26R1300_Note4.pdf

RFP N62742-26-R-1300

Notice No. 4

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

18 March 2026

PRE-PROPOSAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

WON 1665555, FY24 AJJY183012 (P-012), PDI: NORTH AIRCRAFT PARKING RAMP,

ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, 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.

12. Specification Section 33 52 43.13, paragraph 2.2.2.1, states that the exterior coating for buried stainless steel pipe & fittings must be factory coated fusion bond epoxy in accordance with Section 33 52 80. Specification Section 33 52 80, paragraph 2.1.1, states that the shop-applied external pipe coating for the buried stainless steel shall be AWWA C213 Fusion

Bond Epoxy.

Based on previous experiences on DoD hydrant fueling projects, the AWWA C213 Fusion

Bond Epoxy is not the appropriate exterior coating for buried stainless steel piping.

In accordance with Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) 33 52 80, the correct shop-applied exterior coating for buried stainless steel piping shall be AWWA C215 extruded polyolefin coating over soft adhesive.

For this project, please confirm that the required exterior coating for the buried stainless-steel piping for the hydrant loop shall be AWWA C215 extruded polyolefin coating over soft adhesive in accordance with UFGS 33 52 80.

ANSWER: Required exterior coating for the buried stainless steel pipe must be in accordance with Section 33 52 80 para 2.1 and 2.2. In addition, stainless steel pipe must be re-passivated prior to shop applied and field applied FBE coatings. Use one or more of the following repair methods, as modified herein, to repair shop applied coatings and coat external girth welds.

a. Fusion-Bonded Epoxy (FBE) Coating: NACE RP0402, coating material to be same as applied to pipe in shop.

b. Liquid-Epoxy Coating System: AWWA C210

The specification will be clarified in a forthcoming amendment.

13. Specification Section 33 52 43.13, paragraph 2.2.2.1, states that the exterior coating for buried stainless steel fittings and field weld joints shall be AWWA C213 Fusion Bond

Epoxy.

Specification Section 33 52 80, paragraph 2.2, states that the field-applied exterior coating for external girth welds and coating repairs shall be the Fusion Bond Epoxy.

In accordance with UFGS 33 52 80, paragraph 2.2, the correct field-applied exterior coating for buried stainless steel weld joints shall be Coal Tar Enamel (AWWA C203), Coal Tar

Tape (AWWA C203), Cold Applied Tape (AWWA C209), Petrolatum Wax Tape Coating

(AWWA C217), and Heat Shrink Sleeve (AWWA C216). UFGS 33 52 43.13, paragraph

2.1.4.2, states to use AWWA C209 Tape Wrap for buried stainless steel fittings.

Based on previous experiences on DoD hydrant fueling projects, the correct exterior coating for buried stainless steel fittings, girth weld joints, and coating repairs shall be the AWWA

C209 Cold Applied Tape Wrap and/or the AWWA C216 Heat Shrink Sleeve.

Please confirm that the AWWA C209 Tape Wrap and AWWA C216 Heat Shrink Sleeve are acceptable exterior coatings for buried stainless steel fittings and girth weld joints on this project.

ANSWER: Required exterior coating for the buried stainless steel pipe must be in accordance with Section 33 52 80 para 2.1 and 2.2. In addition, stainless steel pipe must be re-passivated prior to FBE shop applied and field applied coatings. Use one or more of the following repair methods, as modified herein, to repair shop applied coatings and coat external girth welds.

a. Fusion-Bonded Epoxy (FBE) Coating: NACE RP0402, coating material to be same as applied to pipe in shop.

b. Liquid-Epoxy Coating System: AWWA C210

14. On drawing MF505, details C1 & C3 show the demolition and modification scope of work for the hydrant hose truck checkout position.

Please confirm that this demolition & modification work occurs at two (2) locations, meaning two separate checkout positions at existing Pumphouses 3 and 4?

ANSWER: There is only one hydrant hose truck checkout position that is common to Pump

Houses 3 and 4.

15. Specification Section 33 52 43.13, paragraph 2.2.3.2, calls for all elbows located between the pig launcher and receiver to have 3D bends for the new hydrant loop piping.

One manufacturer that specializes in heat induction 3D pipe bends states that the 12-inch diameter 3D bends will have up to 6% one-way ovality. The specifications do not provide a maximum tolerance for the ovality on the 3D bends. According to ASME piping codes, a

6% ovality is generally acceptable for induction bends, as the typical maximum allowable ovality is 8% per ASME B16.49 and ASME B31.1.

Please confirm whether the maximum 6% ovality on the 12-inch 3D heat induction bends will be acceptable for this project since it is well within the 8% maximum.

ANSWER: 3D pipe bends must be in accordance with Section 33 52 43.13 Para 2.2.3.2. In addition, 3D pipe bends must have a 1 foot long straight section on each side of the bend

(from tangent points), to prevent ovality at the weld joints.

16. 1. Zone 1 (Impermeable Fill) - Due to the many variables at bid time (i.e. undefined quantities of shafts, holes, throat sizes, depths of holes, etc.), please give us a uniform basis for the bid quantity of 9,000 CY. For example, for pipe shaft grout infill (quantity, depth, hole size) and for durable stone with concrete capping (quantity, depth of holes, hole sizes).

2. Likewise, for Zone 2 (Permeable Fill) – pls provide uniform assumptions on number of holes, hole depths, hole sizes.

For bid uniformity purposes, the above information is requested due to differing sizes of durable stones and thicknesses of concrete capping based on varying throat widths.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

17. We request the following clarifications:

1. Have prior geophysical investigations been performed at this site, and if so, can that data be made available to bidders?

2. What is the intended procedure if ERT results are inconclusive or do not clearly correlate to observable surface throat widths?

While ERT can be effective in identifying large subsurface cavities, it may not consistently provide the level of geometric precision implied by the mitigation categories outlined in the specifications. Because ERT produces interpreted resistivity anomalies rather than measured throat dimensions, correlating anomalies to discrete throat width categories may require engineering judgment and supplemental field confirmation. The smallest void captured with

ERT is generally around 20 percent of the target dimensions in the profile (cross-section) axes. For example, for a void to be detected at a depth of 60 feet below the ground surface, it would need to be at least 12 feet tall and 12 feet wide in the plane of the line.

Additionally, the specifications call for a crisscross pattern with 100 feet line centers. There is no way to qualify if voids are present between the survey lines. The only way to better source the location of the void is by using multiple, parallel, or perpendicular survey lines.

In our experience on similar projects in Guam, mitigation criteria structured around narrowly defined dimensional thresholds may present practical challenges in classification and implementation. Voids are rarely present as uniform, well-defined geometries, and classification may require interpretive judgment and coordination with the DOR. This could introduce risks in terms of uncertainty in mitigation selection and may result in iterative evaluation, potential schedule impacts, and associated cost considerations during construction.

18. Due to the size and complexity of this project, as well as other RFP/RFB submissions that are scheduled within the same timeframe as this RFP, we respectfully request an extension of at least six (6) weeks to the current RFP due date of April 29, 2026. Granting this extension will allow all offerors, along with their subcontractor and vendor teams, sufficient time to prepare complete and competitive technical and price proposals, ultimately ensuring the best value for the Owner.

ANSWER: An extension will not be granted at this time

19. 1. Keynote # 236 on drawing CS103 indicates Personnel Gate, RE: C4/CS507. However, this detail is missing. Please provide.

2. Site Details (drawing A1/CS506) shows 6’-0” long of concrete barrier supporting the temporary CL fencing. Please confirm if 12’-0” long is acceptable in lieu of 6’-0” long concrete barrier.

20. The Price Proposal Schedule for SLIN 0001AD shows a quantity of 10 EA. Please clarify the following:

1. Is this quantity supposed to mean 10 Days?

2. If so, please clarify if the investigation/data recovery work is limited to be performed within the 10-day time frame.

ANSWER: 20-1: It will be a one-day feature investigation, including reporting on potential archaeological resources encountered. The report shall include findings and recommendations for follow-up actions. The estimated quantity is 10 one-day feature investigations.

20-2: If data recovery is required, it will be performed in accordance with SLIN 0001AE

Cultural Resources Post Review Discovery (Small Sites), SLIN 0001AF Cultural Resources

Post Review Discovery (Large Sites), or SLIN 0001AG Cultural Resources Post Review

Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains.

21. Please confirm if SLIN 0001AE applies to Sites 66-07-2113, 68-07-2117 and 66-07-2118 while SLIN 0001AF applies to Site 66-08-2981.

ANSWER: Data recovery for Sites 66-07-2113, 66-07-2117, and 66-07-2118 shall be conducted as the base item. Data recovery for Site 66-08-2981 is not required for this project. See Section 01 57 19, para. 3.4.3.2, Data Recovery.

22. Tables 2 and 3 on Plan Page CS502 do not indicate WWF or saw cut depth for the designed

14” airfield pavement. Can you please clarify?

23. Table 3 on Plan Page CS502 indicates only a 3” initial sawcut. Traditionally the saw cut for the first cut must go to a minimum of 1/4 the depth (on 18” pavement that would be 4.5”) to a maximum of 1/3 the depth (on 18” pavement that would be 6”). The reason for the deep initial cut is too highly incentivize the pavement to joint at the planned location. What is the meaning of this table 3 and given the above what is the intended depth cut for the planned

14” airfield concrete pavement?

ANSWER: Utilize a 3” initial cut for 14” pavement. This is per UFC 3-260-02 10.a.2.

24. Bid Item 0001AK (SLIN 0001AK), Drawing CD107; Section 02 61 13 Abandoned

Hazardous Waste, Bid Qty = 100 tons

Please confirm if the following HAZMAT items are included in Bid Item 0001AK/

SLIN001AK:

a. Keynotes #146; Excavate Lead Impacted Soil Along Building Perimeter for Disposal (per

CD107)

b. Keynotes #147; Excavate Arsenic Impacted Soil for Disposal (per CD107)

c. Keynotes #126; Remove Existing Leaching Field and Associated Piping. Assume encountering residual soil contamination, including fuel contamination from the existing leaching field and former demolished oil/water separator. (per CD107)

d. Four cubic yards of G-RAM/LLRW and other impacted materials, including soils (per

Para 1.2.1.2 Section 02 61 13)

ANSWER: The SLIN 0001AK, ABANDONED HAZARDOUS WASTE, will be used for the inadvertent discovery of HAZMAT items that are not indicated in the RFP and/or survey reports. Keynotes #146, #147, and #126 must be conducted under the 0001AA BASE ITEM.

Four cubic yards of G-RAM/LLRW and other impacted materials must be disposed of under the 0001AA BASE ITEM.