24R1308 Note 8.pdf

Notice No. 7 7 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.

RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 2 DATED 28 MARCH 2024

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.

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.

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

ANSWER: Response deferred.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND, PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DRIVE, SUITE 100

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR HICKAM, HAWAII 96860-3134

RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 3 DATED 10 APRIL 2024

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: A contractor is temporarily utilizing the USMC project site at RAAF Darwin for laydown areas, stockpiles, an asphalt plant, etc. and will vacate prior to award of P923/P941/P949 project works.

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: A contractor is temporarily utilizing the USMC project site at RAAF Darwin for laydown areas, stockpiles, an asphalt plant, etc. and will vacate prior to award of P923/P941/P949 project works. Confirmed existing contractor to remove existing stockpiles.

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.

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged.

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: Separate HOTO plans are required. One submission per project/facility to demonstrate that the works meet legislative Defence policy, estate compliance and estate information requirements.

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: Yes, Facilitator is required for all Partnering sessions, initial and follow-on sessions.

It is acceptable to accomplish follow-on sessions, at three to six-month intervals, remotely.

However, at least one follow-on session per year (i.e. every 12 months) must be in person.

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.

RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 4 DATED 15 APRIL 2024

260. Part B P-923 Specification Section 21 13 13, para 1.4.3 Regulatory Requirements.

Paragraph 1.4.3 states, interpret reference to "authority having jurisdiction" and/or AHJ in referenced standards to mean the Head or Acting Head of the office of Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific, Fire Protection Engineering as well as applicable Australian local authorities who will review and approve the work included in this specification section.

Advisory provision, recommendation, interim technical amendment, and appendix explanatory material in referenced standards are mandatory requirements; wherever the word "should" appears in referenced standards must be substituted with "shall".

Under this paragraph, it appears the template UFGS paragraph has not been amended or deleted as part of the specification design process. Please confirm that the above paragraph is not applicable to the project. If not, please clarify the paragraph and amend it accordingly utilizing the bracketing process.

ANSWER: The specification section referenced relates to the approval requirements for submittals (shop drawings, material data sheets and calculations) listed in this specification. No change to RFP.

262. Aircraft Hangar-Architecturals-AA115. Are bollards required for the sides of double doors for protection from forklifts? If yes, please identify bollard type and locations.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

273. General Enquiry Acoustic Report. Please advise if an acoustic report has been completed for the project. Under normal Australian building practices, the acoustic report is completed at the design stage and gives details required for the bidder to meet the building envelope requirements. If no report has been performed, what acoustic and envelope requirements/Australian standards are to be followed and achieved.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

276. General Enquiry Room Data Sheets. In Australian Defence projects contracts, room data sheets are provided. These sheets document every item in that room, such as lights, sinks, tables, projects etc. Please provide them to ensure all items are covered. Also, please advise if the contractor is to provide these upon project completion.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 6 DATED 29 APRIL 2024

299. No Division 2 specification has been provided for demolition works and potential asbestos remediation works to be encountered. Will the Government provide Division 2 specification for this project?

ANSWER: Division 2 specification will be provided in forthcoming amendment.

311. P-941-Architectural MSFB- Section 04 20 00. Please advise the cement mortar class under AS 3700 for MA01 to MA04/ M01 to M02.

314. P941-Architectural MSFB. After review of the door schedule, there are several discrepancies found in acoustic rating between the Specification and Door schedule, please confirm that the specification will take precedence over the door schedule.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

326. P941 Drawing AA503. Drawing AA503 - Partition type P21 shows insulation on the detail but not identification tag. Please confirm type of insulation required.

327. P941 Drawing AA503. Drawing AA503 - Partition type P24 shows insulation on the detail but not identification tag. Please confirm type of insulation required.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

330. P941 Drawing AA503. Drawing AA503 - Secure Wall Partition type P11 notes VP01 to each side of the wall but description notes 13 mm plasterboard. please confirm what lining is required to the partition.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

331. RFP Doc 4 of 21 Period of Performance.

• The base bid POP is set at 970 calendar days

• Option 1 is set at 830 calendar days after NTP

• Option 3 (or if options 1 and 3 are awarded) the POP for all projects will increase to 1005 calendar days.

• Contractors are requested to hold pricing for the options for up to 365 calendar days.

Q1- If the NTP is given for option 1 on day 365, then the POP should be extended 830 calendar days from that day, which would mean the new POP would be 830+365= 1195 calendar days. In order for the POP to stay within the combined 1005 calendar days, then option 1 and 3 would need to be awarded no later than 140 calendar days after award of the base bid. Can the Government please advise if the overall POP will be extended to 1195 calendar days or if the bid validity for the options will be reduced to 140 calendar days?

Q2. The current bid validity for the options is 365 calendar days. This duration is extremely long and poses significant financial risk to the contractor and Government. For example, if the POPs for each CLIN and Option remain unchanged and the contractor assumes the Government will award the options on day 365 and then the Gov awards them on day 180, the contractor could be significantly financially damaged not having budgeted for that additional time (between 180 and 365). Likewise, if he budgeted for award on day 180 and award does not come until day 365, those cost increases would work the opposite way. For the bid clarity, could the Government please specify an actual option award date, which would level the field for all bidders. Any adjustment up or down from the option award date could be handled through the changes clauses once contract was awarded.

ANSWER:

Q1: Document 00 70 00 will be revised to provide clarification in a forthcoming amendment.

Q2: In accordance with FAR 52.217-7 OPTION FOR INCREASED QUANTITY- SEPARATELY PRICED LINE ITEM, “The Contracting Officer may exercise the options at the time of award or by written notice to the Contractor within 365 calendar days from the date of contract award.” An option award date will not be provided.

334. Section 31 13 13.43 Item 2.14 - Could NAVFAC please nominate an epoxy resin surface sealer product that complies with the specification?

ANSWER: In accordance with the UFC requirements product and manufactures names have not been nominated in the documentation.

336. Section 44 41 00 Clause 2.1.8.2 - Please confirm that penstock actuators do not need to be hazardous area compliant.

ANSWER: The interior of the penstock (weir) pits are classified as zone 1 hazardous areas, per drawing CD402. Any electrical equipment within the pits, including any penstock actuator motor, must be certified for use in a zone 1 hazardous area, per note 14 on drawing CD551.

Specification Section 44 41 00 paragraph 2.1.8.2 notes additional hazardous area considerations, including that electrical cabling and equipment within the penstock pit must be selected and installed in accordance with the AS / NZS 60079 series of standards for the classified hazardous area.

337. Section 44 41 00 Clause 2.1.3 - Specification nominates penstock to be manufactured from grade 304 stainless steel. The penstock supplier would typically supply in grade 316 stainless steel for these types of applications in order to achieve the 30-year design life. Please confirm material grade required?

ANSWER: Grade 304 and 316 both meet the minimum performance requirements of the specification. No changes to RFP.

RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 7 DATED 2 MAY 2024

341. Specification SECTION 44 41 00 WATER POLLUTION CONAINMENT AND

CLEANUP EQUIPMENT

This section calls for two PRODUCTS that of the many suppliers contacted, none have been able to comply with the specification and drawings.

2.1 PENSTOCK SYSTEM

2.2 STORMWATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT DEVICES (SQIDs)

Will the designer please advise what supplier(s) were the basis of design for these products?

ANSWER: In accordance with the UFC requirements product and manufactures names have not been nominated in the documentation. Contract documents are based on available products.

NOTICE NO. 8

342. Foreign Exchange Risk We stress that the construction costs for this project will be incurred in Australian Dollars, the work is done in Australia, and it is requested that NAVFAC removes FAR 52.214-35 from Document 00 21 16 and includes FAR 52.225-17 in the conditions of solicitation and allow for evaluation of offers made in the Foreign Currency of Australia namely Australian Dollars. This is a very serious issue that is intensified by the fact that the tender validity period is 150 days and the award of the options can be made after a further 365 days. A hedging strategy ineffective in managing the risk over this period.

The currency fluctuations USD to AUD over 515 days are not predicable in any accurate manner and totally beyond the control of the contractor. NAVFAC has previously considered this suggestion and subsequently rejected a proposal put forward to allow the contract price in Australian Dollars (refer to questions 178 and 301). To price in accordance with the current stated requirements requires speculation and is not facilitative of a fair and reasonable price and is discouraging.

In the alternative, we request that the Government consider providing a fixed exchange rate for the offerors’ use in projecting currency exchange fluctuations. In providing this rate, the Government would agree that if the exchange rate would exceed the fixed exchange rate during performance of the contract, the Government would provide an equitable adjustment to the contract to cover the additional exchange rate fluctuation. By providing a fixed exchange rate, the Government would put the offerors in equal footing with one another with regard to currency exchange risk and would avoid a situation where offerors significantly over- or under-price their proposal in attempt to hedge against future exchange risks.

In conclusion, there is no appetite in the part of this Offerer for the Foreign Exchange risk profile of this project/solicitation and an alternative approach will be necessary to facilitate a conforming bid/offer.

ANSWER: An exchange rate will not be included. In accordance with the RFP, prices shall be submitted in United States dollar.

343. Inclusion of Clause FAR52.215-1 (c)(9) to allow Offerors to submit proposals that depart from the stated requirements RFP section 00 21 16 – Instructions to Proposers We request the Government amend clause FAR 52.215-1 to also including FAR 52.215-1 Alternate II, adding paragraph (c)(9) as below:

(c)(9) Offerors may submit proposals that depart from stated requirements. Such proposals shall clearly identify why the acceptance of the proposal would be advantageous to the Government.

Any deviations from the terms and conditions of the solicitation, as well as the comparative advantage to the Government, shall be clearly identified and explicitly defined. The Government reserves the right to amend the solicitation to allow all offerors an opportunity to submit revised proposals based on the revised requirements.

The NAVFAC terms and conditions and stated technical requirements of this project are in many areas, unfamiliar to Australian contractors and Australian based suppliers and inconsistent with Australian building practice. It will be necessary for the Offeror to submit proposals that Depart from stated requirements.

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged.

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.

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: Response deferred.

345. Performance Security and Payment Security It is noted that under RFI question 15 the NAVFAC has rejected a proposal to provide bank guarantees for 10% of the Contract Price in lieu of sureties to the amount of 100% of the Contract Price in which; “The bonds shall be in the form of firm commitment, supported by corporate sureties whose names appear on the list contained in Treasury Department Circular 570”.

NAVFAC has stated that: “No other types of alternative security will be accepted in lieu of bid or performance and payment bonds.”

The Australian contracting market utilizes bank guarantees (and insurance bonds) generally to the value of 5% of the Contract Price. Sureties in the amount stated (100% to 200% of the Contract Price) are not readily available to Australian based companies such head contractors, subcontractors or suppliers. Australian financial institutions are not listed in Treasury Department Circular 570.

It is proposed to use an unconditional bank guarantee, issued by an Australian financial institution, in the amount of 10% of the Contract Price.

We Propose the following amendment to the contract:

1.10 Bonding requirements and other security

Paragraph (b) of clause 1.68 (FAR 52.228‐15) is deleted and replaced with the following:

(b) Amount of required bonds.

(1) The Contractor shall furnish performance security in the form of an unconditional bank guarantee or insurance bond which, at the time of contract award, shall be 10% of the original contract price.

(2) Additional bond protection.

(i) The Government may require additional performance security if the contract price is increased. The increase in the security required will equal 10% of the increase in the contract price.

(ii) The Government may secure the additional protection by directing the Contractor to increase the amount of the existing security or to obtain an additional security.

(3) Any reference in this contract to a bond or a performance bond shall be deemed to be a reference to the security required by this subparagraph (b). For the avoidance of doubt, a payment bond is not required to be furnished by the Contractor.

This proposal for bonding follows very closely (identically) to that used by the Government on solicitation number N6247020R4011. The form of the guarantee is proposed in a sample in Attachment 1 (from solicitation number N6247020R4011) and shall be as agreed between the parties.

Form of Performance Guarantee: The Performance Guarantee shall be an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the contract and shall be deposited into a banking institution, as acceptable to the contracting officer, which will then issue an irrevocable letter guaranteeing (the “Performance Guarantee Letter”) the payment of the amount deposited to the United States Government, upon demand by the Contracting Officer. Demand may be made if the Contractor fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract, or does not fulfill its undertaking in whole or in part Payment to the Contracting Officer will be by check made payable to the "United States of America by the U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, Europe, Africa, Central." The Performance Guarantee shall take effect upon the date of signature of the Performance Guarantee

ANSWER: In accordance with FAR 52.228-1, “The bidder shall furnish a bid guarantee in the form of a firm commitment, e.g., bid bond supported by good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government, postal money order, certified check, cashier's check, irrevocable letter of credit, or, under Treasury Department regulations, certain bonds or notes of the United States.”

As previously stated in response to RFI 11, “In accordance with RFP Doc 00 70 00, contractor is required to furnish a bid guarantee in the proper form and amount, by the time set for opening of bids, and on the date of award of this contract, the successful offeror shall furnish performance and payment bonds. If the offeror intends to use an ILC in lieu of a bid bond, or to secure other types of bonds such as performance and payment bonds, it must comply with the requirements of FAR 52.228-14 Irrevocable Letter of Credit and must be in the format prescribed in paragraphs (e) through (f). If the LOA does not comply with FAR 52.228-14, it will not be accepted as an alternative to the bid or performance and payment bonds. Please note, only federally insured financial institutions rated investment grade by a commercial rating service shall issue or confirm the ILC.” Further, FAR 52.228-15 remains, bonds shall be 100 percent of the original contract price. Submitting an alternative type of security does not change the amount required.

346. Changes to Statutory Requirements We request the inclusion of a clause for changes in Statutory Requirements, allowing an increase or decrease in the Contractor’s cost of, or the time required for, the performance of any part of the work under this contract, as a result of a change in Statutory Requirements (as if a change order had been issued under FAR 52.243-4). Where Statutory Requirements would include the laws relating to the works or the site, or the lawful and legislative requirements of any authority having jurisdiction over the works, the site or the environment.

The market position for head contracts for construction in Australia is to allow the Contractor time and cost for changes in Statutory Requirements.

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged.

347. We request amendment to clause FAR 52.249-10 (b) such that where a delay in completing the work arises from the below listed events, the Contractor may also claim an increase in the Contractor’s cost of the performance of any part of the work under this contract:

(ii) Acts of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity;

(iii) Acts of another Contractor in the performance of a contract with the Government

(vi) Epidemics

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged.

348. Economic Price Adjustment The terms of the solicitation require the Offerer to hold pricing for up to 515 days in a Northern Territory Australian market with limited available subcontractors, suppliers and resources. This project is also expected to run concurrently with or behind other significant defence projects within the Darwin Airport Precinct and these projects will have an unpredictable impact on pricing throughout the supply chain.

We refer to NAVFAC’s response to RFI 8 which requests the incorporation of FAR 52.216-4 and advise that there is no appetite on the part of this Offerer for the escalation risk profile of this solicitation unless an escalation mechanism, such as or similar to that proposed at FAR 52.216-4 is included within the contract terms. (i.e. relief from escalation, or indexation of the contract price).

ANSWER: An Economic Price Adjustment clause will not be included.

349. Limit of Liability We request that a limitation of liability clause is included in the terms. The inclusion of such a clause would be consistent with the policy set out in FAR 46.803(d).

The exposure of the Contractor needs to be limited and the Contractor needs to be protected from NAVFAC’s consequential losses. Acceptance of unlimited liability by the Contractor is not consistent with the Australian construction market and discourages the submission of competitive bids (or at all). This is exacerbated under the proposed form of contract as the contractor is exposed to unfavourable risk allocations (many of which have been identified to NAVFAC in separate RFIs) such as the costs incurred due to extreme weather events, fitness for purpose provisions, changes in Statutory Regulations).

The FAR clauses do not appear to include a standard approach to limitation of liability and for that reason we propose the following clause that is consistent with typical terms for the construction market in Australia:

13 Limitation of liability

(a) Subject to Additional Special Condition clause 1.13(c), the parties agree that the Contractor’s maximum aggregate liability arising out of or in connection with this Agreement is limited to 50% of the contract price.

(b) Subject to Additional Special Condition clause 1.13(c) and to the extent permitted by Law, neither party will be liable to the other for any Consequential Loss.

(c) A party’s liability is not limited or restricted by Additional Special Condition clauses 1.13 (a) or 1.13(b) in respect of liability which:

(i) cannot be limited at Law;

(ii) arises from or in connection with any third party property loss or damage or any injury to, disease or death of a person;

(iv) is, and to the extent it is, liability for which the party is indemnified or recovers under an insurance policy, or would have been indemnified or recovered, under an insurance policy but for:

(A) the operation of a policy retention, deductible or excess;

(B) the failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement and / or the terms of the relevant insurance policy;

(C) the failure to diligently pursue a claim on the insurance; or

(D) any act or omission of the Contractor or its associates.

(d) in this clause, “Consequential Loss” means any:

(i) loss of income, opportunity, profit, business, use, rent, revenue, contract, goodwill, production (whether such loss is direct or indirect); or

(ii) direct or indirect financing costs, whether present or future, fixed or unascertained, actual or contingent but excludes any:

(iii) liability to pay liquidated damages payable under clause 1.30 (FAR 52.211‐12);

(iv) amounts payable by the Government to the Contractor under this contract; or

(v) any liability expressly stated not to constitute Consequential Loss.

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged.

350. Liquidated Damages We request confirmation by the Government that liquidated damages are the Government’s sole remedy for delays by the Contractor & the inclusion of the following wording at the end of clause FAR 52.211-12:

“Liquidated damages are the Government’s sole remedy for delays by the Contractor”

ANSWER: Per FAR 11.501 subparagraph (b), “Liquidated damages are not punitive and are not negative performance incentives (see 16.402-2). Liquidated damages are used to compensate the Government for probable damages.”

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.

352. General Question The extensions in Amendment 001 and Amendment 002 are very much appreciated; however, over 70 questions remain unanswered on this highly complex scope of work. In addition, we are evaluating the revisions to date, which may generate additional questions. Our team will need at least two weeks from when all questions are answered to review the final RFP documents and obtain firm fixed pricing from subcontractors, secure commitment from steel fabricators that can produce the 90m span, and then evaluate the complex logistics solutions and establish agreements with transport and heavy lift providers, required due the size of some prefabricated structural members, which exceed 40 tons in weight and are considered oversize cargo.

Completion of all of these tasks, based on final revisions, is essential to provide best value to the Government in a fixed-price proposal.

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged.

353. The Government answer provided to Question 339 regarding GST Tax states: “Seeking reimbursement for GST paid is the responsibility of the contractor.”

To better understand this GST taxation requirements and associated reimbursement process we reached out to the DTMO office specified in the contract. They were unwilling to provide a direct answer and instead replied “We are just cautious to not create any unfairness in providing a response, noting the information requested is relating to an RFP, hence my request for a POC [at the US contracting agency].”

In response, we provided Ms. Kylee Chun’s contact information and would expect they will be reaching out to her. We kindly request that Ms. Chun request that the DTMO provide a formal description of the taxation requirements and reimbursement process that all contractors can rely upon to estimate the associated costs (and risks) that are clearly inherent with the taxation scheme that was described in Note 5, as referenced in Question #339.

Alternatively, if the DTMO cannot provide an official document outlining the taxation responsibilities and reimbursement process for GST on this project, we kindly request NAVFAC provide a formal response to Question #247, which was deferred in Note #4. This question proposes a few alternative solutions that will resolve the uncertainty and inherent bidding risk around this topic.

ANSWER: A response was provided to Question 247 in Notice 6 dated 30 April 2024, which referred the contractor to the information provided in Notice 5, issued on 25 April 2024. Further, as stated in note 10 of the SF1442, “The total price for CLINs 0001 through 0003, and CLINs 0005 through 0006 shall be exclusive of the Australian Goods and Services Tax.” This is a Firm- Fixed-Price contract. The RFP remains unchanged.

354. General: Given the number of unanswered RFIs still pending and the associated amendment necessary to address those questions accordingly, will the Government consider providing an additional two-week extension? This additional time is necessary to finalize pricing based on items subject to change in additional pending amendments, finalize wet signatures on the respective documents that cannot be done until all amendments have been issued, and to then coordinate delivery of those original signatures and paper copies to the Government by the due date.

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

End of Notice