23R1302_Notice9-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. 9

31 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. 6 DATED JULY 31, 2023:

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. (REVISED)

ANSWER: Los Angeles abrasion specified in paragraph 2.3.2.1 is revised to a maximum of

30% and issued in Amendment No. 0005.

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 paragraph 2.3.2.1 is revised to a maximum of

30% and issued in Amendment No. 0005.

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 is revised to 150 kN in Amendment No. 0005.

RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 8 DATED AUGUST 17, 2023:

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: Based on limited information of the existing concrete apron, the available drawing outlines requirements for construction joints between slabs but no details are available of the joints. No details of reinforcement within the slab are available, therefore we cannot advise whether general reinforcement is present. It is the responsibility of the contractor to make appropriate allowances for its demolition.

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: The earthworks requirements setout on CE501 relate only to the KC-30 HIAL Spoil Zone. Fill Spec “1” relates to the classified fill requirements of the Spoil Zone and Fill Spec “2” relates to the areas which aren’t classified (Fill Platform) which can be identified in Details C1 and A1.

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: It is a contract requirement to re-use the demolished materials as specified on Drawing C-002.

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: It is a contract requirement to re-use the demolished materials as specified on Drawing C-002.

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: Haul time is extended to 25 minutes. See revised Specification 32 13 14.13 in Amendment #0005.

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?

ANSWER: Correct, except that it is the RAAF Base Environment and Sustainability Manager

(ESM) that will approve the ECC not DEPAC, although for complicated/high risk actions the ESM can seek higher levels of review /approval with the Regional ADES and/or DEPAC.

Refer to the front page of the ECC application (Form AB081) for further information/instruction on submitting an ECC.

Normally the Contractor responsible for the action will first submit an

Environmental Management Plan (EMP), outlining all the environmental controls to be implemented to mitigate potential environmental impact from the action, to the ESM for review and comment. There is a four week review time and the ESM may require several iterations of the EMP, each with a nominal 4 week review timeframe. Once the EMP is approved then the contractor needs to submit an ECC application with the approved EMP to the ESM who then has a 2 week review period. Therefore a minimum of 6 weeks should be allowed for this process.

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: The correct paragraph is 2.3.2.6.

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: The wet strength requirement is reduced to 150 kN for all coarse aggregate fractions.

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?

ANSWER: The Control Valves as part of the PAF180200 - APR Jet Fuel Storage Tanks projects are manufactured by CLA-VAL.

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.

ANSWER: The sizing of the cabinet on the drawings is correct, the distribution board consisting of 2 sections for power distribution and Penstock controls, with separate doors and the dimensions of 1600mm x 1200mm are nominal sizes, this is not a standard item for suppliers.

Paragraph 2.7.1.1 of the specification indicates, “IP 54 or as shown” rating, therefore the IP 66 rating specified on the drawing is correct.

The hinge type was incorrectly specified on the drawing and therefore drawing E- 511 is revised in Amendment No. 0005 to a continuous hinge type per the specification.

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?

ANSWER: NEMA 4X is acceptable, as it is the equivalent of IP66.

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?

ANSWER: No UPS required as per design documentation.

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.

ANSWER: No louvres required as per design documentation.

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.

ANSWER: See paragraph 2.4.2.3 in the revised spec section 40 66 00 issued in Amendment No. 0005.

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.

ANSWER: Confirmed. The treatment of water is as per Specification Section 01 57 19, paragraph 3.3.1.

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 :-

ANSWER: No, crushed concrete and block pavers shall not be used as select fill under

Pavement Types 1 and 2. As per note EW.13.a.5 increase ratio of crushed concrete in Item 3 to consume surplus crushed concrete as required.

RESPONSES FOR NOTICE NO. 9:

223. Various recent RFI responses have denied flexibility on the engineering properties of local aggregates and are leading the supply chain to source aggregates from out of the region and truck back to Katherine, adding significant cost to contractor’s proposals. When developing funding limits for the 1391 for this project, was an allowance included to pay contractors a premium for sourcing aggregates outside of the region to satisfy the requirements of Specification 32 13 14.13 - Concrete Paving for Airfields and other Heavy Duty Pavements? Or was the expectation that locally sourced aggregates would be used for concrete mix designs as they have been on other projects being constructed at RAAF Tindal?

ANSWER: See revised Rresponse to Questions 159, 175 and 176. Expectation is that pavement aggregates will be locally sourced. Specification requirements must be met.