23R1302_Notice6-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. 6

31 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.

109. Drawing C-504, Detail B1: We note an inconsistency in the requirements for the combined service corridor. Detail B1 on Drawing C-504 specifies a combined services corridor section that shows conduit sizing of 1x120mm conduit for the AGL, 2 x 120mm LV conduits and 1 x 110mm conduit for the communication service. This contradicts the drawings found within the relevant drawing packages. The AGL Drawings E-177 and E- 178 specify 1 x 100mm conduit for the AGL, the LV Drawings E-107 and E108 specify 1 x 100mm conduit and the Communications Drawing T-100 specifies that the T4 comms work is 2 x 100mm conduits.

Please clarify the sizing of the conduits due to the conflicting information.

Detail B1 from Drawing C-504

ANSWER: Conduits are sized as per discipline documentation. Conduits to be sized as per E-

177 and E-178, E-107 and E-108, and T-100. Drawing C-504 will be updated to align with this. Revised drawing will be in forthcoming amendment.

110. Drawings C-504 and E-517: The combined services corridor from Drawing C-504 shows the corridor is 3m wide with typical spacings detailed. This detail is vastly different in terms of spacing and pictured cover requirements from Detail A1 shown on Drawing E- 517, which shows these services combined within one trench. Please confirm that the intent to combine all services into one trench as per Detail A1 from Drawing E-517 or to install separate trenches as per Drawing C-504 within a combined services corridor noting the large spacings shown on Drawing C-504.

Detail A1 from Drawing E-517

ANSWER: Drawing C-504 and E-517 will be updated. Revised drawings will be in forthcoming amendment.

Drawing C-504 is a section through the northern service corridor around apron perimeter, and reflects the typical services alignments when not restricted spatially.

The depth of services will be as per individual discipline documentation. Comms cabling is shown indicatively deeper than required on C504 and will be updated.

Drawing E-517 reflects a single/common trench where permissible or services are spatially restricted. Minimum spacing in this common trench horizontally between conduits to be updated to 300mm min.

111. Specification Section 32 14 13.13 and Drawing CR-503, Note 1: There is an inconsistency between the specification and drawings concerning kerbing/concrete edge restraint concrete strength. Within the Design Specification relating to Concrete Edge Restraints, Section 32 14 13.13 Clause 2.1.3.2, it notes that the concrete strength to be used for concrete edge restraint is to be no less than 40MPa. This appears to be inconsistent with the notes within the provided drawings, specifically Note 1 on Drawing CR-503, where it is noted that the concrete strength for kerbing is to be 32MPa.

Please confirm which strength of concrete is required for kerb works/concrete edge restraint system.

Sheet Notes from Drawing CR-503

From Specification 32 14 13.13

ANSWER: The concrete strength requirement for the edge-restraint is 32 MPa in accordance with the drawing. Revised specification will be in forthcoming amendment.

112. Woven Geotextile – Pavement Type 6: For Pavement Type 6 - Unsealed Access track, it specifies a "Woven Reinforcement Geotextile Fabric" is to be placed at the interface between the Select fill and the Aggregate Surfacing.

After reviewing the design specifications provided, we have not been able to locate a specification/ requirement relating to the "Woven" Geotextile, noting all specification references specify "non-woven" Geotextile only.

Please provide the requirements or relevant specification for this material.

ANSWER: Refer to response for Question 27 – “Please note that Pavement Type 6 detail on drawing CP-501 detail A1 and C-501 detail C1 incorrectly references a woven geotextile. Geotextile is to be non-woven as indicated in the specification. Please refer to Specification Section 31 32 19.16 GEOTEXTILE SOIL STABILIZATION, paragraph “2.1.1 Geotextile” and Table 1 for the strength requirements.” Revised drawing was issued in Amendment No. 0002.

113. 07 Electrical Drawings (E-506, E-507, E-508, etc.): Upon review of the provided design drawings for the Lighting scope, it appears that no bollards have been provided around each of the Floodlight / Floodlight Control Panels.

Due to the floodlight control panel and associated lighting infrastructure, we believe that these items would require protection. Based on previous experience, we were expecting that a bollard would be required on each corner of the footing to protect the infrastructure from vehicle movements and believe this may be an oversight within the design.

Please advise whether we should allow for additional bollards around each floodlight to protect from traffic on the apron or price as per the design without bollards.

ANSWER: The control board located adjacent floodlight poles has been positioned such that it is shielded from the direction of traffic by the pole. It has also been positioned opposite the lowering direction of the pole to minimize the chance of conflict with trailer mounted lowering equipment. Bollards may be considered an obstacle throughout the apron area and have not been provided.

114. Drawings CP-501 and CR-511: Concerning the Concrete Pavement Mesh Reinforcement details, we note that the thickness of the concrete pavement slabs within the design are as follows:

Pavement Type 1 - 505mm Pavement Type 1 (thickened section - 1.25D) - 635mm

Pavement Type 2 - 165mm Pavement Type 2 (thickened section - 1.25D) - 206mm

The design pavement thicknesses specified for Pavement Type 1 or Pavement Type 2 are not detailed within the Reinforcing Mesh Table provided within Design Drawing CR-511.

Please clarify/confirm the cover & steel mesh size for each of the designed pavement thicknesses.

Pavement Profiles from Drawing CP-501

ANSWER: The concrete thickness from the reinforcing mesh table on drawing CR511, closest to the nominal design thickness applies. i.e. for Pavement Type 1 on drawing CP- 501, the SL92 mesh at 160 mm below FSL applies and for Pavement Type 2 on drawing CP-501, the SL62 mesh at 70 mm below FSL applies. The depth below FLS is maintained based on the nominal design thickness regardless of edge-thickening.

115. Amendment No. 0001, Document 00 22 00, RFP Clause 2.3(a), Subsection 2: This section states, “Only pavement of aircraft apron, taxiway, shoulders, or runway will be considered.

Projects submitted to demonstrate Airfield AC Pavements will only be considered if the work was performed by the specific entity proposed for Airfield AC Pavements.”

It is the practice in Australia that Airfield AC pavements are carried out by specialist subcontractors and that the prime contractor manages and coordinates the works and prepares the earthworks and flexible pavements associated. Please confirm, for purposes of satisfying Subsection 2 above: Is it required that the Offerer demonstrate experience in selecting, managing and coordinating the specialist subcontractor for laying the asphalt (rather than demonstrate experience as a specialist subcontractor actually executing/performing the work)?

ANSWER: Please see Note 5 of Factor 1 - Experience, in Amendment No. 0001, Document 00 22 00, Page 4 of 8, for details required for proposal submission. Note 5 reads, in part, "If the Offeror is utilizing experience and past performance information of any entity other than (1) the Offeror; (2) if the Offeror is a joint venture, its joint venture partners jointly and severally liable for the contract; or (3) a firm that has been acquired by the Offeror and is no longer a separate legal entity, the Offeror shall provide in its proposal a fully-executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement. The teaming agreement or other contractual agreement shall, at a minimum, (1) be signed by the Offeror and the other entity, (2) specifically reference this solicitation/contract, and (3) specify the work to be performed by the other entity such that it is clear that the other entity will be meaningfully involved in this contract in a role that is consistent with that entity’s role in the project submitted."

116. Drawing S-512 (Pole Cradle Pad Footing): Drawing S-512 Detail B4 shows a pole cradle pad footing that appears to have been designed for a specific purpose. However, upon review of the electrical drawings and the floodlighting, it cannot be determined where or if these footings are incorporated.

Please clarify the location and number of these footings so we may price accordingly.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

117. Drawings CX-501 and CX-502 and Drawings C-410 and C503: We have identified an apparent inconsistency in the bollard detail to be installed for the isolation valve pit. Civil Fueling Drawings (CX-501 and CX-502) and Civil Drawings Set C-410 and C-503 show differing installation details.

Please confirm whether the bollards are to be installed as per Detail C2 from Drawing C-

503 or as per Detail C4 from Drawing CX-501?

ANSWER: Provide Bollard per Detail C2/C-503. Sheet CX501 to be revised to show the new callout. Revised drawing will be included in forthcoming amendment.

118. Section 32 11 23, Page 7: Please find below a locally available quarry materials grading curve. We seek a relaxation on the 75um Sieve “2.1.4 Gradation Requirements”, from 0- 8% to 0-10% for the completed base course.

ANSWER: Specification requirements must be met.

119. General: We are normally required to acknowledge receipt of amendments on the SF 1442.

Are we required to also acknowledge receipt of Notices issued?

ANSWER: No, you do not need to acknowledge Notices.

120. On Drawing CD108 we are demolishing existing buildings 830, 730, and 1036. Please confirm that there are no scheduling restrictions on completing this demolition. As this work is on the project critical path, we cannot be delayed starting this work.

ANSWER: Bldg 830: (Air Movements Terminal): The scheduling of KC-30 project works

(being undertaken by Lendlease) and the P-500 project works have been coordinated with recognition that demolition of the existing AMT is on the critical path.

Bldg 730: (Strarch Hangar): Operations of the Strarch Hangar may be discontinued to enable demolition with no specific scheduling constrictions.

Bldg 1036: (400 Hz converter equipment supplying AMA outlets): this facility houses the (redundant) centralised 400 Hz ground supplies to the existing AMA.

This facility is no longer utilised and is available for immediate equipment removal/disposal and building demolition with no specific scheduling constrictions.

121. At the jobsite meeting there was a comment that stated that the Air Movement Building being constructed by Lend Lease needs to be completed prior to us being allowed to demolish building 830 air movement buildings. Please confirm or deny this. If true, what date are we to assume in our schedule that Lend Lease will complete their work.

ANSWER: See response to Question 75. The scheduling of KC-30 project works (being undertaken by Lendlease) and the P-500 project works have been coordinated with recognition that demolition of the existing AMT is on the critical path. Accordingly, the P-500 program has been established with the understanding that the new AMT will be operational by April 2024 to allow P-500 contractor to progress demolition of existing AMT and associated strarch hangar.

122. In the RFI question responses for #3, 12, 37, and 60, several comments are made that we are to coordinate with the P200, KC-30, and P700 contractor for these services. We have no contract with each of these contractors and therefore if their schedule doesn’t allow us to complete our work, we have no recourse. Please consider providing us with hard dates as to when we can gain access to these areas for us to plan our work or, if our schedule is impacted due to their not being able to provide us with access, then we would consider it a changed condition in our contract.

123. Note 6 on the demolition Drawing CD101 states: “the following materials must not be disposed to Landfill. Concrete Bricks, glass, road base scrap metals, clean fill.” Please confirm that the surplus soils, rock, or broken concrete and pavers from this project can be deposited at the spoil zone site shown on Drawing G-105 as the KC-30 HIAL spoil Zone if necessary.

ANSWER: All demolished apron concrete must be crushed and reused in the works, and the existing apron pavers similarly must be reused in the works. Accordingly none of this material is expected to be utilized for establishing the HIAL platform or disposed of offsite. Clean fill (including PFAS contaminated material) may be used to construct the HIAL platform.

Building demolition waste including concrete blockwork (bricks), reinforced concrete foundations, glass, mechanical and electrical plant etc. is not suitable for reuse in the apron construction works nor construction of the HIAL fill platform and therefore shall be appropriately disposed of offsite.

124. In reference to BRA/9 TO BRA/1 (Sheet E-177) and BRA/88 to BRA/79 (Sheet E-178), it appears that these are new Inset Omni Directional Apron Edge lights installed within a shallow base. There is no table for circuit and conduit called out. Which circuit are these feeding from?

ANSWER: Refer to Sheet E-550 for installation instructions. Inset light bases installed in shoulder pavement and taxiway fillets to be supplied from an adjacent SIT pit, and be fed from the BRA circuit.

125. In reference to AGL (Aeronautical Ground Lighting) (E-177 and E178), there are only 3

Pits showing on this run. Please let us know if additional Pits are required.

ANSWER: SIT pits not shown on E-177 and E-178 for reasons of clarity and to allow for flexibility in the installation. As per sheet E-550 install SIT pits along conduit run adjacent each inset light base. Also include SIT pits for change of conduit direction where a D25 is not specified.

126. Specs Section 26 56 00, Paragraph 2.6, flood poles, shall match the equipment being installed on the new Air Movements Apron so that standardized lowering equipment may be used. Please provide the manufacturer and model of the pole that was approved on adjacent project so we can match the existing lowering equipment.

ANSWER: Poles are to comply with spec section 26 56 00.

127. In Specs Section 26 56 20, Paragraph 2.21, taxiway centerline and edge light fittings are to be supplied and installed as nominated on the drawing , and the lights supplied are to match those supplied on Taxiway A and the Movements Apron as part of the KC-30 project.

Please provide the manufacturer and model information so we can match the light fittings on the KC-30 project.

ANSWER: Items are to comply with spec section 26 56 20.

128. Drawing S-508 SectionA1: Please confirm the material type surrounding the grated drain shown as a (+) and the pipe type on the lefthand side.

ANSWER: The material shown as a + hatch will be deleted and replaced with lean mix to the underside of the pavement. The subsoil drain shown is to be removed. Revised drawing will be in forthcoming amendment.

129. Drawing MP502 section C1: Please confirm the existing fuel line loop to be removed will be depressurized, isolated and all fuel removed by the fuel farm operator prior to the Bomber Apron fuel subcontractor removing the loop.

ANSWER: Contractor is responsible for defueling the piping to be removed. See General

Mechanical Note 3, sheet MP001. The contractor is responsible for coordinating with fuel farm operator to vent line to atmosphere.

130. Drawing CS504 Section B4: Please provide details for the 20MPa Class C concrete slab shown in Section B4 on drawing CS504. This slab is shown at the base of the SQID Device on the detail.

ANSWER: This concrete slab at the base of the SQID Device is to be amended to 7 MPa blinding concrete as per drawing S-002. Revised drawing will be in forthcoming amendment.

131. Drawing CS504, CS509: Please confirm the pit lids for all of the pits shown on drawing

CS504 are Class D. Drawing CS504 states class E in note 2 and class G in section B4.

The weir pits in drawing CS509 have class G lids but in drawing S-502 the same pit lids are class D and of a different size.

ANSWER: It is confirmed that the following pit lids/covers are Class D as they are located off the main apron:

- PEN 1

- WEIR 1

- D1

- D2

- D3

- D4

- PEN 2

- WEIR 2

- All access covers for the SQID units.

Revised drawing will be in forthcoming amendment.

132. Drawing CD107: Please confirm the fuel lines under the existing apron will be isolated and free from fuel (by others) prior to being removed during the demolition of the existing apron.

ANSWER: Refer note on Drawing CD107, existing hydrant fuel line capped by KC-30 project.

Remove fuel line beyond point of capping, see note 9. Note 9. Demolish and remove all existing fuel hydrant line (including hydrant and valves) beyond cap provided by KC-30 project. Prior to demolition, Contractor shall verify that the fuel line within the limit of disturbance has been decommissioned and made safe for removal.

KC-30 project will decommission the pipeline, isolate and make safe for removal.

The Contractor should verify this prior to removal.

133. Specification section 33 52 43.43 clause 3.10.1 and 3.10.2.6: Please confirm the requirements of clause 3.10.1 and 3.10.2.6 requiring a specialist pig to be passed through the pipeline. This is not a survey conducted on fuel pipelines in Australia and would require a specialist subcontractor to be sourced for overseas at a significant cost. Please confirm the pipe ultrasonic survey is not required.

ANSWER: Pipe ultrasonic survey is required.

134. Specification section 33 52 43.11 clause 2.3: Please confirm the client will be flexible with the hydrants single and double LPD’s and HPV’s pits as we intend to use prefabricated standard pits supplied by DABICO. This is a common supplier of the pits for works in civil and military fuel systems. There will be some minor dimensional and material differences to the drawings and specification. Manufacture details have been attached to the RFI, refer to appendix C items 1 through to 5.

ANSWER: Comply with the requirements as specified in Section 33 52 43.11.

135. Drawing CX501: Please confirm the client will accept a prefabricated isolation valve pit supplied from DABICO? The fiberglass pit is designed to have reinforced concrete cast around the pit The pit details from the manufacturer is attached with this RFI in appendix C item 7.

ANSWER: Comply with the requirements as specified on Drawing CX501.

136. Specification section 32 13 14.13 clause 3.5.1: Clause 3.5.1 requires a paving rate of at least 0.8m of paving lane per minute. This appears to be a rate using mechanised pavers which are not suited to this project and is not achievable using truss screeds as used on the current Tindal PCC pavement projects. We request this be amended to 20m/hour in keeping with current proven methodologies rate while achieving consistent pours. Please confirm this requirement is not required.

ANSWER: Clause 3.5.1 to be revised to be consistent with the requirements of Clause 3.4, i.e.

“maintain a continuous, uniform forward movement of the paver of not less than 0.7 m per minute for mechanical pavers and 10 meter per hour (0.167m per minute) for Telebelt placement.” Revised specification will be in forthcoming amendment.

137. Specification 31 23 00.00 20 Clause 3.3: Please confirm all rock the contractor encounters within the project boundaries will be re-measurable and paid at the rate under item 0001AB Rock Excavation as this item refers to drawing CR521 which is for rock pinnacles treatment under pavement? Please also confirm in clause 3.3 in section 31 23 00.00 20, the fourth line in of the first paragraph that the statement “No additional payment will be made for excavation of rock.” is not correct.

ANSWER: The measurement and excavation of material claimed as rock excavation shall be in accordance with Clause 3.3.3. The statement “No additional payment will be made for excavation of rock” to be deleted from clause 3.3. Revised specification will be in forthcoming amendment.

138. 2.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS. Factor 1 – Experience. Please confirm that offerors are allowed to utilize experience of a subcontractor as long as we provide a full-executed teaming agreement that meets the requirements outline in Note 5 under Factor 1 - Experience (a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements.

ANSWER: Yes, confirmed.

139. Amendment 0001, Page 54 of 83, FAR 52.252-11 Buy American – Construction Materials

Under Trade Agreements (DEC 2022): Please confirm construction materials such as rebar, iron, steel piping, etc. purchased from the referenced WTO GPA, FTA or least developed country(ies) in FAR 52.252-11 are acceptable for this project. Please confirm also that piping procured from China does not satisfy the requirements.

ANSWER: Please go to https://www.acquisition.gov/ for the full text of FAR 52.225-11, Buy

American - Construction Materials Under Trade Agreements (DEC 2022) and see Amendment No. 0002, Document 00 70 00, Page 16 of 20, 1.139 DFARS 252.225- 7045, Balance of Payment Program - Construction Material Under Trade Agreements (JAN 2023) for definitions and the applicability of these clauses. In accordance with FAR 52.225-11(b)(1) and DFARS 252.225-7045(b), “… the Contracting Officer has determined that the WTO GPA and Free Trade Agreements

(FTAs) apply to this acquisition.” Therefore, in accordance with both clauses, respectively, the Buy American and Balance of Payments Program restrictions are waived for designated country construction materials.

140. Specification Section 33 08 53, Aviation Fuel Distribution System Start-Up: Regarding

Section 33 08 53, Aviation Fuel Distribution System Start Up, can the Navy confirm that the performance testing requirements stated in the specification can only be applicable to the equipment installed by this Project and not the overall performance of the system?

The Project is connecting into an existing fuel and pump system and cannot guarantee the final performance test of ‘fuelling 3 refueler trucks from three hydrant positions’ (Clause 3.9.1), given the project is not responsible for the supply and commissioning of the fuel pump and operational system.

ANSWER: Contractor is required to provide a final performance test of the system and tune the existing control valves and verify that the new hydrant pit valves open when connected to a refueler(s). The contractor must coordinate with the fuel farm operator for use of the existing system. The addition of the hydrant loop will change the hydraulic performance of the existing system and overall tuning will be required (33 08 53, 3.1.n and 33 08 53, 3.7). Performance verification is required for the specified number of hydrant connections. A control valve factory certified trained representative is required to tune the existing control valves. It is noted (33 08 53, 3.8.2) that performance may be affected by aircraft (or simulated aircraft) capability to receive fuel, the capability of the existing system is not anticipated to be a constraint.

141. Specification Section 33 08 53, Aviation Fuel Distribution System Start-Up: Regarding

Section 33 08 53, Aviation Fuel Distribution System Start Up, please confirm that the cathodic protection requirements stated in the specification are only be applicable to the equipment installed by this project and not the overall performance of the system.

The Project is connecting into an existing fuel system and we cannot guarantee the final performance testing validating the overall cathodic protection system is tested, calibrated and operational (Clause 3.2.3), given portions of the system are completed by others.

ANSWER: The cathodic protection systems are separate from the existing fuel system. The existing system is a passive system and the system specified for this project is an impressed current system. The contractor is only responsible for the performance of the system being installed under this project.

142. Notice 4, Question 70: Reference is made to the answer given on Question 70 provided in

Notice 4 as follows.

‘70. Amendment 0001, Section 00 22 00, Page 4 of 8, Factor 2 Past Performance: The RFP states, “Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) shall be completed and signed by the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for the construction contract administration.” In Australia, it is common business practice for a client to employ a Managing Contractor as their representative to provide contract administration services, including the solicitation and award of trade contracts. Will the GOVT amend the requirement or will it be acceptable to allow PPQs to be signed by a Managing Contractor for the projects provided in Factor 1?

ANSWER: In accordance with the RFP, please submit PPQs “completed and signed by the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for the construction contract administration.’

We are not clear on whether the managing contractor can be accepted as the contracting agent, especially given that the relevant clause also states, ‘A PPQ shall not be from a prime contractor to a subcontractor’ as it may be open to interpretation that the managing contractor is the prime contractor. Clarification of the terminology will asist us in providing the correct PPQ and a conforming offer.

ANSWER: In accordance with Amendment No. 0001, Document 00 22 00, Page 4 of 8, Factor

2 - Past Performance, "A PPQ shall not be from a prime contractor to a subcontractor." Therefore, if the Managing Contractor is the Prime Contractor, they cannot complete and sign the PPQ for an Offeror on this PAF180500 project that was a subcontractor to that Managing Contractor.

143. Noise: Given the expected usage of Taxiway A as a runway during the construction of the

Bomber Apron, can the Navy provide a noise report, which provides both the sound levels and the frequency of aircraft movements that can be used for a WHS assessment of the noise impacts (particularly for determination of hearing protection areas and limitations on exposure time in this Apron works).

An extract from the Australian Defence Safety Manual (SafetyMan) – Section 6 – Noise is included below for reference.

ANSWER: The contractor will need to undertake a noise survey report if deemed necessary to meet WHS requirements in accordance with their Method of Work Plan.

144. General: We request a schedule of aircraft movements and advice on the timing of major base exercises over the construction period. (We note the Pitch Black information is already included in the Specification).

ANSWER: No additional information is available other than what is listed in the specifications.

Pitch Black is the major exercise typically spans a duration of three weeks and is scheduled to take place between late June and early August in even numbered years. As a result, the contractor should anticipate and plan for potential disruptions, as the Base will experience increased activity during this period.

Construction activities will generally be permitted to proceed even during major base exercises, it is important for the contractor to be aware that certain areas may necessitate additional coordination, which will be communicated by the Base Infrastructure Advisor Office through the contracting office.

Spec section 01 14 00 will be revised accordingly and provided in future amendment.

145. Notice 4, Question 78: Further to the response provided in Question 78 in the Notice 4, its not clear when Taxiway Alpha will be used as the runway. The response notes the following.

‘A Code 2B instrumented Temporary Runway will be established on TWY A for a period of P-500 project works being undertaken. During this period the Temporary Runway will be activated with an 80 metre strip distance from the taxiway/runway centreline and an inclined (20%; 1 in 5) transitional surface.’

From our experience, this restriction of an 80m runway strip from the centreline of the taxiway alpha will significantly impact completing rigid pavement works and other ground breaking activities to maintain airfield compliance.

Can the GOVT advise the period when the Taxiway Alpha will be used as the runway to enable planning all scopes of work within the 80m runway strip to be completed?

ANSWER: Contractor shall make allowance for staging and programming of work in accordance with G-301. This outlines the recommended staging solution and indicative program for activation of the Temporary Runway. Taxiway A will be operating as Temporary Runway in approximately April 2026.

146. Amendment 0001, Document 00 70 00, Page 8 of 21, 1.66 FAR 52.228-15, PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS—CONSTRUCTION (JUN 2020)

(DEVIATION 2020-O0016): This section provides an option for the offeror to provide an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (ILOC) under “(d) Surety or other security for bonds.”

However, the Government did not specify a percent (i.e., 10% of the contract amount guarantee). Please specify this percent if the contractor wishes to use the ILOC “other security” option.

ANSWER: Please see Amendment No. 0001, Document 00 70 00, FAR 52.228-15, PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS - CONSTRUCTION (JUN 2020)

(DEVIATION 2020-O0016), Page 8 of 21 and Page 9 of 21, (b)(1) and (b)(2). As specified, the penal amount of the performance and payment bonds, respectively, at the time of contract award shall be 100 percent of the original contract price.

147. Amendment 0001, Document 00 22 00, Page 5 of 8, Factor 3 – Safety, Paragraph (a):

Amendment 0001, Document 00 22 00, Factor 3 – Safety, Paragraph (a): This paragraph requires “separate OSHA300 logs, OSHA Form 300A, TRC and DART rate” information for each partner/member. Please confirm a partner or JV member firm that is not a US company subject to OSHA reporting is exempt from submitting the requested OSHA 300 logs and OSHA Form 300As. Please also confirm DART rates and TRC rates are required for all US and non-US firms, as instructions for calculating these rates are provided in the

RFP.

ANSWER: Confirmed that the OSHA 300 logs and OSHA Form 300A forms shall be submitted by all U.S. companies and that all non-U.S. companies shall use the formulas provided in Amendment No. 0001, Document 00 22 00, Page 5 of 8, Factor 3 - Safety to calculate the required TRC and DART rates.

148. Amendment 0001, Document 00 70 00, Page 8 of 21, 1.66 FAR 52.228-15, PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS—CONSTRUCTION (JUN 2020)

(DEVIATION 2020-O0016): We have seen other DoD contracts where the Government has accepted Performance Guarantees in lieu of payment and performance bonds. In such circumstance, the Government has stated that: “The Performance Guarantee shall be an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the contract and shall be deposited into a banking institution, as acceptable to the Contracting Officer, which will then issue an irrevocable letter guaranteeing (the “Performance Guarantee Letter”) the payment of the amount deposited to the United States Government, upon demand by the Contracting Officer. Demand may be made if the Contractor fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract, or does not fulfill its undertaking in whole or in part. Payment to the Contracting Officer will be by check made payable to the "United States of America…” The Performance Guarantee shall take effect upon the date of signature of the Performance Guarantee Letter and shall remain valid and irrevocable until one (1) year after the work has been finally inspected and accepted by the Government. The Performance Guarantee Letter shall be accompanied by a notarized document authenticating the financial institution's authority to sign the letter… Upon acceptance of all work by the Government;

however, the Contractor may, with the approval of the Contracting Officer, replace this guarantee with a reduced guarantee in the amount of four percent (4%) of the then existing [contract] price, with modifications, if any. Such replacement guarantee will then remain in effect for one (1) year after the final acceptance of the work by the Government.” Would the Government accept a 10% Performance Guarantee, with a notarized Performance Guarantee Letter, similar to the one describe herein, in lieu of performance and payment bonds?

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged.

149. Amendment 0001, Document 00 21 16, Page 2 of 17, Item 1.1.e(2): The instructions for hand-carried proposal state delivery should be made to Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Pacific, 4256 Radford Dr., Bldg. 62, Honolulu, HI. Please confirm no special badging, notifications and/or arrangements are needed to access this location for hand-delivered proposals.

ANSWER: Confirmed.

150. Amendment 0001, Document 00 21 16, Page 2 of 17, Section 1.5.f: Please confirm that non-US companies, not subject to the annual reporting requirements for affirmative action efforts in employing veterans, are not required to submit the VETS-4212.

ANSWER: Confirmed.

151. Notice 4, Response to Question 80: When does the Government expect to release

Amendment 0002? Will an extension be forthcoming?

ANSWER: Amendment No. 0002 was issued on 20 July 2023. See revised Document 00 21

16, paragraphs 1.1a. and 1.1b., issued with Amendment No. 0002.

152. Specification section 32 12 14.13 Clause 2.9.1 - Please confirm the dowels for the rigid pavement are to be epoxy coated as per section 32 13 14.13 clause 2.9.1 of the specification noting these are usually supplied black, with one half embedded in the concrete pour using the fixed steel side forms and the other half coated with bitumen paint.

ANSWER: Round bar pavement dowels to be epoxy coated in accordance with the specification, diamond plate dowels for the culvert base to be H.D GALV. in accordance with the drawings refer to details on drawings S-509 and CS508.

153. FAR 52.225-11 - We note the subcontractors pricing the fuel line infrastructure are proposing to use fuel line manufactured on mainland China as is their usual practice. Will this be an acceptable material source given the requirements of FAR 52.225-11?

ANSWER: See response to Question 139 as well as DFARS 252.225-7060, PROHIBITION

ON CERTAIN PROCUREMENTS FROM THE XINJIANG UYGHUR

AUTONOMOUS REGION (JUN 2023) and other applicable clauses of this RFP.

154. 23R1302_Notice4-Issued - The response to question 47 in Notice No. 4 to the closing requirements of the two penstocks has not changed the view from manufacturers that the penstocks cannot be manufactured to conform to the closing time using a mechanical actuator, they would need to be pneumatically actuated. Can Navfac advise how this should be addressed.

ANSWER: The Government has confirmed the availability of multiple products that meet the requirements. Therefore, bid as specified in the RFP.

155. Specification 32 13 14.13, clause 1.5.1 - Section 32 13 14.13, clause 1.5.1, of the specification requires several key positions to be ACI certified. Please confirm for the positions of lead foreman or journeyman, field tester, lab technician, surveyor and batch plant operator, equivalent Australian qualifications and experience will be acceptable as theses rolls will be filled by Australian personnel.

ANSWER: UFGS certification requirements to remain in place.

156. Drawings CS305, CS306 and CS307: In reviewing Drawings CS305, CS306 and CS307, it appears that the design surface levels have not been correctly specified on these drawings for the TR to JB runs, i.e., TR01 and JB01 shows the design surface level of 130.672 at Chainage 0, but 127.388 at Chainage 9.624.

Please amend the drawings and confirm that the values on all of the drainage longitudinal sections are correct.

ANSWER: There is an error in the printing of the flame traps which means the design surface level of the JBs on the trunk main are shown correctly (130.555 m RL) however are incorrect on the flame traps (short) long sections. These will be revised in a forthcoming Amendment.

157. Notice 4, Response to Question 15: In response to Question 15, NAVFAC stated they would not be issuing the additional reports requested with reference to PFAS contamination. We respectfully request NAVFAC reconsider this decision and issue bidders all available PFAS information.

ANSWER: Additional information will not be provided.

158. Section 32 13 14.13, Paragraph 2.3.1.3 Combined Aggregate Gradation: Concerning coarseness factor and combined aggregate gradings, we seek clarification that this calculation is a “one-off” requirement and not required to be done per shift.

ANSWER: Incorrect, this is not a once-off requirement and has to be done in accordance with the test frequency requirements of Table 6 in Section 3.12.2.

159. Section 32 13 14.13, Paragraph 2.3.1.3 Combined Aggregate Gradation: The local concrete supplier has current average Los Angeles Abrasion for Coarse aggregates of 26%. Can the specification for the coarse aggregate, that specifies a maximum of 25%, be relaxed due to the past performance and experience of the concrete supplier and their aggregates used on similar pavement works at RAAF Tindal.

ANSWER: Los Angeles abrasion specified in Section 2.3.2.1 to remain unchanged.

160. Section 32 13 14.13, Paragraph 2.3.1.3 Combined Aggregate Gradation: Concerning Wet

Strength requirements on coarse aggregate, our current average Wet Strength is 150kN on 40mm aggregate, and higher on other aggregates (but not greater than 200kN). We request this requirement be relaxed based on the proven performance of our aggregates for similar pavement works at RAAF Tindal.

161. Section 32 13 14.13, Paragraph 2.4 Chemical Admixtures: We request the specification allow for the inclusion of a retarder. The characteristics of the pavement mix (i.e., straight GP cement, low slump) in hot and humid weather conditions lends itself to a concrete that will lose slump quickly and also have a decreased set time. By allowing the inclusion of a retarder, the concrete will retain its slump and provide a reasonable set time for it to be placed in the works year-round. Our concrete supplier is currently using a retarder in the pavement mix at Stage 6 Tindal. Use of a retarder is not and will not cause excessive bleeding or effect the hardened concrete properties.

ANSWER: Retarding admixture is allowed. Section 2.4.1 to be revised by replacing “Type A” with “Type WR”, “Type B” with “Type Re” and “Type D” with “Type WRRe”.

Revised specification will be issued in a forthcoming Amendment.

162. Retracted.

ANSWER: No response.

163. Section 32 13 14.13, Paragraph 2.12.4 Slump: The current specified slump is maximum 60

mm. Recent performance strongly suggests that a slightly higher slump will improve mixing time, discharge and workability - particularly when placed by telebelt and hand finished. We strongly suggest increasing the allowable slump to be 60+/- 10 mm.

ANSWER: Specified slump to remain at a maximum of 60 mm.

164. Section 32 13 14.13, Paragraph 2.12.6 Concrete Strength for Final Acceptance: We request review of the 90-day flexural strength criteria. The 90-day flexural strength requirements seem excessive. We have proven results at 7 and 28 days that meet the requirements of the specified flexural strength. Curing tank space required for 90-day specimens is multiplied several times than that required for 7 and 28 days.

ANSWER: The 90-day strength tests are only required during the mix proportioning studies under Section 2.13.2.3 to establish the relationships between the 7-day and 90-day strength for Quality Control and the 14-day and 90-day strength for Quality Assurance. Also refer to test requirements in Section 3.12.3.

165. Section 32 13 14.13, Paragraph 2.13.2 Proportioning Studies: We request review of the combined aggregate grading and tolerances. Trials are required to determine appropriate tolerances.

ANSWER: The combined aggregate grading tolerances are consistent with those normally required for airfield pavement concrete and are retained as per the specification.

166. Section 32 13 14.13, Paragraph 3.12.2 Testing and Inspection Requirements, Table 6: We request a review of the aggregate testing frequencies and the point of sampling (belt). The aggregate text requirements are onerous. We propose 1 x grading per aggregate, per shift maximum, and that sampling be done at the stockpile, as the belt cut is not a safe and practical sampling point.

ANSWER: Aggregate test frequencies to remain as per Table 6. If sampling at the belt poses a safety risk, the contractor should contact the Contracting Officer with an alternative sampling location, which is subject to Contracting Officer approval.

167. Section 32 13 14.13, Paragraph 3.12.2 Testing and Inspection Requirements, Table 6, Plant

– Scales, Weighing Accuracy: We request a review of the calibration requirements.

AS1379 is the standard for concrete supply. We propose 6 monthly calibrations.

ANSWER: AS 1379 specifies a frequency of not less than once every 6 months. The monthly calibration requirement is therefore consistent with AS 1379. Calibration requirements are to remain as specified in Section 32 13 14.13 Paragraph 3.12.2.

168. Section 32 13 14.13, Paragraph 3.12.2 Testing and Inspection Requirements, Table 6, Concrete Mixture – Air Content: We request a review of the testing regime. We propose aligning air content to the first truck and then when flex specimens are taken for consistency.

ANSWER: The test requirements of Table 6 remain unchanged.

169. Section 32 13 14.13, Paragraph 3.12.2 Testing and Inspection Requirements, Table 6, Concrete Mixture – Unit Weight and Yield: The current requirement is onerous. We request the Government consider reducing the requirement to 1 per shift.

ANSWER: The test requirements of Table 6 remain unchanged.

170. Section 32 13 14.13, Paragraph 3.12.2 Testing and Inspection Requirements, Table 6, Sampling at Point of Discharge: We request the Government reconsider the requirement as the sampling at point of discharge is not achievable. We recommend a sampling location adjacent to the works so that testers can work safely.

ANSWER: The test requirements of Table 6 remain unchanged. If sampling at the point of discharge poses a safety risk, the contractor should contact the Contracting Officer with an alternative sampling location, which is subject to Contracting Officer approval.

171. Section 32 13 14.13, Paragraph 3.13.2 Aggregate Testing Frequency: We require a clarification on the specific aggregate testing frequency (per test).

ANSWER: Each of the coarse and fine aggregate tests are required at a rate of 1 test per 500 t of material except for the tests listed below. Revised specification will be issued in a forthcoming Amendment.

Coarse Aggregate Test Frequency of Testing

Wet strength 1 test per 5,000 t

Wet/dry strength variation 1 test per 5,000 t

Secondary minerals content in basic igneous rocks 1 test per 5,000 t

Coarse Aggregate Test Frequency of Testing

Los Angeles value 1 test per 5,000 t

Aggregate Soundness – Evaluation by exposure to sodium sulphate solution

1 test per 5,000 t

Light Particles (materials of particle density less than 2.0 t/m3) 1 test per 5,000 t

Presence of Sugar 1 test per 5,000 t

Fine Aggregate Test Frequency of Testing

Secondary minerals content in basic igneous rocks 1 test per 5,000 t

Aggregate soundness – Evaluation by exposure to sodium sulphate solution

1 test per 5,000 t

Degradation Factor 1 test per 5,000 t

Light Particles (materials of Particle density less than 2.0 t/m3) 1 test per 5,000 t

Organic Impurities 1 test per 5,000 t

Presence of Sugar 1 test per 5,000 t

172. Section 32 13 14.13, Paragraph 3.13.2 Material Test Certificates: We request the requirements for material test certificates, specifically for cement and admixtures, be revised. We can provide technical information for our cement supplier on a monthly basis;

however, it is not possible to obtain a test certificate for each load of cement. As to admixtures, we can supply batch data as is available to us from our supplier.

ANSWER: The test results and certificates for each manufactured batch of cement and admixture apply to the loads delivered from that manufacturing batch. However, this information needs to be captured against each load to trace the origin and hence compliance of each load.

173. Section 32 13 14.13, Paragraph 3.13.2 Discharge of Plastic Concrete: The requirements for plastic concrete testing in Section 3.13.2 contradict the requirements in Section 3.12.2.

Please clarify the requirement.

ANSWER: The requirements of Section 3.12.2 apply to the Contractor’s Quality Control

(CQC) requirements while the requirements of Section 3.13.2. apply to Quality Assurance requirements for the Contracting Officer to release the hold points in Section 3.13.1.

174. Section 31 23 00.00 20 Aggregate Properties: Particle Size Distribution to be reviewed for

75mm fill. Our concrete supplier has recent experience producing more than 300kt of Select Fill )75mm minus. The nature of the resource and processing means that 12% passing the 0.075mm is difficult to achieve. We would be pleased to share this data with you and request the requirement be revised.

ANSWER: The particle size distribution requirements from 31 23 00.00 20 apply.

175. Section 32 11 23 Fine Crushed Rock: Los Angeles Abrasion is requested at 25% maximum. Our quarry material/concrete supply subcontractor recently produced some 70,000t for RAAF Tindal and the average LAA result was 26%. We request relaxation of the specification requirement.

ANSWER: Los Angeles abrasion specified in Section 2.3.2.1 to remain unchanged.

176. Section 32 11 23 Fine Crushed Rock: The Wet/Dry Strength requirement is 180kN. Recent results and resources provided by our quarry material/concrete supply subcontractor show an average of 151kN. We request reconsideration of this requirement.

ANSWER: The wet strength requirement in Section 32 11 23 of 180 kN for Fine Crushed Rock must be met.

177. Document 00 21 16, Section 1.1.a: The tenderer advises that now there are 64 subcontractor packages where the subcontractor or supplier has not responded within the time set in the tender package. The Specifications are unique to the Australian market, which means the supply chain is requesting more time. These parties include client-nominated suppliers of specialist equipment and products for which alternatives are not available. The outstanding subcontractor prices represents approximately 50% of the price of the works, which militates against the tenderer being able to respond to this RFP on time by the 2nd of August. Accordingly, we hereby request an extension of the tender period of 30 days.

ANSWER: See Amendment No. 0002.

178. Demolition Drawings CD1010 to CD109 and General Construction Drawings C-161 to C-

168 (as they pertain to Hydromulch, Topsoil + Clearing and Grubbing Drainage):

Throughout the demolition Drawings CD101 to CD109, a note is specified on the drawings to Clear and Grub vegetation to provide clear airside area. Is the intent of this clearing and grubbing to clear all vegetation within the project "Limit of Disturbance" marked on the drawings?

Example of clearing and grubbing notation on within the “limit of disturbance” on drawing CD106.

In addition, is the expectation that following the clear & grub activity the topsoil, in areas that are not within the pavement formations, is to remain in place and will not require any hydromulching and that only the areas specified on the general construction Drawings C- 161 to C-168 will require respreading of topsoil and hydromulching?

Example of pavement formation location from Drawing C-161.

ANSWER: All areas within the extent of works and airside locations will require clearing and grubbing. These areas will also require hydro-mulching where they are not being developed further.

179. Sheet No. 217, Drawing SP-505 Isolation Valve Pit – Details: Will the Government consider a prefabricated isolation valve pit manufactured in fiberglass in lieu of the reinforced concrete pit specified in the drawing? Use of the prefabricated fiberglass pit will save the time associated with constructing the reinforced concrete pit.

ANSWER: Concrete Isolation Valve Pit must be provided as per Drawing SP503, and rolling cover as per SP505.