23R1302_Notice5-Issued.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

RFP N62742-23-R-1302

Notice No. 5

25 July 2023

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

WON 1663847, FY24 MCAF PROJECT PAF180500, BOMBER APRON,

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE (RAAF) BASE TINDAL,

AUSTRALIA

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.

RESPONSE REVISED FROM NOTICE NO. 1 DATED JULY 5, 2023:

23. Specification Section 03 30 00, Page 7, 1.15 - The Defense Base Act Waiver for Australia expires on 22 July 2023. Will the waiver be renewed? Please confirm that we should proceed with the understanding that this will be renewed for the duration of this project.

ANSWER: Please find the new Defense Base Act (DBA) Waiver for Australia with an

Expiration Date of July 16, 2028 published on the U.S. Department of Labor DBA website.

RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 4 DATED JULY 13, 2023:

65. Drawing CR516, drawing SP502. Drawing CR516 (section D3 and A1) and Drawing SP502

(section C1 and B1) both show differing footing details for the fuel hydrant high point vent and low point drain concrete surround. Please confirm which detail is correct.

ANSWER: Detail D3/CR516 should be called “FUEL HYDRANT OUTLET PIT

REINFORCED CONCRETE SURROUND”. Details on SP502 must be used for the high point vent and low point drain concrete surrounds. See Amendment No.

0002 for revision.

67. Specification 23 11 36.13, Clause 2.3.2. We note that in the specification under 2.3.2

Mechanical Spreader, it refers to a spreader with a hopper and adjustable screed mechanism to spread the cement treated base material in the shoulder pavement and the open drain area.

We advise that the use of a mechanical spreader is not safe nor practical in the open drain areas due to the excessive cross-fall slope. This leaves only a small shoulder area to do with the mechanical spreader. Given this spreader would need to be sourced from Queensland (there are none based in the Northern Territory), the cost to mobilise and demobilize the spreader 3,000km each way is prohibitive for such a small area. We propose the use of a motor grader be permitted as with the other granular pavements on the project and in keeping with the current practice on site at RAAF Tindal and other airfield pavement projects in Australia. Segregation tests conducted on the placed material can be used to confirm the methodology does not segregate the material.

ANSWER: Specification number referenced in query is incorrect. There is no 23 11 36.13 and 32 11 36.13 applies to lean mix concrete. The applicable specification is 32 11

33.13. Regardless, the use of a motor grader is acceptable for the placement of cement treated base in the open drain and on the shoulder pavement.

RESPONSES FOR NOTICE NO. 5:

83. Section 00 21 16, Paragraphs 1.1 a and b, identify the proposal due date as 2nd August 2023.

We respectfully request a 4-week extension to 30th August to allow the necessary time to obtain quotations for the critical scope of work on this project. By extending the due date of this solicitation, quotations from the AUS vendors and subcontractors substantially increase, providing a larger probability for the prime contractors to prepare competitive proposals.

ANSWER: See Amendment No. 0002.

84. We request two clarifications on Section 01 14 00 Page 12, Security Requirements, Paragraph 1.5.4 Security Escorts: 1) Is there a limit on the quantity of crew personnel that can be watched by a single security escort? 2) If the prime contractor security escorts are not available, can the Navy provide the daily rate for the prime contractor to hire subcontractor security escort services?

ANSWER: 1) Maximum 3 crew can be escorted.

2) No, rates cannot be provided. The existing base security is provided by Wilson.

85. 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: Currently, there are no proprietary items. The Government will provide the required Justification and Approval documents should any proprietary items be specified in the future.

86. Please confirm that there is no “Controlled Unclassified Information” (CUI) within the plans and specifications for this solicitation.

ANSWER: Confirmed.

87. As a follow-up to the site visit on 28th June, please provide the location for the water source for us to use on this project.

ANSWER: Make allowance for construction water as per Note CW1, CW2, CW3 and CW4 on

Drawing C-002. Also, refer to response to Question 60.

88. As a follow-up to the site visit on 28th June, Reference Drawings E-105, T-105 – Sub 35 building was locked and not accessible. Can interior and exterior photographs be provided to the contractors?

ANSWER: See .pdf document with filename “23.07.17 – ALER14 and SUB35” for download from SAM.gov. These photos indicate the site conditions as of July 17, 2023.

89. As a follow-up to the site visit on 28th June, Reference Drawings E-175, E-558, T-105 –

ALER 14 building was locked and not accessible. Can interior and exterior photographs be provided to the contractors?

ANSWER: See .pdf document with filename “23.07.17 – ALER14 and SUB35” for download from SAM.gov. These photos indicate the site conditions as of July 17, 2023.

90. As a follow-up to the site visit on 28th June, airfield segmented paver blocks were not identified, other than the landscaping square blocks for pedestrian around the terminal building. Reference Drawing CD-107 Apron Demolition plan – sheet 7/ 2nd sheet legend “Existing block pavers to be salvaged for reuse +/- 14,870 SQ M …” and G-105 “Apron Reclaimed Crushed Block Paver Stockpile- 750 +/- m3 approx. “ Some specific questions about this include the following:

a) What is the location of the existing blocks identified to be demolished?

b) What is the intended re-use of the blocks on this project?

c) Does the Navy request the blocks be salvaged for re-use on another project at RAAF

Tindal?

d) Please provide the existing PCC airfield concrete section for demolition of the 14,870 m3 and 750 m3 areas that are currently shown on the drawings as block surfacing.

ANSWER: a) The location of the existing blocks to be demolished is shown on CD 107 third legend entry and applies to the block pavers on the AMA apron (Air Movements Apron).

b) The intended reuse of the block pavers is to line the open drain as per Pavement

Type 4 on CP501. Surplus concrete blocks may be crushed and used to supplement the sand fraction of crushed concrete.

c) No, the intention is to reuse the blocks on the P500 apron project.

d) The cross-section of the 14,870 SQ M AMA from CD 107 is shown on DC501.

The 750 +/- m3 approx. applies to block paver stockpile volume of the 14,870 SQ M areas.

91. As a follow-up to the site visit on 28th June, is there a borrow site on RAAF Tindal for the contractors to consider utilizing to store excess civil materials? What is the haul distance to the project site?

ANSWER: Excavated material must be tested for contamination in accordance with

Specification 02 61 13. Excavated material must be reused as defined in C-001 Notes: Re-Use of Site Won Materials. Material identified for reuse may be temporarily stockpiled within the project site. Laydown and stockpile areas are to be determined by the Contractor and defined within their Method of Work Plan, and Construction Environmental Management Plan. Laydown and stockpile areas are suggested on drawing G-105 .

Excess excavated material shall be placed as controlled fill in the KC-30 HIAL zone, as defined on G-105 Spoil Location Site Plan, and as shown in drawing CE- 501.

92. Regarding Specification Section 01 14 00 Page 10, 1.5 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS, 1.5.1

Security Management Plan, and 1.5.2 Commonwealth Security Requirements, is the position for a Unit Security Officer holding the necessary accreditation to receive sensitive and classified information allowed to work remotely, fulfilling the responsibilities from an off-site location? If required to be present on-site, can this be a collateral position with other project roles and responsibilities?

ANSWER: The unit security officer can work remotely. While the position allows for remote work and can be undertaken alongside other project roles and responsibilities, it is crucial to prioritize effective risk management and prevent any oversight of critical aspects within the project.

93. Regarding Specification Section 01 14 00, Page 15, Paragraph 1.8.4, is the position for a

Contractor's Construction Manager allowed to work remotely, fulfilling the responsibilities from an off-site location? If required to be present on-site, can this be a collateral position with other project roles and responsibilities?

ANSWER: The Construction Manager is a full time on-site position, and can’t be a collateral position with other project roles and responsibilities.

94. Regarding Specification Section 01 35 26, Page 10, Paragraph 1.7.1.2.1, is the position for a Works Safety Officer allowed to work remotely, fulfilling the responsibilities from an off-site location? If required to be present on-site, can this be a collateral position with other project roles and responsibilities?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

95. Regarding Specification Section 01 31 23.13 20, Page 4 – 7, is the “Site Security Manager“

(table of CUI protection on certain administrative contract documents) allowed to work remotely, fulfilling the responsibilities from an off-site location? If required to be present on-site, can this be a collateral position with other project roles and responsibilities?

ANSWER: The project does not anticipate any controlled or restricted documentation requiring a Site Security Manager to process handling of such material.

96. Section 32 13 14.13, 1.5 Quality Control: We refer specifically to ‘1.5.2.c Concrete Batch

Plant Operator: National Ready Mix Concrete Association (NRMCA) Plant Manager certification. Provide a NRMCA Certificate of Conformance for the batch plant operator’, ‘1.5.1.h Laboratory Testing Technicians: ACI Concrete Strength Testing Technician and Laboratory Testing Technician, Grade I or II’, and other similar ACI requirements for contractor QC staff throughout Section 1.5 Quality Control. These ACI, NRMCA, etc.

qualifications and/or certifications are not readily available in Australia. Will NAVFAC accept the normal Australian standards that apply to such work?

ANSWER: Qualifications as per the specification must be complied with.

97. We refer to ‘2.2.2 Blended Cements’, which requires ‘Provide blended cement conforms to

AS 3972, Type GB. Provide pozzolan added to the Type IP blend consisting of AS 3582.1 special grade and that is interground with the cement clinker.’ We seek approval to blend components of the cement at the batch plant.

ANSWER: Components of the cement may be mixed at the batch plant subject to the consistency requirements of the blend from Clause 2.2.2 being maintained.

98. The local supply chain is critical to the success of this project, however, subcontractors and vendors are struggling, and therefore not likely, to fully respond to our requests for quotes given the constraints of the current due date. We request a 30-day extension to give local subcontractors and vendors an opportunity to fully evaluated the scope requirements, as well as resourcing and logistical issues.

ANSWER: See Amendment No. 0002.

99. Construction material costs have increased significantly in recent times, and the construction material market continues to be volatile and unpredictable. It is anticipated that construction material costs will continue to increase into the foreseeable future; however, it is not possible to predict how much prices will increase by the time the contract is awarded and work starts.

Under the current market conditions, subcontractors and vendors are hesitant to commit to holding their prices at currently reasonable rates for the extraordinarily long 180-day bid validity period. To protect both the Government and the Contractor, would the Government consider incorporating FAR 52.216-4 Economic Price Adjustment-Labor and Material or a substantially similar and suitable price adjustment clause into the solicitation for inclusion into the resulting contract? This will allow for an adjustment to the FFP in the event of significant and unpredictable material costs fluctuation during the term of the contract.

Inclusion of this clause will protect and benefit the Government, as offered prices will not need to account for contingencies associated with the elevated risk of unknown future material cost escalations for the extended 180-day bid validity period.

ANSWER: An Economic Price Adjustment clause will not be included.

100. Design Drawings Vol 2, Drawings CR127 and CR128 Subsoil Drainage Plan: Drawings

CR127 and CR128 specify a 225mm RCP pipe. This RCP pipe ties into the T01 pit on the north western side of the apron, however, on the south eastern side of the apron this 225mm RCP pipe is shown to be connected to the vertical riser, VR2. However, looking at Drawing CR301, Vertical Rise Detail (Type 2), the connection of the subsoil drainage does not specify how the 225mm RCP pipe terminates/connects. Is the 225mm RCP pipe specified meant to be PVC drain pipe?

If this is not the case, could the client please provide a detail of how the 225mm RCP pipe connects to the subsoil drainage system at VR02?

ANSWER: See response to Question 45. Drawing CR128 was revised in Amendment No.

0002.

101. Drawing CM503 details an Airfield Explosive Facility Corner Marking in Detail C3.

However, when referring to Drawings CM107, CM108 this detail is not called up on the drawings. Please confirm this line marking detail is not required, or if it is, please specify the location and quantum required.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

102. Section 32 11 23, Page 7: On the bottom of Page 7, there is a Note 1 and a Note 3. Note 2 appears to be missing. Please provide Note 2.

ANSWER: “Note 3” is incorrectly numbered and must read “Note 2”. The specification will be revised in a forthcoming amendment.

103. Section 32 11 23, Page 7: We request the GOVT relax the 75um Sieve noted in Table 2 in

“2.1.4 Gradation Requirements” from “0 – 8” to 0 – 10%.

ANSWER: The request is not approved. The requirement is to be maintained.

104. Section 32 11 23, Section 3.5.2, Page 9: Under 3.5.2 Placing, we request approval to spread using a motor grader.

ANSWER: No objections to spreading by motor grader.

105. Section 32 11 23, Section 3.8, Page 10: Under “3.8 Proof Rolling”, we request the specification be changed to note a Marco Roller is not required on shoulders.

ANSWER: The request is not approved. The requirement is to be maintained. The shoulder pavement is designed for occasional aircraft tracking and is subject to proof roll requirements.

106. RFP, Document 00 70 00, Section 1.57 Bid Guarantee: If awarded the contract, we are considering providing an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (ILOC) that would comply with FAR 52.228-14 as our performance guarantee. Would a letter of assurance from our bank, providing its commitment to issuing us an ILOC if the contract is awarded to us, be considered sufficient for our bid guarantee?

ANSWER: In accordance with Amendment No. 0001, Document 00 70 00, 1.57 FAR 52.228-1, BID GUARANTEE, “The bidder shall furnish a bid guarantee in the form of a firm commitment, e.g., bid bond supported by good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government, postal money order, certified check, cashier’s check, irrevocable letter of credit, or, under Treasury Department regulations, certain bonds or notes of the United States.” Should a bid guarantee be submitted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, FAR 52.228-14, IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, defines an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (ILC) as, “a written commitment by a federally insured financial institution.” “Only federally insured financial institutions rated investment grade by a commercial rating service shall issue or confirm the ILC.” Further, “The Offeror/Contractor shall provide the Contracting Officer a credit rating that indicates the financial institutions have the required credit rating as of the date of issuance of the ILC.” FAR 52.228-14 provides a website that lists the approved rating services registered with the U.S.

Securities and Exchange Commission. Please go to https://www.acquisition.gov/ for the full text of FAR 52.228-14, which provides the detailed requirements for an

ILC.

107. If an Offeror is an LLC and uses irrevocable letters of credit (ILOCs) for bid and performance guarantees, would multiple ILOCs (provided on behalf of each member of the LLC) be acceptable, assuming each ILOC complies with the requirements of FAR 52.228- 14 and the sum of the ILOCs, when added together, meet the minimum dollar required dollar amounts?

ANSWER: The LLC should submit one single ILC for the bid guarantee. In the event the LLC is awarded the contract and decides to submit an ILC for the performance bond, a single ILC should be submitted. A Payment Bond will also be required by contract.

108. Drawing CM107, CM108 shows line markings that appear to be Stand/Stop Lines, with an example being Setout Point A51. We request clarification on these lines. Are these lines meant to be, as per Detail A1 on Drawing CM504, to the dimensions specified on the B52, Marshaller Stop Line or completed as Pilot Stop Lines as per Figure 8.64 (3), Section 8.64 within the Manual of Standards (MOS) Part 139?

ANSWER: Pilot stop line as per Figure 8.64 (3). CM504 to be revised in forthcoming amendment.