24R1308 Note 10.pdf

Notice No. 10 16 May 2024

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

RFP N62742-24-R-1308

FY23 MCON P-923 AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON, FY25 MCON P-941 MAINTENANCE

SUPPORT FACILITY, AND FY25 MCON P-949 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR,

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE BASE, DARWIN, 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.

REVISED RESPONSES FROM NOTICE NO. 4 DATED 15 APRIL 2024

122. P941 - Drawing AB151 & AB322 -The RCP plan drawing No. AB151 indicates Ceiling type CE41, while Drawing No. AB322, Wall section 4, specifies ceiling type CE20. Please advise?

REVISED ANSWER: CE41 is the correct material of eaves linings/soffits. Drawing AB322 was revised in Amendment No. 0003.

141. P949 - AA151, AA171 - Please confirm if the ceiling to Room 024 and 025 are suspended ceiling of 60mm thick mineral board.

REVISED ANSWER: No, FIXED CEILING - FIRE RESISTANT FRL 240/240/240. Refer to T-Sheets it’s a joist system, using a propriety mineral board system. Refer to Amendment No.

0004, Spec Section 09 06 00a T-Sheet.

145. P941 - AA125 - Wall Setout Plan, AB411 - Details - Wet Area - Wall tiling is not shown on wall setout plan, but has been measured as 2400mm high wall tiles for Unisex toilet (Room016) based on drawings AB411. Please confirm height?

REVISED ANSWER: Confirmed. Wall tiles are slab to ceiling, therefore, as per the AA411 dwgs 2400mm, also refer T-Sheet notes on floor to ceiling requirement. Refer to Amendment No. 0002, Drawing AA125.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND, PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DRIVE, SUITE 100

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR HICKAM, HAWAII 96860-3134

REVISED RESPONSES FROM NOTICE NO. 6 DATED 30 APRIL 2024

277. P941- AB151. The Armory building shows some rooms have a concrete ceiling yet at the same time is showing recessed 1200x300 lights in the same building. This does not seem logical as having a penetration this large in a secure area would pose significant threats to security.

Please advise if this light fixture is correct or if a surface mounted light fixture should be used instead.

REVISED ANSWER: Lighting fixture at AB151 Legend was revised to1200mm x 300mm LED Troffer surface mounted or recessed to suit ceiling, refer to electrical drawings in Amendment No. 0003.

RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 2 DATED 28 MARCH 2024

108. Section 09 Architectural Finishes and Components Schedule Page 37/38 and Section 31 31 16.13 ‘Chemical Termite Control' For P941 and P949 - There appears to be a discrepancy between Section 09 Architectural Finishes and Components Schedule Page 37/38 and Section 31 31 16.13 ‘Chemical Termite Control' for termite management. Section 31 of the specification nominates ‘Soil Chemical application as well as Stainless Steel Mesh Barriers’ with no mention of a plastic TMB (Termite Moisture Barrier.), however, Section 09 Architectural Finishes and Components Schedule nominates plastic TMB.

It is our understanding that stainless steel mesh barriers are not approved for use in the Top End due to the Termite varieties present here including Masto Termes, so the option here would be soil chemical application. The specification requires a 5-year warranty which can’t be supplied on any soil chemical application in the Top End due to reduced chemical lifespans.

ANSWER: Clarification was provided to VP10 in spec section 09 06 00a – T-Sheets and Drawings in Amendment No. 0004.

RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 3 DATED 10 APRIL 2024

190. Section 01 33 29, para 1.4.2.2 sub para a. Please confirm that the Government has obtained a third-party certification design compliance report in accordance with this paragraph requirement. Given that this is a design-bid-build project, the government is responsible for the design.

ANSWER: The Sustainable design requirements have been incorporated into the Contract documents. Reference the Smart Infrastructure Checklist and associated attachments 01 11 00a, b, & c, which outlines the contractor sustainability requirements.

RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 8 DATED 7 MAY 2024

344. Development Approval, building approvals and fit for purpose RFP section 00 70 00 – FAR 52.236-7 “Permits and Responsibilities” provides that the Contractor is responsible for obtaining any necessary licences and permits. We refer also to RFI question 259 and the Answer given that ‘The project has submitted the required approvals to the relevant Authorities’.

Firstly, would NAVFAC please confirm that approvals in respect to design required to commence work have been granted by the relevant authorities and whether those approvals have any relevant conditions attached, and secondly, (with reference to RFI question 261) that the designer has provided a statement or certificate that confirms that the design meets the requirements of the Contract.

ANSWER: Confirmed. The required approvals to the relevant authorities for the Design have been submitted. Specification 01 57 19 clause 1.7 was revised to list approvals that are being obtained by the Government. Refer to Amendment No. 0004. Project is Design- Bid-Build; therefore, no design statement/certificate will be provided.

We also make reference to the HOTO checklist and Section 01 11 00.01 PART 1, Clause 1.1.1 which indicates that the contractor is required to ensure that the project is fit for purpose. We make reference to RACI matrix at page 207 of PART A P-923 P-941 P-949 Division 0120240222 which shows that the Contractor is responsible (R) for “Compliant Design (includes NCC, BWM, MFPE, MIEE etc)”. Further references within the HOTO documentation require the Contractor to ensure that the works are fit for purpose.

These requirements are very serious and are inconsistent with a construct only contract where the design has been completed by others. Normal practice under a construct only contract is for the contractor to warrant only that the works have been constructed using reasonable skill and care, not to warrant fit for purpose for work the contractor has not designed.

Therefore as our third point, we respectfully request clarification from NAVFAC as to the nature of the Contractor’s obligations under this contract in respect to design and fit for purpose. Fit for purpose, related approvals and permitting, and general design obligations placed on the contractor, for design developed by others, would be a very discouraging risk allocation (there being very limited opportunity to complete due diligence on the design work presented in the solicitation).

We refer also to RFI question 261 where another tenderer has requested confirmation from NAVFAC that the designer confirms that the design meets the Specifications. It is not clear how the tenderers would be able to rely on such a confirmation – and so as our fourth point we ask NAVFAC to please clarify.

ANSWER: The RACI Matrix is a summarized reference. Refer to pages 182 to 185 for the KTR responsibilities, which include items 3. Pre-Mobilization, 4. Construction and Commissioning, and 5. Handover Takeover (HOTO). The HOTO checklist starting on page 229 indicates the Design components of the HOTO checklist, which have been completed. The KTR will need to complete the HOTO checklist as part of the KTR roles and responsibilities, as previously noted.

The Government’s intended use for Fit For Purpose is “The specifications and drawings convey the project requirements. The Contractor in executing the contract is responsible for the selection of products and execution of the works ensuring that the project is built in accordance with plans and specifications.” Amendment to provide clarification is forthcoming.

When a discrepancy between the Deed Poll and the design is identified, the specifications and drawings will govern; please notify the Contracting Officer. Design roles and responsibilities do not apply as project is DBB. Further, project is DBB; no design statement will be provided. The specification and the drawings are the design documentation for the project.

351. All Buildings-Roof Details

After review of the steel building (hangars and facility) roof details, there appears to be multiple conflicts with the roofing type and build up. For example:

• AA405 A2 Lift core, Insulated Panel, VP01, PL01, no insulation

• AA 512 A1 shows Insulated panel, INSM (mesh) and IN03, but no ply

• AA513 A1-A2-A3 all details show insulated panel, INSM, VP01 and IN03

• AA521 C1-C2, high roof above hangar doors shows insulated panel, INSM, VP01 and

Pl01 (Ply) no insulation; Detail C3 which is the top of the hangar roof junction at the wall shows insulated panel, IN21 and CE40, which is our soffit lining

• AA523 C1 shows office roof joining Hangar wall with everything, insulated panel, VP01, IN21, PL01

• AA527 A1 shows a detail as how the ply is installed, angle fixed to purloin, each side to support ply, which must be sealed to each side of the purloin

• AA751 A1 shows Insulated panel, VP01, IN20 and PL01 Further, we have noted a major buildability issue that involves the safety mesh (INSM). Most details show the mesh sat on top of or between the purlins and then the insulated panel on top of this. This poses significant safety and buildability concerns, particularly regarding the metal-to-metal contact of the mesh and panel. The detail in this contract is not a standard building practice in Australia or other NAVFAC projects within the country for steel structure hangars and buildings.

Please advise if the details In the contract drawings for the roof build up, particularly those identified in the above drawings need to be followed or can the contractor during the shop drawings phase utilize its own standard roofing detail that meets buildability and safety requirements as long as those standard details meet the overall requirements of the roof detail and encompass the main critical features (steel structure, purlins, safety mesh, ply board, insulated panel)? If not, how does the Government intend the contractor meet Australian safety and buildability standards for this aspect of the project?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

NOTICE NO. 10

362. RFI - 259 - Authority Approvals. Recent response from NAVFAC was that the project had submitted the required approvals to the relevant authorities. We assume that NAVFAC will therefore obtain these approvals but would like confirmation that the approvals will be obtained.

ANSWER: Confirmed. The required approvals to the relevant authorities for the Design have been submitted. Specification 01 57 19 clause 1.7 will be revised to list approvals that are being obtained by the Government. Amendment forthcoming.

363. RFI - 272. NAVFAC noted that the Design certification has been provided to the Building Certifier for the project in relation to the structural and civil certification and that the Contractor is responsible for the construction certification as detailed in specification 01 45 35.

However, the response does not deal with this. BCA Regulation 126 Certification of Compliance of Design by the structural engineer and it needs to be on the final structural documents. We believe that under the NT third party review-structural design, a third-party reviewer is required depending on the building surveyors interpretation on the complexity of the project. Please confirm who is the building surveyor.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

364. Request for Clarification following NAVFAC RFI #355 response.

We refer to RFI #355 that NAVFAC responded “Any questions concerning the applicability or interpretation of the Commonwealth’s Deed Poll should be directed to usfpi.facilities.infrastructure@defence.gov.au.

Respectfully we consider the questions raised in RFI #355 need to be answered by NAVFAC as these questions relate to the scope of work of the Contractor under the Contract and how it will be handled where the Commonwealth enforces under the Deed an obligation that is inconsistent with the Contract. We provide this RFI to seek additional responses on the queries raised and responded in NAVFAC RFI #355.

1. Confirmation that the Contractor is not a Managing Contractor for the purposes of the RACI matrix.

The annotation in the RACI matrix under column titled Contractor (all Delivery Contractors - HC, MC & EMOS)’ allocates responsibilities to the ‘R (MC)’. Please clarify that these responsibilities would only apply to a ‘managing contractor’ (“MC”) and that the contractor under this agreement is not a managing contractor and not accountable and responsible for design.

ANSWER: See response to Question 344.

2. Handling where the Commonwealth asserts the Contractor has responsibilities under the HOTO process that are not responsibilities of the Contractor under the Contract.

The Australian Schedule Requirements at clause 8 refers to the Contractor carrying out all ‘Contractor HOTO Obligations’. The definition of ‘Contractor HOTO Obligation’ in the ARS extends beyond what is required to be performed by the Contractor under the Contract by inclusion of the following words ‘…which a HOTO Requirement allocates, or would reasonably be inferred as allocating, to the Contractor’ this may be asserted by the Commonwealth, under the Commonwealth Deed, as obliging the Contractor to meet fitness for purpose obligations, such as modifying the design, that are not obligations of the Contractor under the Contract.

Please confirm that modification of the design to achieve ‘fit for purpose’ would be handled as a change order under the Contract, pursuant to clause FAR 52.243-4, including where this is asserted as being required by the Commonwealth under the Commonwealth Deed.

ANSWER: See response to Question 344.

365. Request for Clarification following NAVFAC RFI #357 response.

We refer to RFI #357 that NAVFAC responded “Any questions concerning the applicability or interpretation of the Commonwealth’s Deed Poll should be directed to usfpi.facilities.infrastructure@defence.gov.au.

Respectfully we consider questions raised in RFI #357 need to be answered by NAVFAC as these questions relate to the scope of work of the Contractor under the Contract and how it will be handled where the Commonwealth enforces under the Deed an obligation that is inconsistent with the Contract. We provide this RFI to seek additional responses on the queries raised and responded in NAVFAC RFI #357.

It is an expectation of the Commonwealth under the Australian requirements schedule that the workmanship and materials used under the Contract are fit for purpose. Meeting this fitness for purpose obligation will require that the workmanship and materials designed and specified by the are capable of being considered fit for purpose when constructed (if these are not fit for purpose as specified the Contractor will be unable to achieve a fit for purpose outcome, through no fault of its own). The Contractor has not designed and specified the workmanship and materials, that has been done by NAVFAC.

The Contractor is therefore requesting confirmation from NAVFAC that the workmanship and materials which it has designed and specified meet the requirement to be fit for purpose pursuant to the Commonwealth Deed, that is, where the Contractor correctly uses the workmanship and materials that are required by the design and specification this will be fit for purpose.

ANSWER: See response to Question 344.

366. Request for Clarification following NAVFAC RFI #360 response.

We refer to RFI #360 and whilst we note the Government will not pre-evaluate the proposal there appears to be an error in the wording of FAR 52.228-14 paragraph (e).

Paragraph (e)(6) refers to Article 17 which appears to be not relevant, and it appears this should be replaced by Article 36, which is relevant to the circumstances described in that same paragraph:

UCP 600 - Article 17 Original Documents and Copies

a. At least one original of each document stipulated in the credit must be presented.

b. A bank shall treat as an original any document bearing an apparently original signature, mark, stamp, or label of the issuer of the document, unless the document itself indicates that it is not an original.

c. Unless a document indicates otherwise, a bank will also accept a document as original if it:

i. appears to be written, typed, perforated or stamped by the document issuer's hand; or

ii. appears to be on the document issuer's original stationery; or

iii. states that it is original, unless the statement appears not to apply to the document presented.

d. If a credit requires presentation of copies of documents, presentation of either originals or copies is permitted.

e. If a credit requires presentation of multiple documents by using terms such as "in duplicate", "in two fold" or "in two copies", this will be satisfied by the presentation of at least one original and the remaining number in copies, except when the document itself indicates otherwise.

UCP 600 - Article 36 Force Majeure A bank assumes no liability or responsibility for the consequences arising out of the interruption of its business by Acts of God, riots, civil commotions, insurrections, wars, acts of terrorism, or by any strikes or lockouts or any other causes beyond its control.

A bank will not, upon resumption of its business, honour or negotiate under a credit that expired during such interruption of its business.

ANSWER: The discrepancy which references to Article 17 of the UCP in FAR 52.228-14 is acknowledged. Although the ILC format must be in accordance with FAR 52.228-14 Irrevocable Letter of Credit, paragraph (e), any reference to Article 17 in the ILC format that is replaced with Article 36 will be accepted by the Government.

End of Notice