24R1304 Note 6.pdf

Notice No. 6

13 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: Spec 01 57 19.03 20 will be revised to provide clarification in a forthcoming amendment.

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: Contractor Bears the responsibility for permitting and licensing under the Permit and Responsibilities Clause, FAR 52.236-7 Permits and Responsibilities, and would be liable for any violation under the Philippine Law.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND, PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DRIVE, SUITE 100

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR HICKAM, HAWAII 96860-3134

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 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: Contractor Bears the responsibility for permitting and licensing under the Permit and Responsibilities Clause, FAR 52.236-7 Permits and Responsibilities, and would be liable for any violation under the Philippine Law.

RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 4 DATED 29 FEBRUARY 2024

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: The Preconstruction Air Permit refers to permanent equipment. The 6 months required for this is separate from the 60 day mobilization timeframe.

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: Contractor owns the means and methods of construction. Follow contract requirements.

RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 5 DATED 12 MARCH 2024

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: No, Spec 01 32 17.00 20, para 1.10.1.10.1 will be revised to provide clarification in a forthcoming amendment.

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: Yes, final ESS will be provided to the contractor after award of the Contract.

NOTICE NO. 6

210. Amendment 0004 Revised Sheet GI101: Please confirm whether or not the areas shown as “Laydown Area”, “Approximate Borrow Pit Location”, Topsoil areas are areas that the government considers that will require UXO clearance.

ANSWER: Yes, UXO clearance is required where ground disturbing activities occur.

211. Amendment 0004 Revised Sheet GI101: Please confirm whether or not the areas shown as “Laydown Area”, “Approximate Borrow Pit Location”, Topsoil areas are areas that the government considers will require “ground disturbing activities” and therefore UXO clearance as part of the scope of work.

ANSWER: Yes, UXO clearance is required where ground disturbing activities occur.

212. The specifications Amendment 0001 ESS, includes Figure 1-2 depicting the “Proposed Removal Boundary” assumed to be the area of (UXO) clearance. This clearance area is not defined anywhere else on the actual plans. Can the Government please define the specific area(s) requiring MEC/MPEH clearance limits on an actual design plan sheet?

ANSWER: MEC/MPPEH clearance is required where ground disturbing activities occur.

213. According to note 1 response # 80, FAR 52.222-23 is applicable to the RFP# N62742-24- R-1304.

IAW FAR 22.810(b), the aforementioned provision applies if the solicitation includes FAR 52.222-26. IAW FAR 22.807(b)(2), work outside the United States. Contracts are exempt from the requirements of E.O.11246 for work performed outside the United States by employees who were not recruited within the United States is exempt from this requirement.

Please confirm if FAR 52.222-23 still applies even if the work will be performed outside the US and the recruitment will not occurred within the US.

ANSWER: No, as previously stated, pursuant to 41 CFR 60-1.5(a)(3) and as stated at 41 CFR 60-1.10, “Contractors are exempted from this obligation only when hiring persons outside the United States for work to be performed outside the United States (see 41 CFR 60– 1.5(a)(3)).”

214. Notification 5, the government’s response to RFI #203 stated that the “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.”

This response contradicts Section 6.1.5.1 of the Draft ESS, which directs the procedures for the Mechanical Excavation – Limited Clearance in Advance of Construction and specifically requires that “UXO-qualified personnel will conduct a scan over the entire area to be excavated to identify all subsurface anomalies. Anomalies will be manually excavated to a depth of 24 inches (61 cm). The depth of 24 inches (61 cm) is based on 11 times the diameter of a 57 mm projectile. Once all anomalies have been cleared, the cleared 24- inch (61 cm) layer will be mechanically excavated, and another 24-inch (61 cm) layer can be scanned and cleared by UXO personnel (direct quote from the Draft ESS)”. As the clearance in 24-inch lifts to the depth of construction is a stated requirement within the Draft ESS, following this procedure within all areas of the project site will require a significantly high level of effort, cost, and time to complete. In contrast, and based on the site history, it is recommended that an initial subsurface clearance to a 24-inch depth, following by the provision of on-site Construction Support, would be a suitable method to address the low likelihood of MEC/MPPEH being present at deeper depths within the site.

It is requested that the government provides clarification if the MEC clearance in 24-inch lifts requirement will remain in effect or if a revised Draft or Final ESS will be issued in advance of the proposal submission deadline which removes the method to conduct the MEC clearance in any type of lift to the full construction depth.

ANSWER: As previously stated in response to Question 203, lifts are predicated on 11x the diameter of a given TOI as industry recognized detection depth capability. Bid in accordance with the Draft MRESS provided in Amendment No. 0001 and the revised Specification 01 57

19.03 20 to be provided in a forthcoming amendment. The final ESS will be provided to the contractor after award of the Contract.

End of Notice