23R1302_Notice8-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. 8

17 August 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.

RESPONSES REVISED FROM NOTICE NO. 2 DATED JUNE 27, 2023:

3. In the Specifications Section 02 61 13, Paragraph 1.3, first sentence, it states: “The work consists of excavation and temporary storage of approximately 72,000 cubic meters of PFAS contaminated soil.” If 60,000 cm of the PFAS is to be hauled to a long-term stockpile location, would we need to place it in a temporary storage area? It would be much better to haul to a long-term storage area only.

ANSWER: Specification Section 02 61 13 was revised in response to Question 57, and hence the response to Question 3 is superseded. Spoil material must be reclaimed and reused in accordance with note EW13 on Drawing C-002. Material designated for reuse may require temporary stockpiling, this shall be determined by the contractor and documented in the Method of Work Plan. Excess spoil must be hauled and placed as controlled fill in the HIAL zone as per drawing G301. The contractor is responsible for the design and management of stockpiles, including coordination with KC-30 project via the Contracting Officer/ROICC Office.

12. On Drawing C-167 there is a note that states, “KC-30 Project will provide flexible pavement between Taxiway A edge and P500 Apron Rigid Pavement.’ Can you provide us with a schedule as to when the KC-30 contractor will be grading and paving this buffer zone area?

ANSWER: Drawing CR-301 will be amended to reflect an updated interface detail between

Taxiway A and P500 based on current KC-30 Project program. Drawing G-301 will be amended to reflect updated P500 staging of works based on the current KC-30 Project program. Proposals should be based on phases of works shown on sheet G-

301. Also see Note 1 on Sheet G-301. Following contract award, coordination with the KC-30 project and Base stakeholders will be required via the Contracting Officer/ROICC Office. See Amendment No. 0004

RESPONSES REVISED FROM NOTICE NO. 3 DATED JULY 11, 2023:

37. Drawing CD101 shows a Temporary Airside fence provided by the KC-30 project. The temporary fence is to be removed by the P700 Project. Since this fence is in our fuel line alignment, can you tell us what the scheduled date for this fence removal is?

ANSWER: It is estimated the fence will be removed by March 31, 2025. However, the

Contractor should validate and coordinate this with the P700 Project via the Contracting Officer/ROICC Office. See Amendment No. 0004.

60. In Specification Section 01 50 00, Paragraph 3.2.2, Payment for Utility Services, you state:

“Government will provide electricity and water for day-to-day construction activities, at the cost to the contractor.” Please provide the cost rates for each of these services. Is there a limit on the quantity of water we can take daily from the connection point shown in the drawings? If so, please let us know what that amount is.

ANSWER: Specification Section 01 50 00, Paragraph 3.2.2, Payment for Utility Services will be amended as follows: The Government will provide electricity and water for day to day construction activities, at no cost to the contractor.

Daily water allowance will need to be confirmed and coordinated by the Contractor through USFPI with the P200 & KC-30 projects via the Contracting Officer/ROICC office. Water availability may also be subject to demands with these concurrent projects.

See Amendment No. 0002.

RESPONSE DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 5 DATED JULY 25, 2023:

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: Confirming marking detail C3 on CM503 will be required subject to licensing of

OLA. Make allowance to provide OLA marking at 12 locations total; 4 on parking position 1 and 6, and 4 for the overall apron. Set-out details will be provided once licensing is approved. Drawing CM107 and CM108 will be amended to provide a note confirming the quantity of OLA markings required. See Amendment No.

0004.

RESPONSE DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 6 DATED JULY 31, 2023:

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.

ANSWER: Response to Question Nos. 3, 12, 37, and 60 remains unchanged. Responses to

Questions have provided reference to dates on documentation where appropriate, and shall form the basis of bid. All concurrent projects at RAAF Tindal will be subject to ongoing coordination throughout construction, which remains the responsibility of the Contractor to undertake.

RESPONSE DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 7 DATED AUGUST 8, 2023:

185. Document 00 45 00, Paragraph 1.12 calls out DFARS 252.204-7019 requirements. Please confirm there will be no CMMC requirements under this contract.

ANSWER: Confirmed.

186. Please confirm NIST 800-171 assessment (from Section 00 45 00, Paragraph 1.122

DFARS 252.204-7020) meets all requirements for handling of CUI identified as created by the Contractor on 1.6.1 Table 1(Section 01 31 23.13 20).

ANSWER: Confirmed. Currently, the Government deems Contractor's basic self-assessment posted on the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) in PIEE to be true.

However, a Contractor's information system is subject to audit or inspection by a Government agency if needed.

RESPONSES FOR NOTICE NO. 8:

203. General. We bring to your attention that potential foreign currency exposure on this project unintentionally increases the cost to the US Government and that there are alternative approaches that will save US dollars. Nearly 100% of the costs expended in the performance of the contract scope will be incurred in Australian Dollars (AUD) and reimbursement under the Contract will be in US Dollars (USD). A significant consideration in preparing a fixed price proposal is the volatility in the exchange rate between the two currencies. This risk is difficult to quantify and mitigate due to many influencing factors beyond the control of the Contractors. The risk is greatly increased by the volatility in recent years, such as the extended (180-day) tender validity period and the historically low current value of the AUD. For context, if the Contractor’s prices are submitted at the current exchange rate and over the 180-validity period the exchange rate reverts to the ten-year historical average exchange rate, this impacts the Contractor being paid 14% less in AUD than it anticipated when submitting a proposal. This represents a significant and unsustainable risk to Contractors who will have no alternative but to make significant allowances for this risk in their proposals.

We do not believe the current approach to this risk apportionment provides the Government the best value for money outcome, with prices likely to be significantly inflated for a risk that may or may not eventuate. We propose therefore that the Government:

(a) Consider a shorter tender validity period of 60 days to mitigate this risk, or

(b) Consider the inclusion of a price adjustment mechanism for currency exchange risk to ensure the submittal of prices are not inflated and are comparative in their approach to this unquantifiable risk, or

(c) Consider the inclusion of a one-off price adjustment at Contract Award to account for any delta in the published exchange rate (positive or negative) between submittal and award dates.

We trust you understand our concern regarding this important matter and adopt a considered approach that we believe benefits both the Government and the Contractors.

We stand prepared to discuss this issue with you prior to the proposal submission due date.

ANSWER: The proposal acceptance period remains unchanged and no price adjustment will be included.

204. Spec Section 01 57 19 Clause 1.5.6 and the Australian Requirements Schedule Clause

11(a)(ii)(A): Specification Section 01 57 19 Clause 1.5.6 and the Australian Requirements Schedule Clause 11(a)(ii)(A) require the Contractor to obtain an Environmental Clearance Certificate from the Australian Department of Defence. Can you please confirm that the Australian Department of Defence has approved the design, including the treatment of PFAS, as this will form part of the Environmental Clearance Certificate approval requirements.

ANSWER: The Detailed Design report and PFAS Risk Assessment has been issued to Australian Department of Defence, and circulated for review and comment. Review and comments have been addressed and documentation package developed based on this.

205. Drawings CD101 to CD109 and Specification 31 23 00.00 20, Section 3.2.1 Clearing and

Grubbing: Within the notes on Drawings CD101 to CD109 there is a specific note that mentions that "the following materials must not be disposed to landfill: concrete, bricks, glass, road base, scrap metals, clean fill (soil, sand, excavation rock and stone), asphalt millings, vegetation waste, paper and cardboard, expanded polystyrene / styrofoam packaging, PVC, batteries (all types) and electrical waste".

Example of clearing and grubbing note on Drawing CD101

However, within the specifications, Section 31 23 00.00 20, Item 3.2.1.1, Clearing, specifies that "all materials accumulated as a result of the clearing operations will become the property of the Contractor and must be removed from the Airfield property and disposed of at a legal disposal site".

Can the client please specify whether the vegetation waste needs to remain on site as per the drawings or be disposed of, off site, at a legal disposal site as per the specifications?

ANSWER: Specification 31 23 00.00 20 Item 3.2.1.1 is correct, the waste is the Contractor’s responsibility to manage. Where offsite disposal is required, the contractor must minimize waste and divert from landfill as much as possible, i.e. recycling of metal at an off-site recycler rather than off-site landfill.

Note 6 on drawing CD101 to CD109 shall be revised to the following: “Material must not be disposed to landfill if there is a viable alternate reuse, recycling, or other waste minimization effort. This includes concrete, bricks, glass, road base, scrap metals, asphalt millings, vegetation waste, paper and cardboard, expanded polystyrene / Styrofoam packaging, PVC, batteries (all types), and electric waste.

Clean fill (soil, sand, excavation rock and stone) shall be reused on base in accordance with Note EW13 on C-002.

Contractor must liaise with ESM and base services, to determine what recycle/reuse options are feasible on base, including reuse of vegetation as mulch. If there is no opportunity to retain and reuse material then it will require disposal offsite at a local appropriate/legal disposal site.

Drawings CD101 to CD109 will be revised accordingly and provided in a future amendment.

206. Drawings C111 to C122

To calculate the cut and fill quantities for the project an existing surface model was created with the use of contours from drawings C111 to C122 - Existing surface drawings.

Accuracy checks between the existing surface model and the drainage longitudinal section drawings issued in Notice 6, have found a significant discrepancy between the existing surface levels used in the surface model and those in the drainage sections. Can NAVFAC confirm the contours on drawings C111-C122 represent the actual existing surface levels for calculation of the earthworks quantities.

ANSWER: Existing surface levels must be based on drawings C111 to C122. The existing surface levels shown on drainage longitudinal section drawings CS301 to CS308, will be revised and re-issued in a future amendment.

207. In the demolition of the existing PCCP pavement can you provide us with the as-built drawings of this work that show the extent of the reinforcing steel in this material.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

208. On Drawing CE501 you show details of the HIAL fill platform. It appears that this area has two criteria identified Fill spec “1” and Fill spec “2”. Which of these criteria apply to the P500 project? If both apply, please define to what extent we are to use each of these Fill specs.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

209. In your response to RFI#123 you state: “all demolished apron concrete must be crushed and reused in the works.” Is this a contract requirement or a suggestion? We have limited areas in which we are allowed to reuse these materials as shown on Drawing C002 under notes Re-use of site won materials. Some of these suggestions about reuse of this material may require greater expense and more risk to the contractor. So, we would therefore crush this material if necessary and place it in the KC-30 HIAL spoil zone if allowed. Please confirm or deny if this is a contract requirement.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

210. On Drawing C002 general notes Re-Use of Site won materials, Item b, aggregate base, it appears one of the choices for this material is to be used for select fill. Is this a contract requirement or a suggestion? We have no knowledge of the gradation of this material, and it may require extensive processing or washing to meet the select fill specification. This could have a greater expense and more risk to the contractor. If not reused, we assume it will be allowed to be placed in the KC-30 HIAL spoil zone. Please also confirm if this is acceptable.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

211. In Specification Section 32 13 14.13 it states: “Locate the batching and mixing plant on project site as indicated on the drawings or off government premises no more than 15 minutes haul time from the placing site.” The commercial concrete plant that has been furnishing most of the PCCP paving materials on the RAAF and NAVFAC projects is about a 25-minute haul distance to the project site. Can we change the haul time to 25 minutes to allow the use of this commercial concrete plant?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

212. Drawing No. 17294325, On-site Concrete Batch Plant Approvals: We note that per

Drawing No. 17294325, provision has been made to locate an on-site batch plant for the project.

It is our understanding that there is no requirement to comply with NT legislation and approvals for the concrete batch plant located on site within the Base (on Commonwealth land). Assuming this is applicable, approvals would come under an internal Commonwealth approval, which would be approved by the internal Defence team DEPAC.

Our understanding is this would form part of the Environmental Clearance Certificate.

Please confirm our understanding is correct and what timeframe Offerors should allocate for this within our program?

213. Notice 7, Response to Question 160: The response to Question 160 references Paragraph

2.3.1.3 Combined Aggregate Gradation. The correct reference should be “2.3.2.6.

Additional Coarse Aggregate Requirements”. Please confirm.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

214. Notice 7, Response to Question 160: The response for Question 160 states that the specification “will be amended to specify a Wet Strength of 150kN on 40mm Aggregate”.

The concrete supplier’s limestone deposit produces 40mm, 20mm and 10mm for concrete production. The same source rock would be used for all fractions; therefore, we are seeking confirmation that all coarse aggregate fractions will have Wet/Dry Strength amended to 150kN. Please confirm.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

215. Specification section 33 08 53, Notice No. 6 answer to question 140. The answer to question 140 in Notice 6, states that a control valve factory certified trained representative is required to tune the existing control valves. Can NAVFAC provide the manufacturer of the existing control valves so we can request costs regarding the trained valve representative?

216. Section 40 60 00 specification 2.7.1.1 for “Enclosures” does not match panel layout as shown on drawing E-511. There are multiple differences including Lift-off hinges vs continuous hinge, Single door vs multiple doors, IP66 vs IP54 rating, ect. Please clarify specifications override drawing or drawings are correct. Drawing enclosure size (1600mm x 1200mm) shown is nonstandard size for most manufacturers.

217. Will US enclosures manufactured to NEMA 4X standards be acceptable for Penstock and

Comm Control Panels as shown on drawing E-511 detail C1 and C3? Is AS 60529 (IP Code) the only acceptable standard?

218. Section 40 60 00 Power line conditioner 2.7.4 and 2.7.9 Uninterruptible Power Supply

(UPS) are specified but not shown in power schematics or control drawings. Should these items be included?

219. Section 40 60 00 Specification 2.7.8 Ventilation System required but not shown on panel layouts. Any ventilation systems added to enclosures will directly impact IP rating capability.

220. No Specification found for Oil Sensors (SQID-1 and SQID-2) shown on T-605 drawing.

Specification Section 40 60 00 2.4.2.1 Conductivity Switch and 2.4.2.2 Displacement Type Level Switch are listed but neither is suitable for oil detection. Please provide details.

221. Provision of Construction Water: Please confirm that the provision of water for construction will be in accordance with the DEFENCE PFAS CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE FRAMEWORK - Guidance for managing the risks of PFAS contamination for works on the Defence estate – Version 3 – dated Aug 2021.

222. Re-use of Site-Won Materials: Notwithstanding Note EW 13a on Drawing C-002 (see snip below), please confirm that subject to meeting the specified requirements for Select Fill (Specification C31 23 00, Clauses 2.1.6 and 3.4.1), recycled and crushed concrete from the existing apron and excess crushed pavers can be incorporated into the works as select fill under Pavement Types 1 and 2.

Extract from Drawing C-002 :-