25R1303 P614 Note22.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

RFP N62742-25-R-1303

Notice No. 22

19 May 2025

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

RFP N62742-25-R-1303

FY24 MCON PROJECT P-614 JOINT CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS

CENTER JOINT REGION MARIANAS ANDERSEN, 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.

RESPONSE DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 12 DATED 02 MAY 2025

123. On page 2 of 5, the Government has listed its requirements for the past performance of the three (3) specialist subcontractors (Precision Cooling, UPS, and Clean Agent Fire). The past performance and experience of the installation subcontractor are required to demonstrate this experience. Considering the bid date, Government proposal review period, award, GEPA permitting, MEC clearance, and superstructure construction period, it is likely to be 2.5 to 3 years before these subcontractors can start on site. Having prime contractors team with subs to meet this requirement this early in the process imposes significant risk on the Government and prime contractors as these subs are unwilling to commit to the project this far out. In addition, it would force bidders to add considerable risk factors to our bids that would need to be passed along to the Government via an increase in the proposal price.

Q1—Would the Government allow the prime contractor's experience supervising these specialist scopes of work as a General Contractor to qualify if those scopes were performed on a US DOD project? This would allow the bidders to lower the risk of execution and cost, and it would also allow us to be more competitive during subcontractor buyouts.

Q2- If the Government will not allow the prime contractor’s experience as noted in Q1, and the Government is requesting 100% P&P bonds from the prime contractor to ensure the project is completed on time and schedule, how does the Government intend to ensure that the submitted subcontractors be held accountable to performing the work considering that only bonds from the prime contractor will be accepted by the Government?

ANSWER: Q1- We have reviewed your request, but RFP remains unchanged.

Q2- We have reviewed your request, but RFP remains unchanged. Bid accordingly.

RESPONSE DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 14 DATED 06 MAY 2025

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

RFP N62742-25-R-1303

172. 01 57 19.03 20; Specification Section 01 57 19.03 20 SUPPLEMENTAL TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS Munitions Response Explosives Safety Submission (MRESS) Guam Construction/1.3 ANOMALIES. The last sentence of the second paragraph states: “Contractor assumes the risk that the number of anomalies encountered at the project site may differ from historic averages.” Please consider removing this sentence from the RFP. The Government should assume this risk as the Government has all the pertinent information and the Contractor does not. If Contractor shall assume this risk, a sizeable contingency will be added to the cost of the project in order to deter the risk. This would not be the best use of taxpayers monies.

ANSWER: We have reviewed your request, but RFP remains unchanged.

173. 02 61 13; Specification Section 02 61 13 EXCAVATION AND HANDLING OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL/1.1.2 Payment states that compensation for excavation and onsite transportation of contaminated material will be paid as a unit cost. However, Form SF1442 Price Proposal Schedule doesn’t have a CLIN for such unit price.

A. Please advise how the bidders are to provide such unit price.

B. Please provide a quantity in cubic yards to use as a base to establish the unit price.

ANSWER: A. and B. Soil screening survey for 0-1 ft below ground surface (bgs) and 1-2 ft bgs at the new P-614 site indicated that none of the contaminants of potential concern (COPC) exceeded the Tropical Pacific Soil Environmental Screening Levels (TPESL) for unrestricted land use (Table 8). The soil from 0 to 2 ft bgs may be reused on base with no restrictions. Soil COPC levels below 2 ft bgs is unknown but it unlikely to above the TPESL; no unit price is needed at this time. However, while the COPC levels at 0-2 ft bgs are below the TPESLs, measurable levels of petroleum hydrocarbons, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metal arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, and lead are present. All appropriate engineering controls must be implemented to prevent runoff, dust generation, and exposures to site workers, facility personnel, other base personnel, and the environment.

RESPONSES DEFERRED FROM NOTICE NO. 21 DATED 16 MAY 2025

272. Non-CUI Notice 14 Q/A #218 and Spec Section 03 30 00 para 3.9; Disposition of Surplus Material; Notice 14 answer 218 did not provide guidance to the question. The answer simply restated a sentence in the paragraph in question without offering appropriate clarification.

1. Please define the chemicals/compounds required to be tested and provide frequency of testing.

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

RFP N62742-25-R-1303

2. If testing confirms that it is contaminated material, please confirm that the materials will be disposed off at the North Ramp Stockpile.

ANSWER:

1. In response to RFI 218, Specification 31 00 00 (not 03 30 00) paragraph 3.9 for Disposition of Surplus Materials. There are no known chemicals/compounds in the soil.

However, if hazardous materials are discovered during construction, they will need to be tested. Please refer to Section 02 61 13 for requirements for stockpiling (paragraph 3.5) and sampling (3.6.1). The sampling requirements (analytes and frequency) shall come from the receiving facility, i.e. Layon Landfill or commercial soil recycling/treatment facility, such as Buena Vista Environmental (671) 482-0554. Each facility has permit requirements that they must comply with.

2. No contaminated soils are allowed to be moved from one location to another on the DoD property, without the Installation Planner’s and Contracting Officer’s approval.

273. Communication Building and Generator Building Drawing A-605A, A-602B, and Spec.

Section 08 91 00; Wall Louvers; Spec Section 08 91 00 specifies hurricane resistant stainless-steel louvers. However, none in the industry has an AMCA rated stainless steel formed hurricane louver. Please confirm whether we may use extruded aluminum as an alternative since it will also meet all the requirements as per the specifications provided.

ANSWER: Please see Amendment 0015.

277. According to the civil drawing, the sewer line A3-1 near the Generator Building (CU105A) is indicated as 4". However, per mechanical drawing M704B and plumbing drawing P401B, the connected pipe inside the building is shown as 3".

Please confirm which pipe size is correct for coordination and installation.

ANSWER: Follow pipe sizes as shown on M-704B. An amendment will be issued to coordinate drawings.

278. The profiles for Water Line A4 (as shown on CU103A) and Water Line A2 (as shown on CU105A), which are part of the connection between the Main Water Line A and the Generator Building, do not appear to be included in the current drawing.

Kindly provide the missing profiles for coordination and construction reference.

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

RFP N62742-25-R-1303

ANSWER: As is typical, profiles are not included for lines less than 4” in diameter.

279. Drawings C3 on XT110D and C3 on XT111D, both show electrical lines connecting TMH 27-B2 to the Generator Building. While the routes are not exactly identical, they appear to represent the same connection. Please confirm whether this is an intentional duplication or if one of the lines should be disregarded.

ANSWER: Detail “C3/XT110D” is for the conduit to the water meter ICS enclosure on the other side of the generator building. Detail “C3/XT111D” is for the conduit to the telecom wall mounted cabinet inside the generator building. Please refer to drawing ET101A for additional clarity.

280. In drawing C3 on XT111D, the electrical line connecting THH-A1 to ICS references detail C3 on XT301D. However, this detail does not appear to exist in the current drawing. Please confirm whether this is a missing detail or if it has been renamed or relocated under a different drawing.

ANSWER: The call out for detail “C3” on drawing XT301D is incorrect. It should be detail “C2” on XT301D, referring to the riser sweep to the ICS cabinet. An amendment will be issued to revise the drawing.

281. According to drawings P428A and P432A, there is a 1" CW pipe running from the building’s mechanical room to the mechanical yard. However, when reviewing the water riser diagram on drawing P907A, the length of this line appears to be incomplete or partially missing.

Please confirm whether there is a discrepancy and clarify the full extent of the line.

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

RFP N62742-25-R-1303

ANSWER: The 1” CW line is routed from the mechanical room to the mechanical yard underground running adjacent to the chilled water trench that is also running from the mechanical room to the mechanical yard.

287. On drawing S-530A, it call for all stainless steel to be SS32205 (duplex SS) while the specs call for 316SS. Will the 316SS suffice as duplex SS is much more expensive.

ANSWER: Stainless steel 316SS with min. yield strength, Fy = 65ksi is acceptable.

291. S505A - Please provide footing tie beam reinforcing details for FTB-1.

ANSWER: Footing tie beam reinforcing is shown on detail A1/S-514A and concrete beam schedule.

292. 01 50 00 - This is a follow up to the answer to question #169:

A. Please provide the hours of operation of buildings to be serviced with temporary generators.

B. Please provide a list of buildings that can provide on-site generation if disconnected from the AAFB grid.

Otherwise, please indicate how the bidders are supposed to quantify and price this on their proposals.

ANSWER: The building require generator and duration will depends on the circuit being deenergized and what is being done. Therefore, TBD when outage request is submitted.

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

RFP N62742-25-R-1303

RESPONSES FOR NOTICE NO. 22

299. Reference Sheet S-506A - Column Footing Schedule and Reinforcing. For CF-1 to CF-4, the quantity of reinforcing called out for the "A" and "C" bars would make the spacing approximately 6" O.C. and the quantity of reinforcing for the "B" and "D" bars would make the spacing approximately 24" O.C. Please advise if these reinforcing requirements are correct.

ANSWER: Spacing of bottom bars reinforcing for CF-1 to CF-4 are correct. Bottom bar spacing will be at 12.00” O.C. for “A” and “B” bars.

Provide additional 10- #7 “C” top bar reinforcing and 14- #7 “D” top bar reinforcing for CF- 1 and CF-2. See revised column footing schedule for adjusted reinforcing. Revised sheet S- 506A will be issued in forthcoming amendment for reference.

300. Reference Sheets S-407A to S-412A - 6" Thick Slab-On-Grade Reinforcing. Sheets S- 407A to S-411A show the 6" thick slab-on-grade reinforcing to be 16" O.C. On Sheet S- 412A, the 6" thick slab-on-grade reinforcing is 12" O.C. Please advise if the spacing on Sheets S-412A is correct. If correct, please show the extent of the 6" thick slab that requires reinforcing 12" O.C.

6” thick slab on grade slab reinforcing shown on S-412A shall be #4 at 16” O.C... Revised sheet for 6” thick slab reinforcing spacing shown on S-412A will be issued in forthcoming amendment for reference.

301. Reference Sheet S-517A - Reinforcing for Slab-On-Grade Transition. Please provide size and spacing for the rebar shown in Details C1 and C3/S-517A for the transition in the slab-on-grade.

A forthcoming amendment to revise sheet S-517A for rebar details at slab on grade transitions.

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

RFP N62742-25-R-1303

302. This is a follow up to question 163. The two American-Flag shippers that service Guam on a regular basis declined to provide a quote for the 50,000 Gal fuel tanks shipping. This is their comment: "After presenting your tanks @ 110,000lbs each, both operations teams in Long Beach and Guam advised the tanks as too heavy for crane lifting capacity and therefore unable to quote. We have shipped 80k lbs. before. Let me know if you wish to pursue a different tank in size/weight."

This is the comment from the other shipper: "That is correct, the Port Authority of Guam (PAG) cranes have the capacity to off load up to 40 tons or 80,000#. I've asked Operations for any reference PAG may have regarding crane capacity, I'll forward, if received. In the case you must ship this tank at 110,000#, XXX has an offshore crane that could be a leasing option for the operation. As information, XXX's west coast ports can lift 110,000# so it's the challenge on the Guam end."

In addition, delivery of the tanks from the Port of Guam to the jobsite presents some significant challenges due to the weight of the tanks and the need to go over the Hagatna Bridge and under power/communications overhead cables. All of this can be done, but the cost delta with regular in-gauge cargo size will be millions of dollars.

Please reconsider the tanks size.

ANSWER: Provide fuel storage tanks in accordance with the RFP documents.