24R1304 Note 5.pdf

Notice No. 5

11 March 2024

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

RFP N62742-24-R-1304

FY24 AYHN239001 (P-9001) PDI TRANSIENT AIRCRAFT

PARKING APRON, BASA AIR BASE, PHILIPPINES

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 DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 1 DATED 24 JANUARY 2024

93. P9001_Specifications, Section 01 57 19 03, Page 10, Paragraph 3.4 Work Schedule for Intrusive Activities states: “Review the proposed work schedule and identify site specific issues and working hours of the EZ at the Post Award Kickoff Meeting.

The contractor shall schedule work appropriately to mitigate, to the greatest extent practicable, the impacts to base operations and the general public. Scheduling shall include phasing as well as night and weekend work as necessary.

The contractor’s Exclusion Zone Work Schedule shall be described in the ESS Work Plan. The contractor shall submit requests for Additional Exclusion Zone work schedule at least 5-business days in advance.”

In order for contractors to develop an approach for the MEC intrusive phase of work, it is requested that the Government provide details related to the base operations and activities of the general public that are impacted by the EZ and would need to be mitigated through the work schedule.

b. What is the type, duration, and frequency of base operations and public activities/events that cannot be impacted by the EZ and would result in the suspension of MEC intrusive activities?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 2 DATED 2 FEBRUARY 2024

125. If a PCAB license and the other items in Section 01 14 00, paragraph 1.3.1.3 are required, please confirm that it is acceptable for one of the JV Members that will serve as the primary construction execution entity for this project to hold the PCAB license/permits/clearances.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

126. If a PCAB license and the other items in Section 01 14 00, paragraph 1.3.1.3 are required, please confirm that it is acceptable for a JV Member that has the Factor 1 Experience and Factor

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND, PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DRIVE, SUITE 100

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR HICKAM, HAWAII 96860-3134

2 Past Performance to secure via a Teaming Agreement a company affiliate that will serve as the primary construction execution entity for this project to hold the PCAB license/permits/clearances.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 4 DATED 29 FEBRUARY 2024

139. Section 00 21 16, Paragraphs 1.1.a and 1.1.b: We request the Government reconsider its request for hard copy proposals and instead allow for electronic proposals to be submitted via the DoD SAFE, PIEE, or via email. This has been the common practice for proposals submitted to the DoD since the onset of COVID in March of 2020.

ANSWER: The Government has considered your request however, the RFP remains unchanged.

140. Section 00 21 16, Paragraphs 1.1.a and 1.1.b: We request the Government reconsider allowing for a DoD SAFE, PIEE, or email submission on the due date and time followed by hardcopies 5 business days later.

ANSWER: The Government has considered your request however, the RFP remains unchanged.

141. Section 00 21 16, Paragraphs 1.1.a and 1.1.b: Due to the number of pending RFI responses, we request the Government reconsider our request that the due date for proposals be established at receipt of all RFI responses plus 21 days so that we have time to evaluate the responses and coordinate with our Team.

ANSWER: Proposal due date was extended via Amendment 0004.

142. SECTION 01 57 19: There are several permits required for this project that are not easy to assess in terms of time and difficulty to obtain, such us:

• Clean Water Act Section 404

• Clean Water Act Section 401

• Permit to Construct/Operate Air Pollution source and Control Installation

• Municipal Separate Storm Sewer system (MS4) permit

Question: Could the Client advise if these permits apply to this contract and, if so, provide bidders with a specific timeframe to obtain these permits to be considered in the proposal (the same for all bidders)?

ANSWER: Specification Section 01 57 19, paragraph 3.1.3 Streams will be removed in a forthcoming amendment. Further, Clean Water Act Section 404 and Section 401 Water Quality will not apply to this project; Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit will not apply to this project; Permit to Construct/Operate Air Pollution Source and Control Installation will apply to this project. Contractor is responsible for making their schedule.

145. SECTION 01 30 00, 1.7: The contractor is requested to, prior to commencing any work at the site, coordinate with the Contracting Officer a time and place to meet for the Preconstruction Meeting. The meeting must take place within 35 calendar days after award of the contract, but prior to commencement of any work at the site. Contractor attendees must include the Project Manager, Superintendent, Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO), Quality Control Manager and major subcontractors. Question: Since it could have not yet been possible to mobilize the contractor within this timeframe, can some of the participants attend this meeting remotely?

ANSWER: No, participants cannot attend meeting remotely.

150. SECTION 01 57 19, 3.5.1: TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS - 3.5 AIR

RESOURCES - 3.5.1 Preconstruction Air Permits: Notify the Air Program Manager, through the Contracting Officer, at least 6 months prior to bringing equipment, assembled or unassembled, onto the Installation, so that air permits can be secured. Necessary permitting time must be considered in regard to construction activities. Clean Air Act (CAA) permits must be obtained prior to bringing equipment, assembled or unassembled, onto the Installation. Permits will be provided by the Government. Question: Does this permit apply to any equipment that contractor will bring to the site? How would the contractor be able to comply with the 60 days mobilization as an equipment is a requirement?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

154. SECTION 01 57 19, 1.5 and 1.8: TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

1.5 SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

An Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Compliance Certification will be required for the project. These will be prepared by the Government.

1.8 LICENSES AND PERMITS

a. The following permits have been obtained by the Government:

(1) Environmental Compliance Certification

Question: Can we have a copy of the Environmental Compliance Certification and associated documentation? It doesn´t seem to be in the documentation provided.

ANSWER: Contractor is responsible for obtaining permits. Language will be revised in forthcoming Amendment.

156. SECTION 03 30 00, 1.6.6

1.6.6 Quality Control Personnel Certifications

Quality control personnel must be employed by the Contractor Submit American Concrete Institute certification for the following

a. CQC personnel responsible for inspection of concrete operations.

b. Lead Foreman or Journeyman of the Concrete Placing, Finishing, and Curing Crews.

c. Field Testing Technicians: ACI Concrete Field Testing Technician, Grade I.

1.6.6.1 Quality Manager Qualifications

The quality manager must hold a current license as a professional engineer in a U.S. state or territory with experience on at least five similar projects. Evidence of extraordinary proven experience may be considered by the Contracting Officer as sufficient to act as the Quality Manager

1.6.6.2 Field Testing Technician and Testing Agency

Submit data on qualifications of proposed testing agency and technicians for approval by the Contracting Officer prior to performing testing on concrete

a. Work on concrete under this contract must be performed by an ACI Concrete Field Testing Technician Grade 1 qualified in accordance with ACI SP-2 or equivalent. Equivalent certification programs must include requirements for written and performance examinations as stipulated in ACI SP-2.

b. Testing agencies that perform testing services on reinforcing steel must meet the requirements of ASTM E329.

c. Testing agencies that perform testing services on concrete materials must meet the requirements of ASTM C1077.

Question: Do all QC personnel have to be in the Contractor´s payroll or can they be part of the LAB/Testing Firm subcontracted by the Contractor?

ANSWER: All QC personnel do not have to be direct employees of the contractor (do not need to be on the payroll). Any subcontractors hired must meet the requirements and be qualified to do the work.

157. SECTION 32 11 23, 1.4: QUALITY ASSURANCE

All contractor quality control testing laboratories performing acceptance testing require USACE validation by the Material Testing Center (MTC) for both parent laboratory and on-site laboratory.

Question: Which testing can be done in the parent laboratory instead of in the on-site lab?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

164. Site Walk. During the site walk, it was observed that there are a large number of trees exceeding 100mm in diameter that will need to be cleared from the contractor laydown area.

According to the Philippine Government DNR, certain trees and trees over 100mm in diameter need to be assessed by the DNR prior to any cutting. This process can take months, which would severely impact the schedule. Please provide the tree cutting plan for this area (it’s not noted on the current tree cutting plans). Also, please advise if DNR approval has already been granted for the trees that are identified in the contract for removal.

ANSWER: The laydown area will be revised to avoid large groups of trees in a forthcoming amendment. No DNR approval has been granted.

165. Section 01 11 00, para 1.4 identify the permits available for the work. It states that a burn permit can be applied for. Please advise if controlled burning will be allowed to remove the site grubbing/grass/trees prior to UXO clearance.

ANSWER: A burn permit can be applied for, however that does not guarantee approval.

170. Section 01 78 00 para 2.1 Certification of EPA Designated Items. This project is not performed in the USA. The EPA does not have jurisdiction in the Philippines. Please confirm that this paragraph is not required.

ANSWER: This paragraph will be deleted from the specifications in a forthcoming amendment.

171. Section 01 78 00 para 2.2 Certification of USDA Designated Items. This project is not performed in the USA. The USDA does not have jurisdiction in the Philippines. Please confirm that this paragraph is not required.

ANSWER: This paragraph will be deleted from the specifications in a forthcoming amendment.

185. 24R1304_RFP, Genera. Will there be an assigned LSA area for man camp inside Basa Air Base? If there is, please provide the location within the work site and the size of the land.

ANSWER: There is a general area that the man camp will be allowed in. This area will be shown on drawing GI101 in a forthcoming amendment.

190. Construction (design-bid-build) of a parking apron, shoulders, and taxiway connected to the Basa Air Base, Philippines. We were told the we may need accreditation with NAVFAC to be considered for this project. If this is correct could you please send information to complete this process.

ANSWER: SAM registration is required, per FAR 52.204-7, SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT, which states, “An Offeror is required to be registered in SAM when submitting an offer or quotation, and shall continue to be registered until time of award, during performance, and through final payment of any contract, basic agreement, basic ordering agreement, or blanket purchasing agreement resulting from this solicitation.” Please reference RFP document 00 21 16, para. 1.8.

REVISED RESPONSES FROM NOTICE NO. 3 DATED 20 FEBRUARY 2024

132. P9001_Specifications. KTR is requesting the Government to provide Specifications Section 34 for Aircraft Tie Down and Mooring. These equipment is shown in the site plan but not included in the specification.

REVISED ANSWER: Spec 34 73 16 Airfield Grounding was provided via Amendment No.

0004. Information for tie-downs is in drawing CP506.

NOTICE NO. 5

198. Note 3- Q&A 91- Government response does not clarify the question. With mobilization being extremely costly, especially mobilization of trailers, batch plants, labs, etc., these activities should be able to be cost loaded in the schedule. Please confirm mobilization cost loaded activities in the approved base line schedule will be paid so that the contractor is not onerously delayed in recovering large costs. It is normal in US Government contracts for contractors to be paid to mobilize.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

199. Note 3- Q&A 96- Government response states to use the main gate at Basa for access. In our experience, the PAF do not allow heavy equipment, haul trucks, or buses of any kind to access via the main gate. Please advise which gate will be used for contractor heavy equipment as this will directly affect haul route options and local road repair charges.

ANSWER: The main gate is the primary access. Coordinate with PAF for available alternatives.

200. Note 3- Q&A 97- Government response states that a new drawing will be issued with revised laydown area. This drawing was not included in the latest amendment. Considering how critical the location of the laydown area is for planning, utility connection costs, and MEC clearance, please advise when this drawing will be released.

ANSWER: A drawing with the revised laydown area will be included in a forthcoming amendment.

201. Note 3- Q&A 132- Government response states that a new drawing will be issued with the tie down details. This drawing was not included in the latest amendment. Please advise when this will be issued.

ANSWER: See revised response to Question 132. The tie-down detail is in the drawing CP506 and no further information will be added.

202. Amendment 01; Draft Munitions Response Explosives Safety Submission (MRESS).

The Draft ESS that was issued with Amendment 01 appears to contain a collection of inconsistent and potentially incorrect requirements. Examples include:

i) Direction that contractors will clear grids in 8-inch lifts, along with simultaneous direction that clearance will be done in 24-inch lifts.

ii) Use of a “Limited Clearance Ahead of Construction” method for this site-specific ESS, with no option to allow a Full Clearance approach.

iii) Following the “Limited Clearance in Advance of Construction”, which is designed to remove all anomalies 57-mm and larger in size, the ESS indicates that the excavation/stockpiling of soils needs to incorporate the explosive safety measures for 105-mm projectile MGFD. Applying the K-24 or K-18 distances for the 105-mm MGFD would prohibit the effective excavation of the soil in lifts with heavy equipment. In addition, anomalies the size of both the 105-mm and 57-mm projectile would have been detected and removed from the soil during the MEC/MPPEH clearance, which should result in a reduction of the HFD and shielding requirement to a 20-mm MGFD during the excavation of each lift and the screening process.

iv) Conflicting references to an upland staging and screening area (USSA) and an upland Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) for the stockpiling and screening of soil. There is also no depiction in the ESS narrative or maps for where the Government directs this stockpile area/s to be located either within the work site or the overall installation.

v) The Proposed Removal Boundary reflected in Draft ESS Figure 1-2 does not match the construction boundary of the parking apron and does not depict the designated laydown areas and utility corridors that are included in the construction specifications/figures.

Question Is the Draft ESS currently being reviewed by the Government and/or NOSSA to address inconsistencies and implement corrections, and will a Final ESS be issued in advance of the proposal submission deadline?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

203. Solicitation Amendment 01; Draft Munitions Response Explosives Safety Submission (MRESS). The Draft ESS requires the performance of MEC/MPPEH clearance and mechanical excavation in 24-inch lifts to the full construction depth across the entire footprint of the work site. This method is directed based on the assessment that MEC/MPPEH items as small as a 20-mm projectile are present. However, the Background section of the ESS does not include any site history that represents how 20-mm projectiles would be located at significant depth. Below the first 2-ft lift of soil, it should be unlikely that 20-mm projectiles are present. The effort and time to stockpile/screen all excavated soils to address the potential presence of 20-mm projectiles will significantly increase the cost of the project and impact an already constrained schedule to complete construction of the apron. This is especially relevant when considering the volume of soil/material that will be generated with some excavations extending to a depth of over 10 feet below ground surface (bgs).

Question Will the Government reevaluate the current approach and remove the need to complete the clearance and excavation in 2-ft lifts to the full depth of construction and implement changes in a Final ESS that will be issued in advance of the proposal submission deadline?

ANSWER: Draft ESS does not specifically require 24-inch lifts, lifts are predicated on 11x the diameter of a given TOI as industry recognized detection depth capability.

204. Solicitation Amendment 01; Draft Munitions Response Explosives Safety Submission (MRESS) and Part 3, Section 3.1. The Draft ESS prescribes procedures to be used for Vegetation Removal and for Mag and Dig Techniques within the project site. In addition, Part 3, Section 3.1 includes a list of species that need to be protected.

Questions

a. Are protected specific or sensitive habitat located within the parking apron construction footprint? If so, what actions will the Installation Environmental Office require from contractors to protect species and sensitive habitats?

ANSWER: Yes, the protected species are located within the construction footprint and listed under Spec 01 57 19, paragraph 3.1. An Environmental Protection Plan must be prepared per Spec 01 57 19, 1.7.

b. Do environmental permits or another type of authorization need to be issued by the Installation Environmental Office or host nation prior to removal of the vegetation?

ANSWER: Yes.

205. SECTION 32 13 14.13, para 2.12.13. This section ask to use a Paver finisher machine.

We would like to request the use of Semi mechanised paving technique for PCC Slab construction instead of the slipform paving machine due to quantity and positioning of Tie down points.

The specification detailed the use of slipform paving machine to cast PCC slab. The details for Aircraft Tie Down Points (ATDP) specify that they are to be installed within the fresh concrete during the paving process, while concrete is fresh. To construct the ATDP as per details, they will need to be pre-set on reinforcement cages, fixed to underneath base layer, at desired location and height. From previous experience, these preset ATDP will cause hindrances to the paving process, as they will be in the path of poker attached to the paving machine. Moreover, there are high risk of them being dislodged by paving machine during compaction and levelling process.

The scope has identified nearly 400 number of ATDP, which equate to area of 14400 m2 (31% of the overall project), which can’t be completed using slipform paving machine for the reason explained above. Furthermore, due to the location and positioning of ATDP within the paving areas, we estimated, additional 30 % of the total paving areas can’t be paved using slipform paving machine. These areas are in addition to areas of Irregular shape bays which must be casted using non-machine lay methods.

Considering all the above areas that can be paved using machine lay method, we are proposing the use of combination of Machine lay and Semi Mechanised method with the use of Tripple roller to level and compact the PC concrete. The areas where machine lay is not practical nor commercially viable due to productivity will be completed with the help of triple roller.

ANSWER: Contractor's concern is acknowledged, however the requirement of tie downs in the finished pavement remains unchanged. Means and methods are the responsibility of the contractor. Slipform paving must be used.

206. Section 00 21 16, Paragraphs 1.1.a and 1.1.b: Due to the number of RFI responses still pending and the logistics of preparing and shipping hardcopy documents, we request the Government reconsider its request for hard copy proposals and instead allow for electronic proposals to be submitted via the DoD SAFE, PIEE, or via email. This has been the common practice for proposals submitted to the DoD since the onset of COVID in March of 2020.

ANSWER: See response to Question 139.

207. Section 00 21 16, Paragraphs 1.1.a and 1.1.b: Due to the number of RFI responses still pending and the logistics of preparing and shipping hardcopy documents, we request the Government reconsider allowing for a DoD SAFE, PIEE, or email submission on the due date and time followed by hardcopies 5 business days later.

ANSWER: See response to Question 140.

208. Section 00 21 16, Paragraphs 1.1.a and 1.1.b: Due to the number of pending RFI responses, we request the Government reconsider our request that the due date for proposals be established at receipt of all RFI responses plus 21 days so that we have time to evaluate the responses and coordinate with our Team.

ANSWER: See response to Question 141.

209. Reference: SECTION 01 57 19.03 20 Page 14, Paragraph 3.8 stated “Imported Soils. The Contractor shall ensure that all imported soils are free of MEC/UXO/MPPEH items or metallic materials. The Contractor shall afford Local and USA Government representatives an opportunity to visit and view the source for any imported soils at the Government’s request.”

Question: Request the Government confirms that the Borrow Pit Area is free of MEC/MPPEH items or metallic materials and does not need to be MEC cleared or screened prior to use. Or, does the Government direct that the Borrow Pit Area be cleared of MEC/MPPEH in lifts IAW the Draft MRESS to the depth of construction/excavation, along with the post-clearance manual/mechanical screening to ensure the imported soils are free of MEC/MPPEH items or metallic materials?

ANSWER: Borrow Pit area must be cleared of MEC/MPPEH in lifts IAW with MRESS to the depth of construction/excavation.

End of Notice