24R1312 Note 3.pdf

Notice No. 3

13 November 2023

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

RFP N62742-24-R-1312

FY24 MCON P-406 RECREATION CENTER,

US NAVSUPPACT MCB GUAM, FINEGAYAN, GUAM

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 FROM NOTICE NO. 2 DATED 1 NOVEMBER 2023

3. As per our door supplier, Aluminum Doors 104A and 105 will not be able to meet the STC Rating. Aluminum Doors do not have soundproofing characteristics. Please consider revising it to HM Steel.

ANSWER: Doors 104A and 105 can be Hollow Metal Steel Doors. A-601 will be revise in a forthcoming amendment.

4. Drawing A3/S-551 indicates the presence of a steel ledger on the trash enclosure wall.

However, a trash enclosure roof plan is not provided to verify the dimensions of this steel ledger.

Kindly confirm whether a steel ledger is indeed necessary for the trash enclosure, and if so, please provide the required dimensions.

ANSWER: Steel ledger is not required at the trash enclosure. Detail A3/S-551 will be revised in a forthcoming amendment.

5. Drawing EP118, in sheet notes 1, calls for the installation of 22" x 22" access panels, whereas Drawing EP119 specifies 24" x 24" access panels. Please confirm what should be governed.

ANSWER: Drawing EP118 will be revised to 24"x24" access panels in a forthcoming amendment.

6. Under Spec Section 08 11 16, Aluminum Doors and Frames, Item 1.5.1, Shop Drawing, it says,” A Qualified Blast Engineer must perform testing or calculations for door system design resistance to specified blast loads.”

Please kindly advise what is the specified blast load required.

ANSWER: Blast analysis for the door system is not required. Paragraph 1.5.1 will be revised in a forthcoming amendment.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND, PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DRIVE, SUITE 100

JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR HICKAM, HAWAII 96860-3134

7. Drawing sheet ES530 detail 1 Telecom – concrete duct bank shows Concrete encasement with four #4 with #3 ties at 3’-0” O.C. Please confirm if this detail is typical for all telecom duct banks regardless of location.

ANSWER: Detail 1 on sheet ES530 shall be typical for all telecom duct banks regardless of location.

8. Reference to the door hardware schedule Set 1.1 (for doors 123, 123A and 123B) and drawing detail C5/C-502 and detail A5/C-502:

a. Door hardware schedule set 1.1 is missing a description. Door schedule table in sheet A- 601 remarks #10 says provide exit device and detail C5/C-502 shows exit device. Please confirm if the missing description is for exit device and please provide specifications.

ANSWER: Please reference Section 08 71 00, Door Hardware, Paragraph 2.3.5 Exit Device for the door hardware description.

b. Door hardware schedule set 1.1 notes specify to “Provide 1 pair of exit devices for the double door”, while detail A5/C-502 shows padlock eyes and cane bolts only. Please clarify.

ANSWER: For the double gates, detail A5/C-502 contains the note to reference the Arch Dwgs for Door Hardware Schedule, A-601. Clarification will be forthcoming in an amendment. Please provide one exit device for the active leaf door. Padlock eyes shown in detail A5/C-502 to be provided.

c. Door hardware schedule set 1.1 notes specify to “provide 1 pair of exit devices for the double door”, please clarify if the intent is to provide one-each exit device, only for the active leaf.

ANSWER: See response to Question 6b.

9. As per drawing ES121 the dimensions of the pole, please define “V”, “X”, and “Y”.

ANSWER: Notes will be provided for clarification in a forthcoming amendment.

10. As per specifications section 08 11 16 paragraph 1.5.1 “A qualified blast engineer must perform testing or calculations for door system design resistance to specified blast loads.” Please kindly advise what is the specified blast load required.

ANSWER: Blast analysis for the door system is not required. Paragraph 1.5.1 will be revised in a forthcoming amendment.

NOTICE NO. 3

11. Specification Division 31, Section 31 23 00. 00 20 – Excavation and Fill, Page 4 Para 1.2.5 states…. Pile supported structures as used here in, a structure where both the foundation and floor slab are pile supported.

Are these statements requiring for this RFP? Please advise and if yes, please provide pile schedule.

ANSWER: Piles are not required for this project.

12. Drawings S-001 / Sheet 43 of 274. Foundation Note No. 6 states…… The Contractors Quality Control (CQC) Geotechnical Specialist or approved Geotechnical Field Representative must monitor and log proving and grouting.

Are probing and grouting require for this RFP? Please advise and if yes, please provide quantity on that way all bidders have the same basis for pricing.

ANSWER: The probing and grouting requirements are provided in Spec Section 31 23 00.00 20.

13. (DOCUMENT 00 22 00, Factor 1 - Experience) In RFP Factor 1 - Experience, a relevant construction project is defined as being at least 5,000 SF. The anticipated project size is expected to be more than double this square footage. Will the government consider increasing this relevancy requirement to a minimum square footage of 10,000SF to better align with the anticipated requirement? This will ensure experience provided demonstrates a responsible and technically acceptable offeror which is in the best interest of the government and taxpayer.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

14. (DOCUMENT 00 22 00, Factor 1 - Experience) In RFP Factor 1 - Experience, a minimum dollar value to determine relevancy for construction project experience is not provided. Will the government consider adding a minimum relevancy threshold of $20M to better align with the magnitude of the anticipated requirement? This will ensure experience provided demonstrates a responsible and technically acceptable offeror which is in the best interest of the government and taxpayer.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

15. (DOCUMENT 00 21 16) With two separate holidays in November and a forthcoming amendment (answering key question in the development of our price proposal), we are respectfully requesting and extension of four weeks. This extension would allow us time to develop an accurate and competitive price ultimately allowing the Government to acquire the best price for the project.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

16. (DOCUMENT 00 21 16) The solicitation denotes that contractors provide proposal in paper format. Submitting paper based proposals increases production costs and negatively impacts the environment and our natural resources. Would the Government allow contractors to submit electronic versions of the proposal in lieu of the paper copies?

ANSWER: The RFP remains unchanged.

17. (Drawing numbers ID001 and A-401) Reference to drawing ID001 Collateral Equipment and drawing sheet A-401 Demonstration kitchen/ Outdoor gathering Equipment schedule

a. Please confirm if CEQ Logistics Category A2 (in drawing ID001) supply and installation are not included in this contract. These are equipment with labels AC-, ACK-, AV-, AVG-, CH-, EX-, ST-, T- and WS-.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

b. Please confirm if CEQ Logistic Category A1 Equipment supply and installation are included in the scope.

c. Please confirm that only the Logistic Category A1 list provided in drawing ID001 is to be included in our pricing as equipment supply and installation.

d. Please confirm that equipment E-2 to E-7 as listed in the Demonstration Kitchen Equipment table in drawing A-401 are to be included as Supply and installation.

18. (Section 11 06 40.13) Specification section 11 06 40.13 Food Service Equipment Schedule requires (1) Submission of detailed food service equipment schedule conforming to DOD 4000.25-1-M, (2) Design Requirements -submission of detail drawings for all food service equipment and accessory items.

a. Please clarify the intent of the specifications if the design and selection conforming to DOD 4000.25-1-M is part of the contractor responsibility.

b. Please provide the list of Food Service Equipment required under this specification.

19. (Drawing A-111 for the Mini-Theater plan; drawing sheet ID001 for the CEQ list) lease clarify if the recliner seats in the mini-theater are CH-18 and part of CEQ Logistics Category A2 which are not included in this solicitation.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

20. 1. As per Drawing- GC101 – it shows “MEC EXCLUSION ZONE (638’)” AND Drawing sheet GC502-Notes:

• “MEC Requirements apply to any excavation that occurs outside the bedrock area.”

• “Bedrock determination map was prepared by a professional licensed engineer (civil) contractor by Granite Obayashi joint venture under the J-001B Project.”

• AND according to specification section 01 57 19. 03 20 – 3.8, page-13 “Written designation of low likelihood in the bedrock area must be issued by the Contracting Officer prior to ground disturbing work in that area. On- Call Construction Support is required until all excavation is complete. JRM Instruction 8020.4 clarifies Bedrock Determination standards and ESS Operations.”

Please confirm the area we need to perform MEC works as per line item SLIN 0001AB -

MEC/MPPEH CLEARANCE.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

21. Under Spec Section 31 23 00.00 20, Item 3.4.1, it says,” Perform probing and grouting below new footings and mat foundations to check for and grout subsurface cavities and voids.”

However, Boring Plan and Logs are provided on Drawing Sheets B-001 to B-005.

Do we still need to perform separate Probing and Grouting aside from that specified on the Plan?

ANSWER: Response deferred.

22. Slab-on-grade note stated on Drawing Sheet S-501 says, “Building-slabs-on-grade must be underlain by 4-inch cushion of clean gravel and must be protected by a vapor barrier per specifications.” This note and slab-on-grade details don’t mention about base course.

Please confirm that base course is not needed.

End of Notice