24R1328 Note10-Issued.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

RFP N62742-24-R-1328

Notice No. 10

3 Sep 2024

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

INDO-PACIFIC MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR PROJECTS IN

THE NAVFAC PACIFIC AREA OF OPERATIONS

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.

172. RFP - Please confirm if we can submit price strictly based on information from the RFP since it requires significant assumptions due to missing information such as Geotech report, topo, etc.

ANSWER: Contractor will be responsible for assumptions used in preparation of their respective cost proposal.

173. Part 3 – Page 6 of 16

According to the RFP, “The concept drawings in PART 6 of this RFP package are preliminary in nature and are not intended to be final, complete, and coordinated designs. As the Designer of Record (DOR), the DB Contractor shall be responsible to provide a final, complete, and fully coordinated design in accordance with all applicable codes, regulations, and contract requirements. The DOR shall be responsible for professional quality, technical accuracy, and the coordination.” Please confirm that the Offeror is able to make revisions to the conceptual plan as long as Offeror meets the owner requirements.

ANSWER: Contractor’s proposed design will be reviewed and approved against the conceptual design included in the RFP, Part 6.

174. Design Guide

Please confirm if there is a design guide specific to Camp Melchor that requires to match the aesthetic of surrounding area.

ANSWER: No Camp Melchor Dela Cruz specific base design guide to follow.

175. RFP Part 3 – Page 2 of 16 SOW No.3, 3.1 Existing Conditions

GPS Coordinates: 121.8653448430001, 17.07505789400005 and Part 6 Page 4 of 23 Figure 3:

Site Plan.

We used the coordinates mentioned above to plan the building and site layout. However, we have discovered that there is a significant discrepancy between Figure 3: Site Plan and the requirement for a gravel access road. Specifically, the approximate 30-meter distance needed from the existing gravel road to the C2 Fusion Center will not be met. See screenshot below for comparison.

Layout Provided in RFP

Actual Layout Using Provided Coordinates

ANSWER: The PPSV (pre-proposal site visit) visited the proposed site location. The grid coordinates 121.8653448430001, 17.07505789400005 are general project location coordinates. Contractor’s Designer of Record (DoR) to determine exact facility/site design coordinates.

176. RFP SOW page 14 of 16 - D40

Fire Protection the requirement is only fire alarm, detection, and notification and fire extinguisher only. Please confirm that the New Building does not require Wet Sprinkler System.

Per Philippine National Building Code (P.D. 1096), Section 1212 -Fire Extinguishing Systems, para. (c ) (8) the requirements for Pressure and Gravity Tanks – Tank shall have a capacity sufficient to furnish at least 1,500 liters per minute for a period of not less than 10 minutes and RFP SOW for Water Tank is only 5,000 liters, which is 3.33 minutes only.

ANSWER: Confirmed, wet-pipe fire sprinkler system is not required for this facility.

177. SOW Part 3, page 4 and 5 of 16, Building Requirement No. 17

Please confirm if the finished grade elevation of the new facility needs to be at least 12 inches (300 mm) higher than the adjacent gravel road or if it just needs to be elevated by at least 12 inches (300mm) to meet the requirements outlined in SOW Part 3, page 4 and 5 of 16, Building Requirement No. 17, which states that "Site grading will channel runoff away from the building." Please advise.

ANSWER: Refer to RFP Part 3, Building Requirements 4.2 (2). See also, answer to question

no. 88.

178. RFP Part 6, Page 4 of 23, Figure 3: Site Plan

The north/left side of the property, where the water tank is located, has an abrupt slope towards an adjacent deep natural swale. According to the RFP Part 6 Page 4 of 23 Figure 3: Site Plan, this area will require a concrete retaining wall to support the backfilling and the load of the new elevated water tank structure. Please confirm if the the water tank be relocated?

ANSWER: Contractor’s DOR will be responsible for the proposed site design layout and operational efficiency of the utility system.

179. Schedule

Due to the location of the seed project and the coordination required to facilitate accurate pricing from local subcontractors and suppliers, confirming conditions of the RFP, and evaluate better design solutions for the betterment of the overall project, please advise if the proposal deadline may be extended by at least three weeks. Six weeks, from site visit to evaluate actual site conditions and proposal deadline, is a very tight schedule for a design-build bid project.

ANSWER: See Amendment 0006. Proposal deadline revised to 10 Sept 2024.

180. Site Condition

Please confirm if there is any concern of infiltration of high ground water level that will impede the use of septic system? Please verify if we need to consider a WWTP for the 100-man anticipated facility?

ANSWER: DOR shall make the determination and design the system appropriately.

181. Regarding RFPN6274224R1328_IMACC.pdf, page 36. Part II. FACTOR 2, Section (a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements. The solicitation states “PPQs will not be accepted from the designer on a design-build project or from a prime contractor for work performed by a subcontractor.”

Since the Vietnam War, most of the work performed in this contract’s Area of Responsibility was by federal task order vehicles (DTRA, LOGCAP, USAID, and AFCAP) which only use prime integrating contractors executing among other things packaged design tasks. Would limiting PPQs on Prime Contractors performing relevant work result in the elimination of numerous designers of records familiar with work in these AORs that would otherwise speed and lower the overall cost of the Navy to perform this work? The apparent result of this requirement will be to limit competition by disqualifying otherwise qualified offers? PPQs could be better evaluated as part of your overall award determination by allowing all PPQs of relevant designers of record with extensive experience in the stated Area of Responsibility. This is especially true since the large Designer of Records would not have the experience for expeditionary and military engineering support that this requirement would restrict. Furthermore, would this requirement potentially violate the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) and establish an overly restrictive evaluation criteria and improper exclusion of viable offerors which may establish a case for a pre-award protest which will only delay the award?

Respectfully request that NAVFACPAC delete this sentence.

ANSWER: FAR 15.304(3)(i) requires that past performance be evaluated for negotiated competitive acquisitions. PPQs may be submitted for a proposed Designer-of- Record in accordance with the RFP, Document 00 22 00, Factor 2 – Past Performance, paragraph (a), where it states that, “PPQs shall be completed and signed by the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for construction contract administration.” Accordingly, responsible contract administration representatives of federal agencies, such as, DTRA, LOGCAP, USAID, and AFCAP, may complete and sign PPQs.

182. Amendment 0008

Amendment 0008 has extended the relevant project criteria to 15 years. We are requesting a four-week extension to give all Offerors enough time to evaluate their current proposal considering this change, evaluate relevant projects, develop Attachment A, and request PPQs from clients for Factor 2.

ANSWER: See Amendment 0006 for revised 10 Sept 2024 proposal deadline.

183. Design Solution

Considering that Part 6 Drawings have the lowest order of precedence and represent a concept design that the Government has generally agreed to, we would like to inquire whether the design/builder will have permission to deviate from the conceptual drawings provided, as long as we meet the contract requirements. If this is permissible, please advise if there are specific parameters that should not be deviated from.

Can you please confirm if there are any property limits the Offeror will need to consider when evaluating design solutions? For instance, the leaching field is outside the property line, and grading for the project may also extend past the area indicated in the drawings. Are there any limiting factors the Offeror will need to take into account when considering their proposal?

Additionally, has a master plan already been designed for the area around this particular project that could impact our design approach?

ANSWER: Refer to RFP Part 3, 4.9 Engineering System Requirement.

184. Backfill

Please confirm if the Offeror can backfill beyond the property limit.

ANSWER: Confirmed. See also answer to question no. 88.

185. Part 3 4.2 Building Requirements

Is it possible to have water drainage running over the access roadway going to the building (if the area where the drainage occurs is in concrete), or will a headwall and culvert need to be installed with the roadway above?

ANSWER: See answer to question no. 88.

186. Part 3 4.7 Gravel Access Road

Please confirm if the access road to the building needs to have a curb or if the gravel is to be retained in any other way.

ANSWER: Refer to RFP Part 3, 4.9 Engineering System Requirement

187. Part 4.2 Building Requirements

Please confirm if the condenser units for the air conditioning need to be centralized in a utility area or if they can be installed around the building as needed.

ANSWER: Centralizing air conditioning condenser units is not a design requirement. Designer of Record (DoR) shall layout system to allow efficient access and maintenance of units.

188. Part 3 4.7 Gravel Access Road

Please confirm if the access roadway needs any kind of shoulder on either side of the roadway.

ANSWER: See answer to question no. 88.

189. Part 4.2 Building Requirements

Does the stainless steel termimesh for termite barrier require for this project? Please advise.

ANSWER: Refer to RFP Part 3, 4.9 Engineering System Requirement

190. Part 4 B10 Superstructure

Is it acceptable to fabricate the structural steel roof framing system using certified Philippine steel products if they meet the same U.S. standards (ASTM, ANSI, etc.) or can they meet equivalent standards for structural steel materials? Please advise. If equivalent, please define acceptable equivalent standards.

ANSWER: Refer to RFP Part 3, 4.9 Engineering System Requirement

191. HazMat Risk Assessment

Does the Site HazMat assessment prior to start of construction require for this project? Please advise.

ANSWER: Not required.

192. Munition Explosive of Concern (MEC)

Does the Munition Explosive of Concern (MEC) require for this project? Please advise.

ANSWER: Not required.

193. Part 4 C3020 FLOOR FINISHES

Does the concrete floor sealer need to be anti-static / ESD (Electrostatic Discharge)? Please advise

ANSWER: Refer to RFP Part 3, 4.9 Engineering System Requirement

194. Part 3 R3010 Roof Coverings

Please confirm if the roof design and pitch can be revised or if it needs to meet the RFP Part 6 drawings.

ANSWER: Refer to RFP Part 3, 4.9 Engineering System Requirement

195. Part 3 Building Requirements

Please confirm if any of the walls in the building need an STC rating and if so, what the rating is.

ANSWER: Provide STC-55 rating for the offices and conference room walls.

196. Part 3 Building Requirements

Please confirm the limits of the drive area around the building. For example, does the septic tank need to be traffic rated?

ANSWER: Septic tank does not need to be traffic rated.

197. General Inquiry

Please confirm the hours of occupancy for the facility.

ANSWER: 24/7 during joint AFP-US exercises. Normal days 6am to 8pm.

198. Materials

Is it acceptable to use certified Philippine products if they meet the same U.S. standards (ASTM, ANSI, etc.) or can they meet equivalent standards? Please advise. If equivalent, please provide a list of acceptable equivalent standards.

ANSWER: Refer to RFP Part 3, 4.9 Engineering System Requirement