island of Tinian in order to perform the radiographic testing. If radiographic testing equipment is not allowed on Tinian, what alternate testing methods will be acceptable?

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

76. For Project P-9010, Drawing SP110 Vault Cover Schedule shows the required dimensions and sizes for the rolling pit covers. The “L” and “S” dimensions shown for the rolling pit covers are wider than the width of standard shipping containers or flat racks and cannot be shipped to Tinian. Would the contractors and/or manufacturers of the rolling pit covers be able to design the pit covers and frames in half sections such that the halves can be bolted together during installation in the field? Having the half sections will allow the rolling pit covers to fit into standard shipping containers and flat racks for transport to Tinian.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

77. For Project P-9010, Part D, Specification Section 33 52 43.13, Paragraph 2.1.1(c), calls for seamless schedule 160 carbon steel piping for sizes 2-inch and smaller. Paragraph 2.1.5.2(b) calls out 3,000-lb carbon steel forged socket weld fittings for sizes 2-inch and smaller. Please clarify whether 6,000-lb forged socket weld fittings are required for sizes 2-inch and smaller in order to match the schedule 160 carbon steel piping.

78. For Project P-9030, Part B, Specification Section 33 16 15, Paragraph 2.1.1, calls for the water tank to be designed for a snow load of 1.2 kPa. Please clarify and confirm whether the water tank shall be designed for a snow load, even though Tinian receives no annual snow.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

79. For Project P-9030, Part B, Specification Section 33 16 15, Paragraph 2.2.1, calls for A36 steel to have a minimum thickness of 9.5 mm (0.375-inch). Typically, this thickness would be a call-out for the tank shell only. Please confirm that all steel plate, i.e., shell, floor, roof, etc., for the water tank is required to be 9.5 mm (0.375-inch) thick. Typically, a water tank of this size would be 0.25-inch floor, 0.25-inch shell, and 0.1875-inch roof. The specification is also calling out to use A36 modified grade steel. Typically, this grade of steel is used in cold climates and would require a snow load factor for the roof.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

80. For Project P-9030, Part B, Specification Section 33 16 15, Paragraph 2.3.1.3, calls for a pressure/vacuum vent that won’t fail in freezing or cold temperatures. Please confirm whether this is necessary for Tinian. Typically, a standard atmospheric tank vent that conforms to AWWA and NFPA 22 standard should be good for this water tank.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

81. For Project P-9010, Drawings MP019 and MP514 show the two Isolation Valve Stations for the new Transfer Pipeline. These drawings and notes do not identify whether all the flanges for the Valve Stations shall be 150# or 300# flanges. Please confirm whether all the flanges shown for the two Isolation Valve Stations shall be 150# or 300# flanges.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

82. For Project P-9010, Drawing MP019 shows eleven (11) HPV/LPD Pits for the new Transfer Pipeline. The drawings and notes do not identify whether all the flanges inside the HPV/LPD Pits shall be 150# or 300# flanges. Please confirm whether all the flanges inside these HPV/LPD Pits shall be 150# or 300# flanges.

ANSWER: Response is deferred.

83. All projects. Please confirm that the available water source for hydrostatic testing of the tanks and pipeline flushing will not pose a risk for microbial-induced corrosion.