26R1300_Note6-Final.docx.pdf

RFP N62742-26-R-1300

Notice No. 6

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

17 April 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.

REVISED RESPONSES FROM NOTICE NO.5 DATED 9 APRIL 2026

40. 3.0 P-012 PROJECT SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP)

3.1 PFAS-Impacted Soil

The PFAS-Impacted Area and depth have not been fully delineated. The Navy ERP is currently conducting a remedial investigation (RI) to determine the nature and extent of PFAS and will provide additional sampling data to the P-012 project as it becomes available.

3.1.1 Assumed P-012 PFAS-Impacted Soil Areas

States “…The depth of PFAS-impacted soil has not been vertically delineated at the site. ..”

The maximum excavation depth in the assumed PFAS-Impacted Soil Areas is 3 ft bgs based on the project grading plan. The P-012 project will assume the soil from the existing surface level to 3 ft bgs is PFAS-impacted exceeding the PSL. The Contractor will be required to conduct additional sampling if the maximum excavation construction depth is extended deeper than 3 ft bgs. All additional PFAS testing results with detailed sampling procedures shall be provided to the contracting officer.

Section 3.1.2.1 Geomembrane states “…A chemically resistant geomembrane liner free of holes and…”

Q: please provide specifications for the geomembrane liner

ANSWER: Section 02 56 13.13 Geomembrane Waste Containment will be provided in a forthcoming amendment.

DEFERRED RESPONSE FOR NOTICE NO.4 DATED 18 MARCH 2026:

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?

ANSWER: Prior geophysical investigations have been performed at this site using ERT testing.

Reference drawings with pertinent information will be issued in a forthcoming amendment and are only informational. ERT testing is still required as specified in the

RFP.

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.

ANSWER: The intent of the ERT testing is to image potential karst void networks that underly the sinkhole throat at locations required by the Contract Documents. Where sinkholes are encountered during construction in Zone 1 or Zone 2, their throat widths must be measured, which will likely require excavating the materials to bedrock at the level of the sinkhole throat if the sinkhole throat is not presently exposed. ERT testing is required for sinkholes encountered in Zone 1 and Zone 2 where their throat widths exceed 6 feet, and is required throughout Area A1 as shown on drawing CG144.

RESPONSES FOR NOTICE NO.6:

51. Reference: Section 33 71 02, Drawings SF001, EF504.Subject: Concrete Encased

Duct bank. Question: Section 33 71 02, Para 2.12 and drawing C1/EF504 specifies 3,000 PSI minimum 28-day compressive strength of concrete for duct bank while Structural General Notes F.1.b.2 (drawing SF001) specifies 3,500 PSI. Please confirm which will govern.

ANSWER: Per note F.1.b.2 on SF001 and the table in Spec 03 30 00 Section 2.5.1, use 3,500psi for minimum 28-day compressive strength of concrete for electrical duct banks. Spec 33 71 02 Section 2.12 and detail C4/ES504 will be updated to list 3,500psi in a forthcoming amendment

52. Reference: Utility Plan Drawing CU103. Subject: Missing Sheets. Question: General

Notes A & B on Utility Plan (drawing CU103) indicates “Refer to Sheet CU601 & CU120”. However, these sheets are missing. Please provide.

ANSWER: There are no Drawing sheets CU120 and CU601. Drawing sheet CU103 will be revised in a forthcoming amendment.

53. Reference: Section 02 61 13, Para 1.2.1.2. Subject: G-RAM/LLW Question: Section 02

61 13 Para 1.2.1.2 stated “The Contractor will be responsible for handling, packaging, storage, and disposal of G-RAM/LLRS, if discovered.” Currently, it is impossible to remove and dispose of G-RAM/LLW waste. There is no approved facility in Guam, and no air or ocean carrier will accept G-RAM or LLW waste for shipment. Please provide instructions on how to proceed.

ANSWER: At or prior to contract completion, the Government will provide direction for the final disposal of the G-RAM/LLRW designated secure storage unit. During work on this contract, the G-RAM/LLRW storage unit will be kept on-site. As specified in Section 02 61 13, paragraph 1.2.1.2, “Coordinate with the Naval Sea Systems Command Detachment (NAVSEADET) Radiological Affairs Support Office (RASO) through the Contracting Officer on G-RAM management, handling, and disposal.” Section 02 61 13, paragraph 1.2.1.2, will be revised in a forthcoming amendment.

54. Reference: Site Visit Subject: Existing 20’ & 40’ Containers

Question:

• During site visit, we noticed that there are quite a number of 20’ & 40’ containers in

IRP Bldg. compound. Please clarify if these existing containers are to be removed, disposed and/or relocated by Contractor.

• Where is the relocation site?

• Are these containers empty? If not, pls provide information on its contents.

• Will the contents be salvaged or disposed of?

Please clarify the above items.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

55. Reference: Section 03 30 00 Subject: Corrosion-Inhibiting Admixture Question: Section

03 30 00 Para. 2.3.4 Admixture Item D specifies “Use a corrosion-inhibiting admixture for all concrete” Please clarify if this applies also to PCC pavement, ductbanks, sidewalks, curbs/gutters. If not, please specify the concrete structures to which the corrosion inhibiting admix applies.

ANSWER: No, the admixture is not needed for the ductbanks or sidewalks. This paragraph will be revised in a forthcoming amendment.

56. Reference: Drainage Details Drawing CG503 Subject: Filter Stone Question: No specs section or sizes of filter stones to be used for Rock Check Dams (C3/CG503). Pls provide information.

ANSWER: The sizes of filter stones will be added to the detail in a forthcoming amendment.

57. Subject: Request for Extension of Bid Date Submission Question/RFI: Given the complexity of this project bid and the numerous unanswered RFIs to date, we respectfully reiterate our request for a six (6) week extension to the current bid submission date of 04/29/2026. We appreciate the Government’s understanding and consideration.

ANSWER: Proposal due date will be extended to 3 June 2026 in forthcoming amendment.

58. Reference: Section 01 45 00 Para. 1.6.5 Subject: QC Specialist Question/RFI:

1. For backfilling sinkholes during karst repair in Zones A and B, is the QC hydrogeologist specialist required to be onsite?

ANSWER: Yes, hydrogeologist must be onsite.

2. Following the initial phase of karst repair activities, can the project hydrogeologist serve as the on-site representative of the QC hydrogeologist during these activities?

ANSWER: Yes.

59. Reference: Section 01 57 19 Attachment D Subject: F-15 Beddown and Infrastructure

Upgrades at AAFB, Guam Question/RFI:

Please clarify the following based on the information provided for Site 78 in Para

3.16.1.4:

1. “Surface soil sampling occurred in 2003 at locations of suspected contamination and discovered six analytes at concentrations exceeding screening levels.” Would you please provide the report from 2003 that has the soil sampling results?

2. “A no-further-action determination for this site was completed in 2014. The no-further-action determination does not provide unlimited use/unrestricted exposure, and if the anticipated land use of the site changes, DAF would have to perform another risk evaluation to confirm no further action remains valid." Has there been another risk evaluation performed? Please provide the original risk assessment.

Please provide any additional risk assessment.

ANSWER: Refer to the Final Record of Decision for the available risk assessment. Note that currently, Site 78 is a CERCLA site due to the PFAS contamination. The Environmental Restoration Navy (ERN) program will conduct further site characterization and risk assessment for PFAS contamination. However, the schedule is undetermined. There is no other available risk assessment. Refer to Section 02 61 13, Attachment A, Soil Management Plan (SMP) for the available information for PFAS contamination.

3. Para 3.16.2.1.2 stated “Contractors performing construction could encounter undocumented soil or groundwater contamination. Therefore, prior to construction, soil sampling and analysis would occur on both project areas to evaluate the presence of potential contamination." Is the contractor expected to conduct the soil sampling prior to construction?

ANSWER: Section 02 61 13 includes available soil testing reports. Section 3.1.1, Assumed P-

012 PFAS-Impacted Soil Areas, of the SMP requires additional PFAS soil sampling.

Section 3.6.6, Sampling and Analysis for Construction Use, of the SMP indicates “If required, the Contractor shall provide additional sampling and analysis for the construction use based on the Contractor’s discretion to complete the construction and waste management/disposal.”

60. Reference: Section 01 57 19 Attachment F Subject: Natural Resources Performance

Work Statement (NR PWS) Question/RFI:

1. Para. 1 Item C states "Conduct long-term management of the invasive species at the FEA after the 5 years of following transplant of salvaged plants conducted by the Contractor." Is the contractor responsible for invasive species management for the initial 5 years?

ANSWER: Correct.

2. Will the HACCP Plan (Para 1.2) follow the vertical construction template developed by Camp Blaz?

ANSWER: The HACCP plan must comply with the requirements/guidance indicated in the

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Planning to Prevent the Spread of Invasive Species (HACCP Manual, 2019) as specified in Section 01 57 19, Temporary Environmental Controls. The Contractor shall determine a template for use.

3. What are the minimum requirements for a cleaning facility (per Para 1.3)

ANSWER: At a minimum, each construction entry/exit must have a cleaning facility. Comply with the HACCP Manual.

4. (Para 1.4) Please confirm if NOPRS reporting is only required for pesticide use on federal property and not at a contractor’s nursery off base.

ANSWER: Correct. Reporting to the NAVFAC Online Pesticide Reporting System (NOPRS) applies to pesticide use on federal properties. Indicate the use of pesticides during nursing at the contractor’s nursery off base in the work plan and reports.

5. Para. 3, Item 3 stated “If a fruit bat is observed within line of sight up to 492 ft (150 m) prior to the start of construction work” Does this mean before construction starts at the site for the first time (pre-construction surveys), or before construction starts each day?

ANSWER: It means “before construction starts each day.”

6. Para. 3, Item 4 stated “If a fruit bat enters within 492 ft (150 m) of the construction footprint after the start of construction work, work would continue but NAVFAC Marianas natural resources staff will be notified to document any instances of incidental take” Is the contractor required to collect any information if a bat is observed during construction? How soon does NAVFAC need to be notified?

ANSWER: If found, notify the observation immediately to the Contracting Officer and NAVFAC NR staff. The Contractor may discuss notification procedures further during the AAFB CR/NR training.

7. Para. 3 stated “During nighttime work, perform biological monitoring on site while nighttime work is underway to observe Mariana fruit bats.”

a. Does the nighttime monitoring need to be conducted by a qualified biologist, or can contractor personnel do the monitoring?

ANSWER: The qualified biologist must conduct the nighttime monitoring. Paragraph will be revised in forthcoming amendment.

b. Does the night-time monitoring need to be conducted all night?

ANSWER: Nighttime monitoring should be conducted all night.

c. If BMPs are followed requiring lights to be directed down onto the ground (and into the eyes of the monitor), how will the monitor be expected to see a black bat flying at night?

ANSWER: Refer to the project Biological Opinion for Fanihi (Section 01 57 19, Attachment E) in Appendix B of Final Environmental Impact Statement, indicating “During nighttime work, contractor personnel will be responsible for performing biological monitoring on site while nighttime work is underway to observe for fanihi. A variety of methods will be used, including infrared cameras if conditions allow for a bat’s heat signature to be distinguished from background vegetation (i.e., if the vegetation is cool enough). If a bat is observed within 492 ft (150 m) of the project site prior to activities being conducted, activities within 492 ft (150 m) of the bat will be postponed until the bat has left of its own volition. One or more biological monitor(s) will have no other duties at the work site.”

8. Para 4.0 Item B stated “Process green waste and mulch piles to prevent the spread of LFA, CRB, and other invasive species, in accordance with green waste protocols.

Control their spread if present.” Kindly verify what is the requirement to control their spread.

ANSWER: Refer to Section 01 57 19, Attachment F, Natural Resources Performance Work Statement, Attachment F7, Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle (CRB) and Little Fire Ant (LFA) Management Procedures (Ver4. Revised 08.02.2021, or as amended).

9. Para 4.0 Item C.ii stated “Conduct a thorough initial survey of the project and Tarague FEA prior to construction…" Please provide the definition/description of a "thorough initial survey" that would meet the Government's requirements.

ANSWER: The qualified biologist must determine the level of effort required to obtain approvals/concurrences for the survey activities and reports from the Government and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

10. Please provide specifications for BTS traps (per Para 4, Item E). Are they traps with live mice? What are the monitoring and maintenance requirements?

ANSWER: Provide similar BTS traps with a live mouse that AAFB is utilizing (Photograph 60- 10). The Contractor shall determine the monitoring and maintenance requirements in the Work Plan for the Government's and USFWS's approval or concurrence. Paragraph 4, item E. will be revised in forthcoming amendment.

Photograph 60-10. Example of BTS Trap

11. What is the estimated schedule for salvage of T&E species (Para 5.0)? How much time will there be between when the contract is awarded and when construction is expected to begin?

ANSWER: The Contractor and the qualified biologist shall determine the schedule upon award.

To start the salvage of T&E species, the Work Plan shall be approved at a minimum.

Include the detailed schedule for NR mitigation in the Work Plan.

12. Please clarify the following based on the information provided in Para 5.1.1

a. “The Natural Resource Work Plan must include a detailed NR project schedule and performance period”. The time required to propagate native species (e.g. cycads) is highly variable and not conducive to set schedules like those used for construction projects. For example, propagating cycad seeds could take between 6 and 18 months to germinate and an additional variable period for the cycads to grow to a size to be ready to outplant. Will the Government accept a schedule that has a wide range of dates?

ANSWER: The Contractor shall determine the schedule by collaborating with the qualified biologist. Propagation and nursing of cycad seeds shall be completed at the Contractor’s nursing facility. The transplanting activities at Tarague FEA are unlikely to affect the construction work at the P-012 construction site. The Contractor shall include the schedule in the Work Plan.

b. “They must be replaced at the Contractor's expense until plants meet the success criteria”. What is the cost for the threatened and endangered (T&E) species if they need to be replaced?

ANSWER: If required, replacement can be done by additional propagation of collected seeds within the project boundary, or by additional seed collection/propagation from outside the P-012 project boundary, at no cost to the Government. Include the Contractor’s approach in the Work Plan.

c. “Successful fulfillment of T&E Species conservation is based on the plants being established in the wild, not requiring any supplemental watering, disease/pest free”.

How does the Government define disease/pest free? Which diseases and pests must it be free of?

ANSWER: Refer to the Biological Opinion regarding pest concerns. For example, the

Biological Opinion indicates the common pest concerns for Cycad are Cycad aulacaspis scale and cycad blue butterfly (Chilades pandava). The Government may conduct visual inspections of plants for signs like white scale, leaf spots, or rot to define disease/pest free.

13. Please clarify the following based on the information provided in Para 5.1.1, Table 1:

a. If the numbers in Table 1 are met along with the criteria for being established in the wild, can the plants be turned over in as little as six months?

ANSWER: No. The Contractor shall monitor/maintain the early-established plants until the Government accepts all transplanted plants established at Tarague FEA.

b. The out-planting quantity is the minimum number of plants to be out planted? Do they have to be genetically unique?

ANSWER: Correct. The out-planting quantity is the minimum number of plants to be outplanted.

Genetically unique individuals shall be transplanted to the maximum extent possible to comply with the Biological Opinion.

c. For T. Rotensis, are there other areas where seeds can be obtained if the plants are not producing seed within the project area during the time before construction starts?

d. Can clusters of T. Rotensis be left standing as clearing occurs in other areas to prolong the window of time for seed collection?

ANSWER: It is the Contractor’s means and methods. The Contractor shall determine.

e. Can T. Rotensis Trees be salvaged by transplanting the whole tree? Would smaller transplanted trees count towards the 63 total (even if they did not count as part of the number of mature trees)?

ANSWER: Refer to the Biological Opinion for the salvaging method of T. Rotensis. The

Contractor shall prepare work plan to describe the seed collection, propagation, and transplant methods to be used for the Government and USFWS approval/concurrence.

f. If an orchid does not survive the salvage and out planting, is there a way to replace it to meet the out-planting quantity requirement?

ANSWER: Refer to the Biological Opinion for Orchids: Bulbophyllum guamense, Dendrobium guamense, Tuberolabium guamense. It indicates “seeds may be collected from other locations on Andersen AFB and propagated and maintained in a nursery until deemed suitable for transplanting to meet replacement goals.”

g. If the plants can be turned over in as little as six months, how does the survival quantity apply?

ANSWER: The Contractor shall monitor the early-established plants until the Government accepts all transplanted plants established at the Tarague FEA. The survival quantity will be applied at the time of turning over for all established plants.

h. For cycads, 74% of salvaged plants must survive 5 years after transplanting. Does the contractor have to monitor and be responsible for replacing cycads to meet the requirement for 5 years?

ANSWER: The survival quantity can be adjusted based on the subsequent years number with the same survival rate, if early turnover is planned. Describe the Contractor’s plan in the Work Plan for the Government and USFWS approval/concurrence.

i. For cycads, does the contractor need to meet the requirement of 89 after the six months of being established in the wild, or after 5 years?

ANSWER: The requirement of 89 can be adjusted at the time of turnover. Provide a detailed plan including the proposed number of plants for the Government and USFWS approval/concurrence.

j. “100% success criteria". To meet a 100% success criteria and account for potential loss during nursery propagation and out planting, more material will need to be collected than will likely occur at the site, particularly if limited seeds are available.

Where can additional material be salvaged?

ANSWER: Refer to the Biological Opinion describing the alternative option to salvage plants or collect seeds outside of P-012 project footprint.

14. Para 5.1.2, Item e. iv stated, “Field data forms that will be used to collect detailed condition of plants during salvage and monitoring and maintenance efforts, database forms, and data entry." Will the Government provide the data collection forms, or can they be developed by the contractor?

ANSWER: The Contractor may determine the data collection forms. However, it is preferred to use a similar format for the Final Biological Assessment report for the project.

15. Para 5.1.3 stated “After the draft Natural Resource Work Plan is approved, perform a field assessment” Are there specifications for the field assessment such as minimum transect width, survey protocols, etc.?

ANSWER: The qualified biologist shall determine. The Final Biological Assessment report for the project can be an example to consider.

16. Para 5.1.3.4 stated “Submit a Natural Resource Field Assessment Report with 30 days upon completion of the Field Assessment.” Is there a draft and final version with CRM?

Will there be enough time to respond to Government comments before the final work plan is due to incorporating the field assessment results (45 days after completion of the field assessment)?

ANSWER: Provide the draft and final versions of Natural Resource Field Assessment Reports for P-012 Construction Footprint and Tarague FEA. Submitting a CD-R is not required.

Assume there will be enough time to address Government comments.

17. Please clarify the following based on the information provided in Para 5.1.3.4.1:

a. “Cycad material classified as good and fair must be considered salvageable and must be included in the collection number.” Are cycads trees or basal shoots to be classified as fair or good?

ANSWER: Comply with the requirements/statements of Biological Opinion. Trees that are in fair or good health shall be considered candidates for salvage and transplant.

b. Please confirm also that collection number is the number of seeds and propagules collected, but not the salvageable quantity.

ANSWER: The collection number is the number of salvageable trees that are in fair or good health.

18. (Para 5.1.3.4.2) What if there are insufficient seeds to meet the out-planting quantity?

Can seeds be collected outside the project boundary?

ANSWER: Yes. Refer to Answers to Question 60, items 12 and 13.

19. Para 5.1.3.4 describes the health of cycads in the FEA along with the observation that some have multiple pups. Can cycads in the FEA be salvaged? Can seeds be collected from the FEA to count towards the success criteria?

ANSWER: If additional seeds or pups are needed, collect seeds or pups outside or near the P-012 construction boundary as indicated in the Biological Opinion. If more seeds or pups are required, collecting them from FEA can be an option upon approval from the Government.

20. Please clarify the following based on the information provided in Para 5.1.4.1.2:

a. "If seeds are not available, the Contractor may pursue plant collection or plant division." Can the Government provide examples of successful methods to propagate T.

Rotensis by plant division?

ANSWER: There is no available guidance or example.

b. How is 'mature' defined for T. Rotensis?

ANSWER: Refer to the Final Biological Assessment report for the project. Will apply the same condition to define the “mature” for the work.

21. Para 5.1.4.1.3 stated “Bulbophyllum guamense, Dendrobium guamense, and Tuberolabium guamense will be considered established following documented observation of new root growth after transplant and root attachment to the host tree."

Can orchids that meet these criteria be immediately turned over to the Government regardless of time since out-planting?

ANSWER: All orchids may be turned over, all at once, once they meet the criteria.

21. Para 5.1.4.2.1 stated “If plants do not meet the survival criteria, implement adaptive management techniques to include, but not limited to, seed collection, tissue germination, and plant division and/or stem cuttings, as suitable to the species, to meet out planting success targets." If the site has already been cleared, where can the additional source material be obtained?

ANSWER: Refer to Answers to Question 60, items 12 and 13.

22. Para 5.1.4.2.2 stated “Invasive species must be removed within a 20-ft (6-m) radius around transplanted vegetation." Please confirm the following:

a. Many locations have an overstory of invasive species such as Vitex parviflora.

Does this requirement mean that all invasive trees must be removed or that plants can't be out planted within 20 feet of an invasive tree?

ANSWER: The project shall comply with the Biological Opinion. Invasive species shall be removed or treated with pesticide/herbicide to improve the native forest and allow for additional native plants to be transplanted into the area. Transplanted Cycas micronesica shall be planted in a suitable microclimate and will be more than 40 ft (12 m) from Vitex parviflora trees if Vitex parviflora removal has not occurred at the time of transplant.

b. In the previous section 5.1.4.2.1 (g), it states that no more than 15% of vegetation is invasive species within the plots. Which is correct?

ANSWER: Section 5.1.4.2.1 (g) will be deleted in forthcoming amendment.

23. Para 5.1.5 stated “Protect and monitor the ESA-listed plant species that are not salvaged within 10 ft (3 m) of the construction perimeter once every 6 months during the entire construction period.” What is monitoring data should be collected?

ANSWER: In accordance with the Biological Opinion, the Contractor shall monitor adverse effects to the monitored plants that are clearly attributed to construction activities (e.g., physical disturbance, dust accumulation, and sedimentation from run-off). If adverse effects are observed, corrective actions shall be implemented.

24. Para 5.2 Item C stated, “Install an approximately 2.5-mile-long permanent ungulate-proof fence along the forest enhancement area.” Please clarify the following:

a. Does the ungulate-proof fence also have to be a BTS barrier? Item d requires removal of BTS, and without a BTS-proof fence they will be impossible to eradicate.

ANSWER: Installing a BTS barrier is not required.

b. Are there other requirements for constructing the ungulate fence such as bat surveys, bio monitors, environmental protection plans, work plans, HACCP plans, etc.?

ANSWER: All environmental requirements and BMP measures shall be implemented to construct an ungulate-proof fence including bat monitoring, environmental protection plan, work plan, HACCP plan, green waste management, etc.

25. Para 5.2 Item D stated, “Remove invasive plant species and invasive species (e.g., CRF, LFA, BTS).” Please clarify the following:

a. Is the contractor responsible for removing ALL invasive species from within the entire Tarague FEA?

ANSWER: Remove invasive species when discovered.

b. How will success be determined? How long must the site remain free for invasive species?

ANSWER: Based on Section 4.0 NR BMP of NR PWS, the Contractor will be required to conduct initial and recurring 4-month surveys. Once discovered, the Contractor must implement the removal activities. Indicate the removal plan in the Work Plan.

c. Are there any examples of complete eradication of any of the 3 example species?

ANSWER: The available guidance is included in PWS, F4. Standard Operating Protocol for the Control and Monitoring of Little Fire Ant (LFA), Wasmannia Auropunctata.

26. Para 5.2 Item E stated, “After the ungulate-proof fencing is installed, eradicate ungulates (pigs and deer) within the fence limit.” Please clarify the following:

a. Is the contractor responsible for hiring hunters to eradicate ungulates? Are there requirements for means and methods? How will success be determined?

ANSWER: Correct. The Contractor must retain a professional ungulate control company or agency. Multiple techniques can be used to eradicate ungulates, including trapping and active shooting. The NR PWS intends to create an ungulate-free area. Provide the successful criteria in the Contractor’s work plan for the Government and USFWS approval and concurrence.

b. Will long-term camera trap monitoring be required? What are the requirements

(number of cameras, spacing, duration, analysis methods, etc.).

ANSWER: Based on the Biological Opinion, ungulate eradication is anticipated to take 18 months. The professional ungulate control company or agency shall determine the means and methods to create the ungulate-free area.

27. Para 5.2 Item E stated, “Any ground-disturbing activities at the Tarague FEA require archaeological monitoring and Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) screening.”

Please clarify the following:

a. Is MEC still required after the recent memo stating that it is no longer needed?

(Refer to Notice # 3)

ANSWER: MEC screening is not required for Tarague FEA.

b. Is the contractor responsible for providing archaeological monitoring? (Confirm)

ANSWER: Correct. The Contractor shall provide archaeological monitoring. Refer to Section 01 57 19, Para 3.4.4 Tarague Forest Enhancement Area (FEA) for archaeological monitoring requirements.

28. In Para. 5.2.1 native seed collection is mentioned. What seeds are expected to be collected? Are there more enhancement activities at the FEA beyond out planting salvaged T&E?

ANSWER: The seed collection will be limited to the T&E species, Cycas and T. Rotensis, within the P-012 Construction Footprint for transplanting to the Tarague FEA. However, additional seed collection is required, it can be done outside of the P-012 Construction Footprint.

29. Please clarify the following based on the information provided in Para 5.2.2:

a. “Provide vegetation clearance and maintenance as needed to ensure integrity of the fence.” Is there a specified length of time for vegetation maintenance?

ANSWER: There is no specified time frame for vegetation maintenance. However, for bidding purposes, assume vegetation clearance and maintenance every two weeks or more frequently as needed. Paragraph 5.2.2 will be revised in forthcoming amendment.

b. “Ungulate fencing must be inspected for breaches, and fencing must be repaired or replaced immediately after detection until the contract is completed." Does a permanent repair need to be implemented immediately, or can a temporary repair (netting) be put in place until a permanent repair can be made? How long can the temporary repair be in place until a permanent repair is implemented?

ANSWER: A permanent repair or replacement must be implemented immediately upon detection.

30. Will an example or template for the Annual Natural Resources Conservation Progress Reports (Para. 5.3.3) be provided?

ANSWER: There is no example of template.

61. Reference: Section 02 61 13 Subject: Excavation and Handling of Contaminated

Material Question/RFI:

1. Please clarify the following based on the information provided in SMP/G-RAM

Submittal List (Para 1.2):

a. What additional sampling does the Government require? What tests methods?

What are volumes of soil to be tested? What is the sampling frequency?

ANSWER: Refer to Answer for Question 59, item 3.

b. Does the Radiation Safety Officer need to be on site for the duration of the project?

ANSWER: Refer to Section 01 35 29. 13 HEALTH, SAFETY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES FOR CONTAMINATED SITES, Part 1.5.3 Radiation Safety Officer (RSO). The RSO must be on-site during construction activities, including screening, managing, handling, packaging, storing, and disposing of G-RAM and LLRW. If the G- RAM/LLRW concerns are mitigated or eliminated, the presence of RSO at the site is not required.

2. Para 1.5.2.3 specifies the contractor to retain a Professional Engineer or an Environmental Consultant to incorporate PFAS testing. What sampling is the Government requiring? What tests methods? What are volumes of soil to be tested?

What is the sampling frequency?

62. Reference: Section 02 61 13 Subject: Soil Management Plan Question/RFI:

1. Para 3.2 stated “The project includes arsenic and lead-impacted soil (Figure 6). Since the area is impacted by PFAS, the project will assume the soil is PFAS-impacted as well.

The anticipated volume is approximately 20 cubic yards. The impacted soil will be excavated and disposed of at a permitted disposal facility. May these 20 cubic yards of soil be entombed with the rest of the PFAS impacted soil?

ANSWER: No. The arsenic and lead-impacted soil must be disposed of. Entombment of the soil will not be allowed.

2. Para 3.6.6 stated “All abandoned waste debris stockpiles and construction and demolition waste/debris including the heavy metals impacted soil must be recycled or disposed of accordingly based on the waste characterization results.” Are the testing results for the stockpiles from soil screening sufficient for reuse or disposal of stockpile soils?

63. Reference: SECTION 02 82 00 Subject: Asbestos Remediation Question/RFI:

1. Para 1.2.27 specifies a Private Qualified Person (PQP). Can the PQP be the "Asbestos

Project Monitor"?

ANSWER: Provide PQP as specified in paragraph 1.2.27.

2. Please confirm that the testing described in Para 1.3.2 Unexpected Discovery of Asbestos includes 150 samples for 50 materials (3 samples of each material).

ANSWER: The Contractor must include asbestos sampling and testing cost for the suspected asbestos containing materials up to 50 materials.

3. Para 3.3.3.1 stated, " Dispose of waste asbestos material at an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or State-approved asbestos landfill off Government property.”

Can this be disposed of in Guam? Does it need to be at a CERCLA facility?

ANSWER: Assumes asbestos containing material can be disposed of at a permitted disposal facility in Guam as non-CERCLA regulated waste.

64. Reference: SECTION 02 82 00 Attachment A Subject: Hazardous Material Survey

Report Question/RFI:

1. Page vi of report stated, “The quantities of materials provided in this report are based on visual approximations only during the survey and must not be used for bidding purposes.” Will more accurate quantities of materials described in the report be provided for bidding purposes?

2. (Page 10, Table 2) The condition of the materials identified as ACM within the Undeveloped Project Area ranged from poor to fair condition. Was the material friable?

Will the soil beneath these materials need to be tested for asbestos?

ANSWER: Assume the ACM found in the undeveloped project area would be friable because they are in poor condition, damaged, aged, or weathered. Refer to Section 02 82 00, Part

3.2.10 Abatement of Asbestos Contaminated Soil, remove a minimum depth of 2 inches in the vicinity of the materials. No soil testing for asbestos will be required.

3. Page iv, Executive Summary stated that there is a transformer that is part of the compound constructed in 1971. Was this tested for PCBs or determined to have labelling that indicates otherwise?

ANSWER: There was no PCB testing for the transformer. No PCB label was found. Assume the transformer is dry type. Refer to Photograph 64-3.

Photograph 64-3. Transformer in the vicinity of IRP Building Compound

4. Appendix E: Laboratory Analytical Reports were not provided. For materials that contain less than 1% asbestos, was any further point count analysis done?

ANSWER: No point count analysis was conducted for the material results with less than 1% asbestos.

5. Will any baseline soil sampling be conducted? How many soil samples are anticipated?

There appear to be areas of bare soil around B2552, but it is unclear if bare soil is around the other facilities.

ANSWER: Refer to Answer for Question 65.

65. Reference: Section 02 83 00 Subject: Lead Remediation Question/RFI: (Para 3.4.1.2

Sampling After Removal). Will any baseline soil sampling be conducted? How many soil samples are anticipated? There appear to be areas of bare soil around B2552, but it is unclear if bare soil is around the other facilities.

ANSWER: Refer to the Soil Screening Survey Report attached in Section 02 61 13 for the available soil sampling results. The Contractor’s qualified person shall determine the sampling requirements for lead remediation. The vicinity of B2550 and B2551 is paved (Photograph 65-1). There is bare soil around B2552 (Photograph 65-2).

Photograph 65-1. B2550 and B2551

Photograph 65-2. B2552

66. Reference: Section 31 00. Para 3.3.3, Drawing CG144 Subject: Electrical Resistivity

Tomography (ERT)Question/RFI:

1. Will the ERT testing areas be cleared of vegetation/obstructions prior testing?

ANSWER: Contractor to remove vegetation to conduct ERT testing.

2. Can GPR be used alongside ERT testing to supplement subsurface characterization?

ANSWER: Yes, GPR can be used to supplement ERT.

3. General Notes Item A indicates hiring a full-time hydro geologist (with Guam EPA approved credentials) who must be present when earthwork is being performed. Please confirm whether the hydrogeologist’s presence is required for the full duration of all earthwork operations, or only during initial grading activities involving disturbance of native soil (e.g., the first several lifts). Specifically, once native ground/soil is no longer being exposed or disturbed, could the hydrogeologist’s onsite presence be on an as-requested basis?

ANSWER: See Specification 01 45 00 and 31 00 00 for requirements

4. A minimum of 10 ERT lines for Area 1 (4.4 acres) extending 100 feet beyond the mapped extents of existing sinkhole. Based on the maximum array spacing of 100 feet, each array line would require a minimum length of approximately 640 feet to cover Area 1 plus the 100-foot perimeter extension. Ten lines would therefore result in approximately 6,400 linear feet of ERT testing. This differs from the 5,000 minimum linear feet indicated on Drawing CG144, which equates to approximately 500 feet per line if 10 lines are assumed. Please clarify the required minimum total linear footage of ERT testing for Area 1 and for the unmapped sinkhole areas (37,000 feet).

ANSWER: See Amendment No. 0002 that revised to reflect 42,000 LF of ERT, which includes 5,000 lf for the existing sinkhole in area A1, and 37,000 lf for unmapped sinkholes located in areas outside of A1. ERT testing is specified to extend beyond the mapped sinkhole perimeter by 100-ft, which does not need to extend beyond the limits of Area A1 unless the 100-ft extent requires extending ERT beyond the area A1 limit.

5. For unmapped sinkhole areas requiring additional ERT testing, please clarify whether a pair of perpendicular ERT lines (one line across the sinkhole with a second line perpendicular to it), or if a grid pattern like Area 1 is required. If a grid pattern is required, please provide the minimum number of ERT lines and the required spacing.

ANSWER: For unmapped sinkholes that have a minor-axis cross-sectional dimension at the ground surface of less than 100-ft, a grid-based pattern of perpendicular pairs of ERT lines is recommended, with a minimum of 4 total ERT lines with a spacing between parallel ERT lines of 50 feet. Perpendicular pairs of ERT lines should have one ERT line that is parallel with the sinkhole’s minor-axis, and the other ERT line parallel with the sinkhole’s major-axis, where the ERT lines should be positioned to contain the sinkhole within the interior area enclosed by the ERT lines. If the sinkhole cannot fit completely within this enclosed area, additional ERT lines shall be located at a 50-ft spacing until the areas enclosed by the ERT lines completely contain the sinkhole’s ground surface dimensions. This approach can be used for sinkholes having a minor-axis cross-section dimensions of 100-ft or greater, however the spacing between parallel ERT lines will be 100-ft. The Contractor is to determine the grid-pattern and orientation as vegetation is cleared and the hydrogeologist determines the extents of the unmapped sinkhole. All ERT lines will extend 100-ft beyond the perimeter of the sinkhole feature. All other requirements of specification 31 00 00 still apply.

67. Reference: Site Details Drawing CS131 – CS146, CS503 Subject: Signage & Pavement

Markings Question/RFI: No Outlet Signage & Fire Lane Marking is shown in Site Details (CS503). However, we were unable to identify the location in Pavement Marking Plan (CS131-CS146). Please provide.

ANSWER: All Fire Lane Marking was removed from plan set. Detail D5 will be removed in a

68. Reference: Drawing CG141 Subject: Detention Area Question/RFI: Please provide the cross-section details of Detention Area (Keynotes 493) shown in drawing CG141.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

69. Reference: Spec Section 32 13 14.13, 1.4.1 g: Will the Slipform Manufacturer be allowed to perform the complete and full hydraulic test on the mainland before shipping of the equipment? Slipform manufacturer has indicated they will not send a manufacturers to Guam given the time they would need to be so far away.

ANSWER: Bid as specified. Manufacturer’s Representative needs to be on site during test section per specifications.

70. Reference: Spec Section 32 13 14.13, 1.4.6 a: Where will the Workshop take place?

Clearly different coordination and cost between Guam, Hawaii or the mainland. Most of the time USACE has personnel based in Omaha so I would assume Hawaii or the Main Land to be appropriate.

ANSWER: The workshop will take place on the Island of Guam per Section 1.5.

71. Reference: Spec Section 32 13 14.13, 1.4.8.1 states that a lot is 1000 CY. Given the main lanes are 1305 x 18.75’ x 14” deep those lanes would be approximately 1058 CY neat line. Can the lot size be increased to 1200 CY in order to accommodate this?

ANSWER: Bid as specified

72. Reference: Spec Section 32 13 14.13, There appears to be a section for profilographing missing. In 32 12 16.16 it is located in 1.5.9.2.2 and shows the blanking band and what is the play reduction factor in inches per mile. In 32 13 13.14 there is a not a section showing this criteria.

ANSWER: Profilograph information will be revised in a forthcoming amendment.

73. Reference: Spec Section 32 13 14.13, 2.1.5: Can core holes be filled with the approved airfield concrete mix in lieu of patching materials?

ANSWER: Bid as specified

74. Drawing EA101 for the Airfield lighting mentions the contractor is responsible for modifying the lighting control system to include the computer system. There is no 25 05 11 specification provided for the Airfield lighting as well as it is not addressed in the 01 35 13.04 30. 25 05 11 only addresses AMI and Utility Control System. The 01 35 13.04 spec only applies to AMI, Utility Control System and Outside plant. Is the contractor responsible for any cybersecurity on the lighting system?

ANSWER: There is NO requirement for cybersecurity for the existing airfield lighting computer system.

75. Section 3.4 of the 01 35 13.04 30 specification calls out a cyber hygiene checklist. Which version should be used and who will provide and editable version of the checklist?

ANSWER: Section 01 35 13.04 30, paragraph 3.4a., has an email address for the AAFB 36 CES

ISO/ISSM (36ces.cen.andersenafbprojects@us.af.mil) office and may be contacted to get the current editable version of the checklist.

76. Specification 01 35 13.04 30 narrative indicates all STIGS, Checklist and Cyber Hygiene

Checklist must be filled out to acceptable standards. Please define acceptable standards.

ANSWER: Section 01 35 13.04 30, paragraph 3.4a., has an email address for the 36 CES ISO/ISSM (36ces.cen.andersenafbprojects@us.af.mil) office and may be contacted.

77. Section 00 21 16, Paragraph C. Question: Para. c. Subcontracting Plan identifies that an original paper and one (1) paper copy of the Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted by 30 April 2026, 2:00p HST. Given that subcontractors often submit pricing up to the price proposal due date time, it can be challenging for prime contractors to fully incorporate all subcontractor information into the Subcontracting Plan when the plan is due within the short duration of one day after the pricing. To address this, we respectfully request NAVFAC consider allowing the Subcontracting Plan submission to be due five (5) calendar days after the price proposal. This additional time would help ensure that all subcontractor inputs are accurately reflected and incorporated, and that the Subcontracting Plan provides a complete and responsive plan for anticipated small business utilization for this project.

ANSWER: RFP remains unchanged.

78. Section 01 45 00, Part 1.6.5. Question: Per Specification Section 01 45 00, Part 1.6.5, the

Quality Control Hydrogeologist Specialist (QCHS) must be a degreed geologist with 10+ years of experience in groundwater aquifers and GEPA “Protection of Sinkholes” which will be present full-time during karst mitigation. Additionally, the specification requires a second Hydrogeologist with a minimum of 5 years of experience and Guam EPA-approved credentials to be present daily for full site coverage.

In professional practice, personnel with 10+ years of specialized experience typically provide senior technical oversight and management rather than continuous field presence.

It is also rare for a hydrogeologist to provide full-time monitoring of grading operations.

This seems redundant with the requirement for a Geotechnical/Geologic Field Representative role during grading, as the hydrogeologist can provide as-needed support if/when conditions requiring their input arise.

We propose providing daily field support through qualified Geotechnical/Geological Field Representatives with technical oversight by a licensed, senior-level Hydrogeologist that will serve as the QCHS during key construction milestones and activities. He will be available to address hydrogeologic concerns if/when they arise. Please confirm if acceptable.

ANSWER: No. RFP remains unchanged.

79. Section 01 45 00. Question: Please clarify the specific "Guam EPA-approved" credentials required for the hydrogeologist role.

ANSWER: The credentials required for hydrogeologist roles are provided in specification section 01 45 00.

80. Section 01 45 00. Question: Please clarify the specific difference in responsibilities between the QCHS and the regular hydrogeologist.

ANSWER: The QCHS supervises the work performed by the regular hydrogeologist, and provides technical assistance to the regular hydrogeologist.

81. Section 01 45 00. Question: Is the proposed approach—utilizing Field Representatives for daily coverage with senior QCHS oversight at critical stages—acceptable to the Government?

ANSWER: No. RFP Remains unchanged.

82. Section 07 84 00, Firestopping - We were unable to identify the location of the firestopping requirements in the RFP drawings. Please provide.

ANSWER: Specification Section 07 84 00, Firestopping may be disregarded, no firestopping scope in this project. This will be removed from the Specifications and reflected in

83. Section 09 97 13.27, High Performance Coating for Steel Structures - We were unable to identify the location of the high-performance coating for steel structure in the RFP drawings. Please provide.

ANSWER: Refer to Specification section 09 97 13.27 Para 3.2 for surfaces to be coated. Valves of carbon steel construction within vaults must be coated in accordance with Section 09 97 13.27

84. Drawings S-101 & A2/S-501 - Interior Bollards - General Notes [on Drawing S-101], Item H, indicates “Coordinate bollard locations w/ architectural drawings.” However, location of bollards is not shown in architectural drawings. Please provide.

ANSWER: Drawing Detail S-101 & A2/S-501 - Interior Bollards may be disregarded and will be removed from the set and reflected in forthcoming amendment.

85. DWG SHEETS CD102 & CD103 AND ED101 & ED102

CIVIL DRAWINGS -DEMOLITION PLAN - AREA 1 & AREA 2 - shows a

KEYNOTE 129 " REMOVE EXISTING TAXIWAY EDGE LIGHT AND REPLACE

WITH BLANK COVERS, RE: ED101" however ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS - ELECTRICAL DEMOLITION PLAN 1 & 2- Shows Keyed Note 007 "REMOVE EXISTING TAXIWAY EDGE LIGHT AND BASE CAN...".