P-2005 -Notice 1.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

N62742-22-R-1319

Notice No. 1

13 January 2022

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

RFP N62742-22-R-1319

FY22 P-2005 WORKING DOG TREATMENT FACILITY REPLACEMENT, JOINT BASE

PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, HAWAII

NOTE: The following questions and answers are provided for INFORMATION ONLY. The RFP remains unchanged unless it is amended in writing on a Standard Form 30.

1. It is our understanding that a Military Working Dog (MWD) is considered a military service member, and holds a Non-Commissioned Officer rank. Moreover, we are also aware that military dental facilities are equipped and available to handle dental procedures on MWDs.

Reference a recent U.S. Army article “Army dentist roots out problem for military working dog”;

article link -https://www.army.mil/article/246724/army_dentist_roots_out_problem_for_military_working_d og.

Our company recently constructed a Medical-Dental Clinic at MCBH, Kaneohe Bay that has similar and in many ways superior apparatus and equipment than a veterinary clinic, of which our newly constructed facility is available for use to care for MWDs. Therefore, we kindly ask that such a medical/dental facility be considered as a relevant project to the RFP. Additionally, Hawaii is a small state, of which there has been a limited number of large veterinary construction projects in the past 15 years. As a result, it is critical for NAVFAC Pacific to understand that the current relevant project definition limits competition and makes it especially difficult for a local company to compete, preventing well-qualified local contractors from bidding on this project.

Overall, we believe medical facility experience that is more complex to build than a veterinary facility should be consider as relevant experience. If you concur, please revise the RFP-definition accordingly, of which below is our suggestion for the revised definition, revised text underlined for ease of identification and possible incorporation:

“New construction of (i) a veterinary treatment facility or veterinary clinic, or a veterinary treatment facility addition or veterinary clinic addition OR (ii) new construction of a medical and/or dental clinic, or a facility capable of providing medical care to Military Working Dogs (MWD), at least 10,000 square feet in building size and approximately $10,000,000 or more in dollar value, completed or substantially completed within the past 15 years.”

RFP N62742-21-R-1302

ANSWER: The Government intends to revise the definition of a relevant project in Document 00202 via future Amendment to the following: “New construction veterinary treatment facility, veterinary clinic, medical clinic, or hospital; or a veterinary treatment facility addition, veterinary clinic addition, medical clinic addition, or hospital addition. Facility/addition shall be at least 10,000 square feet in building size; approximately $10,000,000 or more in dollar value; and completed or substantially completed within the past 15 years.”

2. Factor 1 – Past Experience. Will new construction of medical treatment facilities or medical facilities be considered relevant project experience.

ANSWER: See response to Question #1 in this Notice No. 1 dated January 13, 2022. The Government does not pre-evaluate proposals.

3. Factor 3 – Safety requires submission of DART and TRC rates. May contractors provide an explanation (including any extenuating circumstances) for any DART rates exceeding 2.99 and TRC rates exceeding 4.49 along with the actions taken to prevent future occurrences as part of the factor submission?

ANSWER: Deferred.

4. Bid Item 0001AB & 0001AC Unit: Bid proposal schedule, page 3 of 4 of SF1442 indicates the unit bid items measure is by m^3, not by cy, but the project drawing is not metric system. Please confirm the measuring unit.

ANSWER: Will revise Price Proposal Schedule via future Amendment to indicate Imperial units for line items 0001AB and 0001AC.

5. C3/CU203 & A3/F501 : WL D profile indicated the 6” WL is C900 PVC, DR14, but the detail A3/F501 indicated ductile iron pipe. Please clarify.

ANSWER: The buried underground piping is permitted to be of any acceptable material complying with Specification Section 33 11 00 – Water Utility Distribution Piping, per Specification 21 13 13.00 20, Section 2.1.1. The callout “Ductile Iron Pipe” on Detail A3/F501 will be clarified via future Amendment; however, the vertical piping up to the aboveground backflow preventer and fire sprinkler riser must be ductile iron, noted as “Ductile Iron Pipe Riser”.

6. Geotechnical Report: Foundation Note #1, S001 refers to Geotechnical Report for additional info. Please provide the referred Geotechnical Report by Geolabs Inc.

ANSWER: Information necessary to prepare a proposal is provided in the solicitation documents, including the Geotechnical drawings, Sheets B-001 through B-703. The reference to the Geotechnical Report for additional information will be deleted via future Amendment and the Geotechnical Report will not be provided.