24R1308 Note 3.pdf

Notice No. 3

10 April 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.

RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 2 DATED 28 MARCH 2024

56. NAVFAC Drawing 17308954 (General notes C-002) - CF.1. MAKE ALLOWANCE

FOR ASSESSMENT OF UTILITY CAPACITY, CONNECTION TO EXISTING UTILITIES,

METERING AND ONGOING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH UTILITY USAGE AT

MARKET RATES FOR THE DURATION OF THIS PROJECT. SEEK DETAILS AND

APPROVAL OF THE SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN RAAF BASE DARWN

STAKEHOLDERS. - Please provide details of the suitable connection points for potable water, sewer and Electricity available near the worksite? Please confirm the capacity of each that the Tenderer can rely upon to deliver the works? Please confirm market rates to be adopted for the supply of Water, Electricity and sewer?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

57. RFP Document 00 22 00, Section 2.2 (a) (1): Offerors can utilize projects completed within the last fifteen (15) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation to demonstrate construction experience. To meet the dollar threshold for some of these older projects, would the Government allow Offerors to utilize an online calculator to determine the cumulative inflation rate (CPI inflation) over the course of time between award date and 2024 to establish equivalent buying power? For example, a project awarded for $25M in 2015 would be equivalent to $32.7M in 2024, a cumulative price increase of 30.93%.

ANSWER: No, RFP remains unchanged.

59. Document 00 22 00 page 3 of 7, para 1.b. Currently under the type of building construction, relevant projects shall have been completed withing the last fifteen (15) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation. New construction of aircraft hangar buildings/structures with long spans have not been in abundance over the last 15-20 years, thereby limiting small firms experience as members of a team.

Will the government please consider expanding the recency criterion for this requirement to “within the last 20 years”?

ANSWER: RFP remains unchanged.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND, PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DRIVE, SUITE 100

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR HICKAM, HAWAII 96860-3134

62. General .“4. A relevant construction project is further defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.”

We recognize that the intent of this language is to prevent an offeror from presenting multiple task orders as a single "project." However, for its own convenience, the Government has on occasion issued a task order or one-off contract that contains multiple MILCON projects (each MILCON with a separate P-number). May an offeror present each MILCON project (P-number) under such a task order or contract as a "project" for the purposes of this solicitation? For example, if a relevant past contract or task order comprises three P-numbers, may the P-numbers be split to cover more than one of the five "projects" required here, assuming that individual P-number meets at least one of the two criteria?

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged. To clarify, offerors are to submit a maximum of five

(5) construction projects. A minimum number of construction projects is not required, however, relevant construction projects submitted shall collectively demonstrate experience in both individual features. It is noted, individual features do not have to be within any single project scope. Therefore, a construction project containing multiple MILCON projects under a single contract, that demonstrates experience in more than one (1) feature, does not have to be split.

67. Document RFP N62742-24-R-1308 Clause 1.29. Please confirm if Option No. 1 is awarded, the period for completion of all work for the construction of Project P-941 is 830 calendar days after the notice to proceed for Option No. 1 and not 830 calendar days after the notice to proceed for the base offer?

ANSWER: Confirmed. Option No. 1 shall be completed 830 calendar days from the date Option No. 1 is exercised, clarification will be provided in a forthcoming amendment.

70. Drawing C-002 P923 Aircraft Parking Apron. Note TA 1 to 3 on drawing C-002 details the construction of a temporary sealed access road. Please provide additional details for buildings or areas that the temporary road need to be connected to.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

79. Specifications P941 Section 09 06 00 We note within Specification P-941 Section 09 06 00 - Architectural Finishes and Components Schedule (T-Sheet), the schedules do not nominate the products or manufacturers, only criteria. Can the client confirm that the tenderer/ Contractor is to determine a suitable product that meets the criteria? Our experience for Construct Only Contract where the Designer has developed the design that specific manufacturers/products would be nominated. Please confirm?

Examples of schedules below that we would expect the 100% design would have the products/manufacturers specified?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

81. Document 00 22 00, Factor 1 – Experience, Paragraph (a)(1) a. - 82% of construction materials have experienced a significant cost increase since 2020 with an average jump of 19% according to construction industry sources. The year 2023 saw an average escalation of 4.3%.

From 2010-2020 the average annual escalation was 5% per year. Additionally, labor rates have seen similar increases globally.

Accordingly, as relevant projects can currently be up to 15 years old, will the Government allow offerors to provide relevant project value calculations incorporating price escalation to qualify the project dollar value for projects submitted under Factor 1 in order to demonstrate similar current project values to the RFP stated approximate minimum $ values?

Alternatively, will the Government please consider lowering the minimum experience magnitude dollar value for paragraph (1) a. Airfield Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement to approximately $15M?

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged.

82. RFP Document 00 21 16 Paragraph 1.3 states that the Government may not respond to questions submitted less than 10 business days prior to the proposal receipt due date, however will the Government please provide a date and number of days prior to the due date by which all questions submitted more than 10 days prior to the proposal due date will be answered? Due to the logistical and technical nature, as well as location of the project, incorporating answers to questions into the offer/solution may take up to 14 days.

ANSWER: The proposal due date was extended via Amendment No. 0001. Further, in accordance with Document 00 21 16, Paragraph 1.3, the government may not responsd to questions submitted less than 10 business days prior to the proposal receipt due date. Responses will be answered formally via SAM.gov. Please monitor SAM.gov for any updates.

84. NAVFAC Drawing 1730129 (Dwg CP501) the notes mentioned - PROVIDE BITUMEN

EMULSION TACK COAT BEFORE PLACING ANY ASPHALT LAYER, INCLUDING

BETWEEN LAYERS. Can the designers nominate the spread rate to be applied?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

85. P949 drawing number CD201 Can P949 drawing number CD201 (Stormwater longsection) be reissue? The current version is illegible.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

86. General - Can the full geotechnical report be released?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

87. General - After reviewing the mains and submains cable schedules for all the buildings it has been identified that there have been no earth cable sizes nominated. Will these cable sizes be made available to us, or are we to allow for the nominal earth size as per AS3000 depending the submain size?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

88. Drawing AA111 – P50 Insulated Cool Room Panel. Please provide details of this panel as this code is not within the Architectural Finishes and Components Schedule.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

89. P949 -SB101 - Armory Building - Structural - Concrete Foundations & Slab Plan - Sheet 1 - ET2 is not found on Concrete Foundations and Slab Plan. Please advise location and amend drawings, if required.

90. P949 - SB101 - Armory Building - Structural - Concrete Foundations & Slab Plan - Sheet 1 - AW1 and AW2 were noted as in-situ concrete wall but with 320W corefilled comments.

Please confirm if it is 320d in-situ wall? If so, please amend drawings?

91. P949 - SB501 - Armory Building - Structural - Concrete Foundations and Slab Details - Sheet 1 - Please advise thickness of mass concrete blinding to EB1, IB1 and IB2. We have measured at 50mm throughout. Please advise otherwise and amend drawing if required?

92. P949 - S-002 - Facility Wide - Structural - Notes - Sheet 2 and SB101 - Armory Building

- Structural - Concrete Foundations & Slab Plan - Sheet 1 - Please advise concrete grade for in-situ concrete walls AW1 and AW2.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

93. P949 - SB503 - Armory Building - Structural - Concrete Wall and Masonry Details - No details shown for AW3 dowel spacing and fixing details. Please confirm 200mm cts spacing or otherwise? Please amend drawings as required.

94. P949 - Structural drawings & notes S-001 - Can structural steel installation sequencing / methodology and temporary work plans please be provided if they have been developed? Given its construct only and fully documented drawings, we are unaware of any constraints or specific sequence that the buildings are required to be installed.

95. P923 - Electrical Package - We note the HV and lighting schedules within the 05.01 drawing set does not provide any manufacturers details. Can the designer confirm the HV equipment manufacturer details and lighting manufacturer details that the design is based upon?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

96. P923 - Electrical Package - Can the client confirm who the existing PCMS contractor is for the site?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

97. P923 - CG490 - Temporary Wash Facility Relocation and MOWP Stage 1A drawing (12583544-SK020) - Can NAVFAC confirm if there is any work restrictions to perform this work? Will NAVFAC provide key dates when this work can occur that won’t impact operations?

Is there any special inductions or working requirements to disconnect services and construct this new temporary facility?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

98. RFP Document 00 22 00, Section 2.2, Factor 1 – Experience, Note 6: Where experience and past performance is being utilized by an entity other the Offeror, and where the Offeror is a joint venture, will the Government accept a teaming agreement established and signed between a member of the joint venture and the other entity? If not, would the Government accept a slight variation of a teaming agreement, signed by the joint venture, where the joint venture subcontracts to the joint venture partner, who then subcontracts to the other entity upon award?

ANSWER: Teaming agreements shall be submitted in accordance with Document 00 22 00 – Evaluation Factors for Award, under Factor 1 – Experience, Notes 6, which states “The teaming agreement or other contractual agreement shall, at minimum, (1) be signed by the Offeror and the other entity…” Further, “(3) specify work to be performed by the other entity such that it is clear that the other entity will be meaningfully involved in this contract in a role that is consistent with that entity’s role in the project submitted.” Additionally, in accordance with Document 00 21 16, paragraph 1.6 “The proposal and each bond or other document submitted by or on behalf of the joint venture shall be executed by each joint venture partner and shall be accompanied by evidence of the authority of the signer.”

99. P-923 E-605 drawing - Site wide drawings outlines the HV Site Wide condition once the works are completed. The Drawing E-605 notes that new operational ring is required between Sub Station ISS1 to 31-32-33-36-53-FF8-Sub 10 which has the same annotation as the new works to Substation A, B and C. Please confirm the HV Scope relates to the HV Schedule (E- 606 drawing) only and there is no works required outside the scope defined on the HV cable schedule?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

100. RFP, Document 00 22 00, Factor 1 Experience Note 6 – Should the fully-executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement for be included at the end of Factor 1 – Experience?

ANSWER: Teaming agreement may be submitted with Technical Proposal under Factor 1 – Experience.

101. SF-1442 – Will the Government please provide an updated SF-1442 with all pertinent information, there are some details missing (i.e. Box 13 A).

ANSWER: SF1442 will be revised in a forthcoming amendment. Number of copies, and date of time of proposal submission is stated in Document 00 21 16 – Instructions to Proposers.

102. RFP Document 00 70 00, Section 1.68 - Would the Government consider allowing performance and payment bonds to be issued by project CLINs instead of 100% of the original total contract price? Thus, allowing performance and payment bonds to be issued on the base scope CLINs for P-923 at time of award and additional performance and payment bonds issued by project if/when option CLINs are exercised for P-941 and/or P-949.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

103. P941/P949 - Drawings AA621 - Fire doors FR5 and FR6 are nominated as 6 hour fire rating, however industry standard will warrant a maximum of 4 hour fire rating. Please advise if industry standard of 4 hours is acceptable?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

104. P941/P949 - Drawings AA621 - All acoustic doors and fire doors are nominated with a 20 year warranty however industry standard for doors is 2 years. Please advise if 2 year warranty is acceptable?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

105. P941 Drawing MA106 - P-941 Maintenance Building GEF-A-10 (as below) notes ‘2 hours fire rated wrap up to roof’. Please confirm if this is for the ductwork riser only or the entire ductwork system?

106. Drawings 17310630 (M-603), 17310632 (M-605), 17310634 (M-607), and 17310635 (M-605): For P941 the UV lights/emitters are detailed on drawings 17310630 (M-603), 17310632 (M-605), 17310634 (M-607), and 17310635 (M-605), however, no requirements are detailed within the P949 drawing sets. Please confirm whether UV lights/emitters are required for FCUs/AHUs within P949, the same requirements as P941?

107. P949 - Drawings 17311336 (EA001), 17311355 (EA123) - P4 Light fitting has not been detailed on the lighting fixtures schedule on drawing EA001 however is nominated on drawing EA123. Please provide details of light fittings?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

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: Response deferred.

109. Drawings 17310450 (A-701), 17310451 (A-702), 17311005 (A-701), 17311006 (A-702) For 941/P949 - In reference to signage type drawings 17310450 (A-701), 17310451 (A-702), 17311005 (A-701), 17311006 (A-702), there appears to be no reference to SG33, SG34, SG40 and SG55. These signage types are nominated within signage schedules on drawings 17311039 (AA146) and 1731052 (AB181). Please provide details?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

110. Project specification- P941 Specifications-Final Package (Rev.20240216) - Section 23 05 93 Page 6 - 1.5.1.2 Qualifications - b. The specification nominates a TAB Specialist must be either a member of AABC, an experienced technician of the firm certified by the NEBB, or a supervisor certified by the TABB. However, NEBB/AABC/TABB are American standards and NEBB is no longer in Australia or supporting Australia. The Australian equivalent of NEBB is TACA. Please advise:

1. Please advise if the local Mech contractors can do all testing and commissioning in line with Australian AIRAH DA manuals?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

2. Please advise if Mech contractors must utilize TACA (Australian equivalent of NEBB) accredited commissioning agents from interstate?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

111. Drawing 17310647 (MA-112) & 17310628(M-161) - Drawing 17310647 (MA-112) nominates for a compressed air system in the building. However, Mechanical drawing -

NAVFAC drawing number 17310628(M-161) does not provide the schedule for the Compressor in the compressed air system.

Could the designer, please provide the schedule for the Compressor (Compressed air flow requirements, any specific compressor technology, ISO 8573-1 air quality requirements, required pressure of the system) in the Maintenance Support Facility Building?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

112. P941 Specifications-Final Package (Rev.20240216)- Section 23 30 00 Page 31 - 3.13 Cleaning and Adjusting: The specification nominates to provide temporary filters prior to startup of all fans that are operated during construction and provide new filters after all construction dirt has been removed from the building.

1. Please specify which fans is this clause referring to; general exhaust fans, toilet exhaust fans, exhaust arm fans, outside air fans, FCU fans.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

2. Does the consultant have a schedule for these filters and media class?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

113. Drawing 17310638 (MA-103), 17310638 (MA-103) and 17310642 (MA-107) - The drawings show three Attenuators in the mechanical layout. However, the schedules for the Attenuators are not given.

Could the consultant please provide the schedules for the Attenuators?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

114. Dwg - 1737355 (AA621), 17310500 (AA625), 17310544 (AB625), 17311097 (AA621), 17311098 (AA625) - All acoustic and fire-rated doors the acoustic rating and fire rating are different in the Door note and Door schedule. For example, Door leaf types FR4s in Door note as: Door schedule showing 038B door type FR3, acoustic rating RW35 and fire rating -/60/30.

Please clarify.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

115. Specification section 08 11 13, Page 5, Part 2.1 - The metal clad is to be 1.2mm thick as per spec; the closest we can find is 1.15mm in Australia. Please confirm that this is acceptable?

If this is not acceptable, we need to increase it to 1.55mm.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

116. General: For P941 and P949 - general query, please specify the security zoning plan for the following buildings:

• P-941_04_Maintenance Building

• P-949_04_Hangar

• P-949_05_Node Building

117. Drawings - 17310492 (AA511), 17310807 (AA513), 17310508 (A751), and spec 'Section 09 (Architectural Finishes and Components Schedule) - The ceiling type CE50, with an FRL of 60/60/60 as per section drawings 17310492 (AA511) and 17310807 (AA513), specifies three layers of Fyrchek for the bottom side. However, this information conflicts with the details outlined in the finish schedule and the typical drawing 17310508 (A751). Please clarify?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

118. Drawing - 17310462 (AA126) - Wet area wall types are not shown in the wall set out plans. Please provide?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

119. Section 09 (Architectural Finishes and Components Schedule) - Finish schedules indicate a concealed ceiling suspension system for all Acoustic tile ceilings. Please advise whether a grid system can be utilized?

120. Drawing - AA126, AA311, AA513 - There is inconsistency in the wall height specifications, for example Secured Storage 026. The AA126 Wall set-out plan indicates measurement to the underside of the structure above, while AA513 specifies measurement to the underside of the ceiling. Additionally, AA311 indicates a height of 150mm above the ceiling.

Please clarify?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

121. Drawing AA513 & 'Section 09 (Architectural Finishes and Components Schedule) - Ceiling type CE10 CE02, finish schedule indicates suspended system, Detail drawing on AA513 shows different system. Please clarify?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

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?

123. Drawing - AA125, AA126, AA302 - Drawing No. AA502 Wall type P15 shows 8mm lining but did not specify the material. Please clarify?

124. Drawing - AA125, AA126, AA302 - Wall type P34: wall set out plan indicates P34B is 150mm above ceiling level and AA302 section B shows full height. Please advise?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

125. Drawings P941 and P949 – Please advise if the following Wet Area Hardware items are included within the Client FFE supply items:

1. AC01 SOAP DISPENSER 01 - 1L CHROME

2. AC05 BIN TYPE 02 - ACCESSIBLE

3. AC06 PAPER DISPENSER 01

4. AC11 MIRROR TYPE 02 - ACCESSIBLE

5. CB10 LOCKERS

6. FX13 GRAB RAIL - 90 DEGREES RH

7. FX14 GRAB RAIL - STRAIGHT 300mm

8. SN04 SANITARY FIXTURE 04 - BASIN ACCESSIBLE RHS

9. SN10 SANITARY FIXTURE 10 - TOILET ACCESSIBLE

10. TP10 TAPWARE 10 - SHOWER HEAD RAIL

ANSWER: Response deferred.

126. Drawing - AA111 - Grid C, 4/5 shows this wall as being P50 Insulated Cool Room Panel however structural drawings SA105 and associated section notes this as being an operable wall.

Please note there is no mention of an Operable Wall within the Door Schedule. Please clarify?

127. Drawing - AB322 - Insulation shown behind FC01 walling. Please provide details of what insulation this is (i.e. IN Reference). Please clarify?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

128. Drawing AB324 - What is Insulation and wall lining required to wall section 10? Please clarify?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

129. Drawing AB101 - FX50 Utility shelf is shown but not in the T Specs. Please provide details of what this is. Please clarify?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

130. Drawing AB101 - FX50 Utility shelf is shown but not in the T Specs. Please advise if this is part of the FFE to be supplied by Client. If so we still need details to determine the installation requirements. Please advise?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

131. Drawing AB101 - Vehicle Lift Pit is shown to grid C10. Please confirm that the supply and / or installation of the Vehicle Lift is excluded from this Contract. Please advise?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

132. Drawing AB101 - Please provide details for the Monocrane performance schedule (i.e.

load rating). Please advise?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

133. Drawing AB101 - Please advise if the Monocrane and Gantry Crane are within the Contract scope as they could be classed as Equipment within FFE which the Client is supplying.

Please confirm?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

134. Drawing AB101 - Please provide details for the Gantry Crane performance schedule (i.e.

load rating). Please advise?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

135. P941 - 'Section 09 (Architectural Finishes and Components Schedule) - The Architectural finishes schedule nominates to "apply glazing film as noted on the design drawings", however it does not seem to be documented. Please advise?

136. Drawing AA641 - SG81 has been nominated to window type WE03 however no details are provided. Please provide?

137. P941 - 'Section 09 (Architectural Finishes and Components Schedule) - Please refer to the screenshot below from the LV01 Louvre schedule. and confirm whether all LV01 louvres are high-security louvres.

138. Drawings - 17310507 (AA731) & 17311093 (AA526) - LV01—Two stages louvre are nominated as the same specification in both P941 and P949, however the section details indicate they differ. Please confirm?

139. Fire Services General Query - The below design defines the fundamental design for the fire suppression system in the hangar. The current Manual of Fire Protection Engineering stipulates that for Aircraft Hangars provided with a fire sprinkler system, the system shall be a closed head system with low level foam. The design included in the design drawings appears to replace the low level foam system with an Ignitable liquid drainage floor assembly (ILDFA).

This would be a design deviation from the MFPE as the proposed arrangement is not listed in that document.

Please confirm that the alternate firefighting strategy has been endorsed. Refer below extract from MFPE Edition 4.

140. P941/P949 - 'Section 09 (Architectural Finishes and Components Schedule' - Please confirm if the RAL colors specified in the finishes schedule are mandatory or if the Contractor will be able to propose similar colors from proprietary ranges such as Dulux and Colorbond to utilize local products?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

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

ANSWER: Response deferred.

142. P941 - Drawings AA131 & AA132 - PA50 'Concrete Wall Sealer' is shown on Architectural finishes drawings to be applied to Blockwork Walls which should be PA51 'Masonry Block Sealer'. Will assume PA51 in lieu of PA50 to all blockwork walls as measured/detailed on Structural drawings. Please clarify?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

143. P949-Drawing AB701- Where is the security screen MW13 located in the building?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

144. P941 - AA125 - Wall Setout Plan, AB301 - Building Sections - Sheet 1 - There is discrepancy of wall lining height between wall legend and building sections. Please advise precedence.

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?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

146. P941 - Drawings AB151 and AB324 - There is discrepancy of ceiling to Electrical Room

(005) and Covered Weapons Cleaning (002) between drawings AB151 and AB324. On drawings AB151, CE10 allowed for Electrical Room (005) and CE02 allowed for Covered Weapons Cleaning (002), however, CE03 allowed for above areas on drawing AB324. Please

147. P949 - AA150 - Enlarged Reflected Ceiling Plan Sheet 1, AA151 - Enlarged Reflected Ceiling Plan Sheet 2, AA152 - Enlarged Reflected Ceiling Plan Sheet 3, AA521 - Detail Sections

- Sheet 1 - Roof safety mesh (INSM) to Register Storage Container (025) and Hazmat Storage

(024) only shown on reflected ceiling plan. But also found on drawings AA21 (Section C1 & C2) only to Hangar Bay Wing. Please confirm whether safety mesh is required to whole roof?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

148. P941/P949 - Drawing AB322 & AB721 - Cavity insulation between both blockwork external walls (MA2 & MA5) is referred to as both IN01 (40mm rigid board R2.0) as well as IN30 (Insulation - Underslab and Cavity Masonry). Please confirm whether all blockwork cavity insulation is IN01 (40mm rigid board R2.0)?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

149. Drawings AB153, AB154 - There is discrepancy of ceiling height between ceiling Legend and building section. CE30 is suspended ceiling and no furring channel, CE42 is raked ceiling in section, and CE51& CE53 are suspended ceiling. Please advise

150. Drawings AB171 - Fire Wall Plan, AB201 - Building Elevations - Sheet 1, AB202 - Building Elevations - Sheet 2, AB510 - Details - Typical Wall - Types 180/180/180 Fire wall to Fuel Tank (006) on drawings AB171, but CD01 + M04 to Fuel Tank on elevations drawings.

According to details drawings AB510, CD01/ M04 are not classified as fire rated cladding or blockwork. Please advise?

151. AB531 - Mechanical External Area Details, AB625 - Door Schedule - Width of DE251 (Door to external chain link fencing) on drawings AB531 does not match door schedule. Please clarify?

152. P923 - Electrical Drawings - Can you please supply information on the LV conduit sizes and number of conduits on drawings E-121 E-122 E-123 and E-119?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

153. P923 - Electrical Drawings - The drawings and specs have limited information for the sub services DB in subs A-B and C. please clarify and provide information (drawings) as required?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

154. P923 - Electrical Drawings - Please clarify the use of the load shedding control panel on drawing E-630?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

155. P923 - Electrical Drawings - Request cable sizes to the generator control box on drawings E-160, E-607 and E-608?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

156. P923 - Electrical Drawings - Please clarify cable sizes from the 1500Kva transformer to the main switchboard in subs B and C drawings E-610 and E-608 as 1 core 240 mm cable would be too small for a 2000amp load? Please clarify?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

157. P923 - Electrical Drawings - Please clarify cable sizes for Substation A drawing-607 as 1 core 240 mm cable would be too small for a 2000amp load? Please clarify?

NOTICE NO. 3

158. General-Specification. Most of the specifications contain the following standards:

AUSTRALIAN STANDARDS AND NEW ZEALAND STANDARDS (AS/NZS); ASTM

INTERNATIONAL (ASTM); U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA);

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TESTING AUTHORITIES, AUSTRALIA (NATA). In the event of a conflict between these standards, which standard would prevail within a specification?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

159. In plans CE301-CE305, predevelopment cross section for MA09 shows the existing surface levels and design surface levels that compute the values of cut/fill for the apron.

Specification Section 31 23 00.00 20 requires an earthworks surface level survey report under paragraph 3.15.2.2. Will the government confirm that design surface levels for plans CE301- CE305 are intended to be the design subgrade level for the apron?

160. In plan CP110 legends, a structural slab legend is included and is used in plans CP114, CP116, CP117, and CP118. However, no detail was shown in plans CP501 nor CP502. Will the government provide detail for structural slab type pavement?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

161. In plans CG316 and CG318, annotated cross sections for MA0A and MA0B are shown respectively with its design surface levels. However, plans CL102 and CL103 spot elevations for same line does not coincide with station 60 and 80 of both MA0A and MA0B. Will the government confirm which of the plans shall be conformed to?

162. Pavement Type 1 as indicated in plan CP501 makes use of 400mm jointed plain concrete or were shown on plans, high temperature resistant concrete. Will the Government confirm that high temperature resistant concrete for type 1 pavement is as highlighted below only?

1. Pavement Type 2 and 3 as indicated in plan CP501 make use of 240mm and 210 mm jointed plain concrete – heat resistant Portland cement concrete respectively. Detail description composed 2 types of concrete, plain and heat resistant. Will the government clarify which type shall be conformed to for Type 2 and Type 3 pavement?

163. Epoxy resin surface bounded by epoxy setout points E1, E2, E3 and E4 in plan CP130 has dimensions of 220m length and 18m width. Similarly, epoxy resin surface bounded by epoxy setout points E5, E6, E7 and E8 in plan CP130 has dimensions of 220m length and 18m width.

The area bounded by E5, E6, E7, and E8 coincides with the heat resistant Portland cement concrete shown in plan CP-113 and CP-114 bounded by setout points 59, 60, 63 and 64.

However, the area bounded by setout points 56, 57, 61 and 62 has dimensions of 220m length and 20.5 m width. Will the Government confirm that the 220m by 2.5m of the area bounded by setout points 56, 57, 61 and 62 have no epoxy resin surface?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

164. Upon computation of excavation and fill, it is found out that the design subgrade for MA09 station 360 Offset -120 to -180 is too low to achieve the design surface level. Select fill height will average 2 meters to compensate the excavated 2 meters for the design subgrade level.

Similarly, MA09 station 380 Offset -100 to -180 will have select fill height averaging 2.4 meters to compensate the excavated 2 meters depth for the design subgrade level. Will the government confirm the intent for the 2-meter excavation or revise the design subgrade level for Offset -120 to -250 of station 360 and Offset -100 to -250 of station 380? This is in reference to plans CE305 and CG314 as shown below.

165. P-132 & P-803. Per P-132 Key Note 3, the Filter Backwash Drain is to be 225mm. On sheet P-803 AIRCRAFT RINSE BUILDING ISOMETRIC VIEWS, the Filter Backwash Drain is 250mm. Please confirm the Filter Backwash Drain Diameter.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

166. MF001-MX601. Sheet MF001 has several boxes that break up words and sentences and Sheets MP010 - MP021 have several letters missing. Both the boxes and missing letters are throughout the Mechanical Process Water System sheets as well and diminish the meaning of the information on these sheets. Sheet numbers, details, general notes, and specifications are affected. Please reissue the referenced set with legible drawings.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

167. MH132 & MH601. MH132 references SG-3C, this is not included on the MH601 Schedule of Air Distribution Devices. Please provide the basis of design for SG-3C.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

168. MA106 & M601. MA106 has device E3 labeled in the battery shop, however, E3 is not on the Diffuser and Register Schedule on Sheet M-601. Please provide the basis of design for E3.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

169. MA106 & M601. EF-A-11 is called out on Sheet MA106 but is not on the Exhaust Fan Schedule on M601. Please provide schedule details for EF-A-11.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

170. MA107. See Room H10 on Sheet MA107. The 3 Way Supply Diffuser Tag is not provided. Please provide Diffuser/Grille Type, Number, and Airflow.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

171. MB901. MB901 does not include FCU-B-05 in the HVAC Chilled Water Piping Diagram. Please provide piping diagram to include FCU-B-05.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

172. Comment in response to Q59: Document 00 22 00, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD requires offerors to demonstrate recent, relevant experience that meets the following requirements: “Type of Building Construction: New construction of an aircraft hangar building or building/structure with long span, heavy structural steel roof truss (structure consisting of multiple structural steel members connected at nodes or joints) framing that provides a substantial column-free area of at least 90 meters in width. Relevant projects shall have been completed or substantially completed within the last fifteen (15) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation and shall be approximately $20 million or more in dollar value.”

NAVFAC first communicated this risk reduction criterion for MCON P-949 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR nearly a year ago by specifically calling out “long span structural trusses” in multiple communications with industry:

• Sources Sought released on 15 May 2023

• Government release of the 60% drawings and specifications, with a request for industry to review and comment. These drawings/specification were available for interested offerors on 9 August 2023.

• Pre-Solicitation released 1 February 2024

• Final Solicitation released 4 March 2024

NAVFAC deemed it essential to the success of this project that the offeror demonstrate recent experience constructing at least one hangar or hangar-like facility, not necessarily in the Darwin area but of similar size, scale, and complexity to MCON P-949 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR. And NAVFAC further determined that basing this solicitation on a Best Value selection process, using this criterion, reduces execution risk and serves the best interests of the Government. We respectfully request NAVFAC not relax this or any other evaluation criteria for award as other offerors are prepared, and have been prepared for more than 11 months, to meet these criteria.

ANSWER: RFP remains unchanged.

173. Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A). The contract contains fully designed projects. Item 9 on Attachment A requests a design description for design-build projects. Such a description is irrelevant here, since this is a DBB contract. We request that the following text be deleted from Attachment A, item 9: “If design-build, include a description of the design-effort.”

ANSWER: RFP remains unchanged. Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A), Box 8 states, “For each item checked, provide a detailed description of the work in Block 9.”

174. General, Site Walk. During the site walk, it was noted that there is currently a contractor occupying the area assigned for this contract. In discussion with this contractor, they indicated that they were currently negotiating a follow-on contract to their current airfield rehabilitation project that will extend their duration on site until mid to late 2025. The contractor's office area, laydown area, asphalt batch plant, and aggregate stockpile areas are within the footprint of the base bid item on this project. Does the Government expect this RFP to receive a delayed NTP to account for contractors already on-site? If so, how will this affect the bid and award schedule for this NAVFAC project?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

175. General, Site Walk. During the site walk, substantial differences were noted between the design drawings and actual conditions within the parking apron and at the hangar location, apparently made by the contractor already on site. This was most notable by the site clearing and fill operations performed by the on-site contractor to establish their laydown, offices, batch plant areas, etc. After reviewing the topographical drawings for this project, it looks as though the levels have adjusted considerably, which will result in additional work for the winning bidder.

How does the Government intend to manage this changed condition? Please confirm that any changes in topographical line and level that result in additional work for the awardee will be addressed and compensated through FAR 52.243-1 Changes Fixed Price Construction.

176. General, Site Walk. During the site walk, several very large stockpiles were noted in the area assigned for the construction of the parking apron. These stockpiles are not noted in the contract documents. Further, the stockpiles were identified by localized signage as contaminated waste. Please confirm that the awardee will not be responsible for the testing or disposal of these contaminated stockpiles.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

177. Note 2, Question 17. The Government response to this question was to extend the bid due date by 3 weeks. While this is greatly appreciated, it still does not allow sufficient time to provide the lowest-cost, best-value pricing to the Government. In addition to the points raised in the original question, it is proving extremely difficult to lock subcontractors into a firm-fixed-price proposal for the option items due to the 150-day validity period and the 365-day option award schedule. For example, there are no steel fabricators within the NT who can produce the 90m span building, so we need to source these from the major cities. This means we need to evaluate complex logistics solutions due the size of some of the prefabricated structural members that exceed 40 tons in weight and are considered oversize cargo. And we cannot evaluate the logistics until we model the building, which is taking additional time due to the absence of CAD files among the RFP documents. We then need time to establish agreements with the steel shops, transport companies, heavy lift solutions companies etc., and agree on firm-fixed-price payment terms. Therefore, please provide an additional 4-week extension to the bid date to allow for the above.

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

178. General, Site Walk. During the site walk, the closeness of the project to the existing runway was noted. Although there are measures in place within the contract for work near the active portion of the runway, such as taxiway closures, we need to understand if this project is considered land-side or air-side. It is also not mentioned in section 01 14 00 para 1.12 method of Working Plan for Airfield Activities. This information is critical, as the safety measures that need to be budgeted for are very different between the two. Please advise if the project is considered “air-side” or “land-side.”

ANSWER: Response deferred.

179. Section 01 11 00, para 1.11. This paragraph identifies the requirements under the Australian Requirements. These requirements are not normally required under US Government projects or are typically resolved directly between the US and host nation governments prior to any construction so that the Government period of performance for the contract is not impeded in any way. Please advise if these host nation requirements, such as but not limited to HOTO, CEIO, DER, DEIM, etc., have already been established and agreed to or if the contractor to perform these requirements as part of this contract.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

180. Section 01 11 00, para 1.11. The host nation requirements identified in this section will take considerable time to prepare, submit, and obtain approval for. Considering the already tight period of performance, please amend the NTP date from 21 days after the award to after the host nation's administrative requirements are complete.

181. Section 01 11 00, para 1.11.5.4, sub para b. This paragraph states ‘without limiting the contractor’s obligations under clause 4 and 5.1, the contractor agrees that were an explosive ordnance consultation cooperation and coordination plan is required by eDEOP 101 or otherwise directed by the contracting officer], the contractor will develop and EEO CCC Plan which address…’. It is not clear within the contract documents whether this plan is required. Please advise if it is or is not required so that it can be budgeted accordingly into the cost and schedule.

Also, if required, does each CLIN/Option require its own plan or will a single plan covering the entire project site be sufficient?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

182. Section 01 11 00.01 Para 1.1.10. This paragraph identifies the requirements for the HOTO on multiple delivery stages/or sites. As this project is split into 3 CLINS/Options, is it considered a multiple delivery in terms of HOTO or will a single HOTO plan be sufficient to meet the intent?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

183. Section 01 11 00.01 Para 1.2.1. This paragraph includes a detailed table identifying the HOTO requirements by procurement stage. Item 5.12 includes requirements for hazardous area and explosive area verification dossier. We could not find any requirements in the rest of the specifications that require any UXO survey or removal work. Please confirm that we do not need to provide a full-time UXO tech on site in case of UXO detection.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

184. Section 01 14 00, para 1.3.4. This paragraph refers to the Inhabited Building Distance Arcs. Please provide these arcs in reference to the construction area.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

185. Section 01 30 00, para 1.13.1, sub para f. In this paragraph the Government states that followon partnering sessions are required at 3-month to-6-month intervals. Facilitator costs are extremely expensive and are likely to run at approx. $70,000 USD per trip. Please advise if the Government will require the facilitator at 3 months or 6 months, and also can the follow-on sessions be performed with the facilitator remotely? This would lower the overall partnering cost considerably.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

186. Section 01 30 00, para 1.18. This paragraph discusses the Australian Indigenous Procurement Policy. It references that employment must make reasonable efforts to meet the plan requirements. Please provide the referenced plan and a baseline of what would be considered ‘reasonable effort’.

187. Section 01 31 20 para 1.1.1. This section includes the requirements for the technical data management system. It is unclear what the objective of this section is in relation to the project. Is this section intended to be used in lieu of ECMS? Is the intent to require the contractor to establish a data processing site for storage of documents, document updates, as-built documentation, submittal transfer etc., but on a more detailed level than ECMS? Please provide a summary of what the intended outcomes of this section are and how they apply to this project.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

188. Section 01 31 20 para 1.6. This paragraph identifies the person and qualifications of the data management team. Please advise if these people are to be onsite or if they can be an off-site function.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

189. Section 01 32 17.00 20, para 1.2.2. This section states that the NAS baseline must be submitted within 30 days of notice of award. Usually, on projects of this magnitude and complexity, the Government requests an interim 90-day schedule within 30 days of award, then the NAS baseline schedule within 90 days of contract award. It will be extremely difficult to prepare and submit the NAS baseline schedule within 30 days of contract award, considering that NTP will be approx. 21 days after the award, partnering kick-off will be within 35 days of the award, and between these, the contractor is expected to arrange a meeting with the KO to discuss scheduling requirements per paragraph 1.2.1. We request that the 30 days be revised to at least 90 days in line with normal NAVFAC NAS requirements.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

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: Response deferred.

191. Section 01 33 29, para 1.5.9. Please confirm that the contractor does not have to comply with this section, as it references FISRA 9002 USDA programs that are not applicable in the host nation and have no impact on the sustainability requirements within Australia.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

192. Section 01 43 35. This section is very specific to US Government projects and is not widely used outside of US Government projects. Unlike locations in the CONUS, Guam, Japan, etc. where the US Government has been executing projects for several decades, the Australian subcontracting environment has not adapted to form specialist subcontractors who can meet the requirements for special inspectors. Due to its infancy in complex US Government-procured construction projects and the geographically remote location of Darwin, there are no local special inspectors who meet the specification requirement. Even in urban Australia, where special inspectors exist, they tend to be 3 times to 4 times the price of a direct-hire employee with the same qualifications. For this project, we would need to source special inspectors from the USA or Guam to meet the specification requirement as written. Due to the special inspection schedule in the specifications, there is no way we could fly-in-fly-out these inspectors for one-day or multi-day inspections, so we would need to pay them for full-time on-site service for the entire duration of the scope they are covering rather than per inspection (the normal model where these services are readily available). This will massively impact the cost due to the high price of the inspector, housing, travel, per diem, etc. In order to offer the best value to the Government, we recommend removing this section, and in lieu add the special inspector positions into section 01 45 00 or supplementary Quality Control staff section and have them as employees of the contractor, working under the quality control manager.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

193. Section 01 50 00, para 3.3.2, sub para a. The Government states that utilities (power and water) will be provided at no cost. Please provide a location where we can tap into these utilities so that we can budget sufficiently for the temp works in our proposal.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

194. Section 01 57 19, para 1.4.1.1 and 1.5.4. The paragraph identifies the requirements for the environmental manager position. Please clarify if this a full-time on-site dedicated position or if it can be filled via weekly or as-required inspections.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

195. Section 01 57 19. At the end of this section, the Government has provided what appears to be the project environmental management plan. Is it the intent of the Government for the contractor to utilize this plan and his only responsibility in plan preparation is to fill in the relevant missing details from this plan?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

196. Div 01 General. Throughout Division 1, there are multiple references to the Construction Manager and Project Manager, but there are no performance criteria set forth for either position.

We would normally expect the Government to require a full-time on-site project manager who is authorized to negotiate and act on behalf of the Prime contractor. Please clarify that these positions can be served by the same person as they typically would on projects of this magnitude.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

197. 132. P949 - DWG S001 - G.33 Design Assumptions – The Hangar and office building are…