26R1300_Note7.pdf

RFP N62742-26-R-1300

Notice No. 7

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND PACIFIC

258 MAKALAPA DR STE 100

PEARL HARBOR HI 96860-3134

15 May 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 RESPONSE FROM NOTICE NO.5 DATED 9 APRIL 2026

39. 1. CLIN 0001AD states that “The basis for SLIN 0001AD is for One-Day Cultural Resources

Feature Investigations for project P-012 in accordance with drawings and specifications”.

Question: Please clarify in detail what is included in the CLIN 0001AD like how many Archaeologist?

2. CLIN 0001AE states that “Cultural Resources Post Review Discovery (Small Sites)The basis for SLIN 0001AE are Cultural Resources Post Review Discovery for small sites (equal to or less than 0.5 hectares) for project P-012 in accordance with drawings and specifications”.

Question: Please clarify in detail what is included in the CLIN 0001AE like how many features, what is the size of the features, etc.?

Question: What is the definition and detail of “Small Sites”?

3. CLIN 0001AF states that “Cultural Resources Post Review Discovery (Large Sites) The basis for SLIN 0001AF is a Cultural Resources Post Review Discovery for a large site (greater than 0.5 hectares) for project P-012in accordance with drawings and specifications”.

Question: Please clarify in detail what is included in the CLIN 0001AF like how many features, what is the size of the features, etc.?

Question: What is the definition and detail of “Large Sites”?

4. CLIN 0001AG states that “Cultural Resources Post Review Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains) The basis for SLIN 0001AG are Cultural Resources Post Review Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains for project P-012 in accordance with drawings and specifications”.

Question: Please clarify in detail what is included in the CLIN 0001AG like how many humans remains, what is the size of the area with human remain, how many locations, etc.?

ANSWER:

1. The intent of SLIN 0001AD is to inspect suspected archaeological resources, if discovered, to determine the nature, context, and preliminary significance in accordance with SOP #8 Post-Review Discovery of Archaeological Remains, including preparation and implementation of a treatment plan including testing and analysis and preparation of required reports. The data recovery plan attached in Section 01 57 19 provides general archaeological information for the site. Assume the suspected findings are small and the inspection can be completed in one day by a qualified archaeologist. Provide an inspection report including findings, preliminary significance, photographs, and recommendations. (NOTE: The treatment plan is to be included in SD-01 Pre-Construction Submittals, Archaeological Monitoring and Discovery Plan, of Section 01 57 19, and the cost included in SLIN 0001AA.)

All plans and reports must be reviewed and approved by the Government and Guam

SHPO.

2. The SLIN 0001AE specifies that the size of a small site is equal to or less than 0.5 hectares. The data recovery shall be conducted in accordance with the SOP #8 Post- Review Discovery of Archeological Remains, including preparation and implementation of a treatment plan including testing and analysis and preparation of required reports. The data recovery plan attached in Section 01 57 19 provides general archaeological information for the site. The bidders must determine the level of effort, including the anticipated number and size of features. (NOTE: The treatment plan is to be included in SD-01 Pre-Construction Submittals, Archaeological Monitoring and Discovery Plan, of Section 01 57 19, and the cost included in SLIN 0001AA.) All plans and reports must be reviewed and approved by the Government and Guam SHPO.

3. The SLIN 0001AF specifies that the size of a large site is greater than 0.5 hectares.

The data recovery shall be conducted in accordance with the SOP #8 Post-Review Discovery of Archeological Remains, including preparation and implementation of a treatment plan including testing and analysis and preparation of required reports. The data recovery plan attached in Section 01 57 19 provides general archaeological information for the site. The bidders must determine the level of effort, including the anticipated number and size of features. (NOTE: The treatment plan is to be included in SD-01 Pre-Construction Submittals, Archaeological Monitoring and Discovery Plan, of Section 01 57 19, and the cost included in SLIN 0001AA.) All plans and reports must be reviewed and approved by the Government and Guam

SHPO.

4. The SLIN 0001AG is to recover a burial in accordance with the SOP #9 Post-Review Discovery of Human Remains. The Contractor shall prepare and implement a burial treatment plan, including testing and analysis, and preparation of required reports.

(NOTE: The treatment plan is to be included in SD-01 Pre-Construction Submittals, Archaeological Monitoring and Discovery Plan, of Section 01 57 19, and the cost included in SLIN 0001AA.) All plans and reports must be reviewed and approved by the Government and Guam SHPO.

Revisions will be made in a forthcoming amendment.

REVISED RESPONSE FROM NOTICE NO.6 DATED 17 APRIL 2026

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 C1/EF504 will be updated to list 3,500psi in a forthcoming amendment

DEFERRED RESPONSES FOR NOTICE NO.6 DATED 17 APRIL 2026:

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: Andersen AFB will ensure that the containers are removed from the site no later than

November 2026.

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?

ANSWER: The 2003 report is not available. The summary of results will be provided in the Final Record of Decision for Site 78 (August 2014), to be issued in a forthcoming amendment.

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

Work Statement (NR PWS) Question/RFI:

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

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?

ANSWER: Additional seed collection will be allowed from outside the P-012 project boundary, if required. The Contractor may include the alternative areas for seed collection in the Work Plan.

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: No cross-section detail of the Detention Area is available.

RESPONSES FOR NOTICE NO.7:

105. Reference Price Proposal Schedule SLINs (0001AD / 0001AE)

Please clarify the Government’s expectations regarding reporting requirements.

Specifically, if any of these option SLINs are exercised, does the Government require a separate standalone report to be prepared for each feature or site investigation, or may the results be incorporated into cultural resources monitoring or data recovery reports that are part of the base contract scope?

Please confirm how reporting for these option SLINs should be handled for pricing and scope purposes.

ANSWER: See response for Question 39.

106. Reference: Specification 01 45 00, paragraph 1.6.5, Experience Matrix

a) Please clarify what certifications, licenses, registrations, or other qualifications are intended to satisfy the requirement for “Guam EPA recognized” credentials for the hydrogeologist role.

b) Please clarify the distinction in roles and responsibilities between the Quality Control

Hydrogeologist Specialist (QCHS) identified on page 12 and the Hydrogeologist referenced on page 13, as these appear to represent potentially distinct roles.

c) Please confirm whether the following staffing approach is acceptable:

Daily onsite coverage provided by qualified Geotechnical/Geologic Field Representatives, with a licensed senior hydrogeologist designated as the QCHS providing oversight. The QCHS would be present during critical phases of work and available to provide technical direction as needed when hydrogeologic conditions warrant. This approach aligns with typical industry practice, where senior hydrogeologists are engaged in an oversight capacity rather than a continuous full-time onsite presence, particularly when field representatives are already assigned to monitor earthwork activities.

ANSWER: Response deferred.

107. Specification, 31 00 00, indicates that Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) will be used to inform karst mitigation measures. Additional clarity would be helpful regarding how ERT results are to be interpreted and applied contractually.

Please clarify whether the Designer of Record (DOR) will provide interpretation of ERT results and direction regarding required mitigation measures, or the Contractor and its Geotechnical Quality Control (GTQC) team are expected to interpret ERT results and determine appropriate mitigation measures.

This clarification will assist in ensuring responsibilities are aligned with contract intent.

ANSWER: The ERT work will be performed by the Contractor’s geophysicist team at karst feature locations confirmed by the Contractor’s hydrogeological team. The Contractor’s hydrogeological team is responsible for interpretation of ERT results, among the other responsibilities of their roles, and coordinating the direction for mitigation measures with the Contractor. As identified in the specifications, this information will be presented as a submittal for review by the Contracting Officers, DOR, and GEPA, followed by the approval process required for release of the work.

108. As required under Section 31 00 00 – Earthwork, subsurface investigation results are used to identify the extent of karst features and inform mitigation decisions. ERT is an interpretive geophysical method, and in some cases, results may be inconclusive or subject to multiple interpretations.

When ERT results are inconclusive, discontinuous, or ambiguous, please advise on the preferred process for proceeding, including:

• Whether supplemental investigation is required;

• Whether written direction will be provided regarding the need for karst mitigation

• Whether alternative decision criteria will be used to establish the appropriate mitigation approach; and Whether such direction will be issued by the Designer of Record (DOR) or the Government.

109. Reference: Specification, 31 00 00, paragraph 3.3.3

The ERT program described in the specifications represents a specialized scope that typically requires involvement from experienced geophysical professionals. At present, these resources are not readily available on-island, and implementation would likely require support from an off-island geophysical consultant team.

Full-time onsite presence of multiple geophysical personnel (e.g., project geophysicist, QC geophysicist, and survey team) for the duration of the work may result in significant mobilization and staffing costs that may not be commensurate with the value added— particularly given current capabilities for remote data review, interpretation, and technical oversight.

In practice, geophysical investigations are often executed with onsite field crews supported by remote senior-level specialists who provide data interpretation, quality control, and technical direction at key stages.

With this in mind, would the Government consider an alternative approach where qualified onsite personnel perform the field data acquisition, with a senior QC geophysicist providing oversight during critical phases (e.g., survey planning, initial data acquisition, and interpretation) and remaining available for consultation as needed throughout the project?

110. Due to the number of concurrent NAVFAC solicitations currently out for bid, combined with the overall complexity of this project—including specialized scopes such as Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) and Hazardous Materials—our subcontractors and key suppliers have requested additional time to thoroughly review the RFP and prepare complete and accurate pricing.

In order to allow offerors sufficient time to fully understand and address all technical, environmental, and contractual requirements, we respectfully request a minimum six (6) week extension to the current proposal due date of April 29, 2026.

ANSWER: The proposal due date was extended to 3 June 2026 in Amendment No. 0003.

111. Due to the mention of a forthcoming amendment that has not been released, and any pertinent information it contains for proposal preparation, we respectfully request a due date extension to Friday May 29, 2026.

ANSWER: Refer to Question 110.

112. Section 32 12 15.13, para. 1.8 - There are no USACE validated laboratories in Guam.

However, all these commercial laboratories are ASTM D3666 compliant by various national accrediting agencies such as IAS, AASHTO and A2LA. Please allow the use of these local labs to perform the tests required for this project.

ANSWER: Bid as specified.

113. Sections 32 12 15.13 / 32 12 16.16, para. 2.2.3 and para 2.1.3 accordingly - We recommend deleting this requirement for Material Transfer Vehicles. We have successfully completed similar projects without its use, and have efficiently paved airfields that met required grade and smoothness including profile index using a profilograph.

114. Sections 32 12 15.13 / 32 12 16.16, para. 2.5 - We recommend removing the stipulation for “baghouse fines must not be used to remove fines to meet specified gradations must be deleted. This restriction limits the hot mix asphalt producer’s ability to optimize and adjust the mix design based on the plant’s capability.

115. Section 32 12 15.13, para. 3.1.5, Table 10 - Table 10 discusses pay adjustments for mat and joint densities and air voids but there are no guidelines or table for pay factor calculations. Please clarify acceptance criteria or requirements.

ANSWER: Will add percent payment paragraphs in a forthcoming amendment.

116. Section 32 12 15.13, para. 3.9.3 - We request that the language in sub paragraph (c) be deleted and allow the contractor to use steel wheel roller in lieu of using at least one rubber tire roller when constructing the surface lift along the HMA and PCCP joints. We have established a methodology to prevent spalling of adjacent concrete pavement joint interface.

117. Drawing Sheet CS501, Detail D4 - Drawing detail requires 5% of asphalt taper beyond the edge of roadway. Based on the 5% required slope, the 3” thick pavement mat will run at least 60 inches. At the end of the taper, aggregates will be dragging due to lack of covering. We hereby request to use the standard wedge attachment for asphalt spreaders (see attached brochure). This attachment is approved and recommended by Federal Highway Administration.

ANSWER: CS501, Detail 4 will be revised in a forthcoming amendment to provide a hard edge in lieu of a tapered edge.

118. Drawing sheet TS-701 - Drawing TS-701 General notes refer to TN-100 series sheets for telecom duct bank routing. Please advise if these will be provided for this RFP.

ANSWER: Reference to TN100 series will be updated to indicate TS100 series.

119. ES-201 and ES-505 - Drawing ES-201 says to tap to street lighting circuit on existing panelboard "ST" and provide 2P, 208 V, 30A breaker on existing space. However, SL-1 luminare for street lighting on Light fixture schedule, Sheet ES-505 shows voltage of 120V. Kindly advise.

ANSWER: On, Drawing ES105 Keyed Note 2 will be updated to indicate “ 2P, 480V 30A”. On

Drawing ES505 the light fixture schedule will be updated to 480V for fixture SL1. These drawings will be updated in Amendment.

120. AM0002, Document 00 21 16, Para. 1.1 Number of Copies/Time of Receipt, identifies item (2) Signed and completed Bid Guarantee, however there is no additional instruction.

Please confirm if the original bid bond with wet signatures and seals is required, or if an electronic copy may be provided, with the original provided at award.

ANSWER: Offerors shall be responsible for providing a Bid Guarantee (e.g., Bid Bond) and supporting documents in accordance with applicable provisions and clauses of the RFP.

121. In the aftermath of the powerful Typhoon Sinlaku that struck Guam earlier this week, the island has suffered substantial damage, including extensive flooding that’s left much of the island underwater. Additionally, strong high winds have damaged utilities resulting in island-wide power and internet outages as well. As the island begins urgent recovery operations, we respectfully request at least a two-week extension to our current proposal due date, to allow our on-island contractor teams, our subcontractors, and our vendors time away from work to safely help their families and their businesses recover and return to normal operations, from the resulting storm damage impacts.

122. Karst Feature Plan Drawings CG144 – ERT Survey Lines

The Contract Documents reference a total of approximately 42,000 linear feet of Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) survey; however, the documents do not clearly define the number of survey lines, individual line lengths, or anticipated distribution of the lines across the project area. This information is critical for geophysical subcontractors to develop an accurate and competitive bid, as mobilization, equipment configuration, and data acquisition time are directly dependent on the number and length of individual ERT lines rather than total linear footage alone. Please clarify the anticipated number of ERT survey lines and their approximate individual lengths (or provide a representative layout) or confirm whether the Contractor is expected to determine the line configuration independently to achieve the specified total linear footage.

123. Specification 31 00 00, Para. 3.3.3 – Onsite Presence Requirement for QC Geophysicist

The Contract Documents require that both the QC Geophysicist and Geophysical Survey Team Leader be present on site for the duration of ERT field operations. Given the remote location of Guam and the lack of on-the-island geophysical consultants, the ERT work will require mobilization of off island specialists.

In current industry practice, particularly for ERT surveys, the QC Geophysicist’s review of data quality and results is commonly performed remotely, allowing for efficient overnight data processing and review due to time zone differences, without compromising data quality or compliance with ASTM standards while the site work is carried out by the Project Geophysicist.

Requiring full time on site presence for both roles for the entire duration of ERT activities will result in a significant increase in project cost without a corresponding increase in technical value, as the QC Geophysicist would not be performing field data acquisition.

Please clarify whether NAVFAC will consider allowing the QC Geophysicist’s role to be performed remotely (with on site presence at project initiation), consistent with standard geophysical practice and the logistical constraints of Guam, while maintaining on site presence of the Geophysical Survey Team Leader during ERT operations.

124. Specification 31 00 00, Para. 3.3.3 & Drawing CG146 – Karst Feature Detail

Spec Section 3.3.3 details the requirement for the Contractor's hydrogeologist or geotechnical engineer to provide GPS coordinates for the approximate center points of all encountered sinkholes requiring repair, as well as perimeter coordinates for any sinkhole throat wider than 6 feet. For these larger features, the specifications also require that measurements and photographs be included within the Karst Feature Repair Methodology and Hydrogeologic Assessment Report.

Because sinkholes or subsurface cavities may lack visible surface expression, opening, or other indication, and may also be infilled with silt, clay, which is typical here in Guam, they may not always be detectable via ERT. Given that Plan Sheet CG146 establishes throat width as the primary basis for the repair methodology in Zones 1 and 2, please clarify how the Contractor should satisfy these documentation and measurement requirements for features that remain hidden or obscured below the surface. Additionally, based on our experience in Guam, many subsurface voids and cavities are at least partially infilled with silts or clays, which can make the specified repair methodologies difficult to implement as written. We would appreciate guidance on how these conditions are intended to be addressed, and whether alternative or field-adjusted repair approaches may be considered to accommodate the subsurface conditions.

125. Specification 32 12 15.13, Para 2.4, and Specification 32 12 16.16, Para 2.3 – Asphalt

Binder

Local asphalt paving contractor requested to use Viscosity-Graded Asphalt Binder AR8000 conforming to ASTM D3381. Almost all NAVFAC projects have approved the use of asphalt binder AR8000. NAVFACs response via Notice 5 declined the request.

If we bring the specified asphalt binder per RFP, the cost of purchasing heated storage tanks, installation, and purchasing asphalt shipping containers will be a significant additional amount to the project cost.

In this regard, we hereby ask for your reconsideration and approve the use of AR8000 binder for this project bid.

126. We respectfully requests a bid due date extension for the above-referenced project due to impacts caused by Typhoon Sinlaku, which recently devastated Guam.

As a result of Typhoon Sinlaku, a significant portion of the island experienced prolonged outages, including loss of power, potable water, and communication services for at least one week. These conditions materially disrupted normal business operations, access to offices, coordination with subcontractors and suppliers, and preparation of complete and responsive bid submissions.

Given these circumstances, we respectfully request a minimum one (1) week extension of the bid due date, as follows:

Current Bid Due Date: May 13, 2026 (HST) Requested Revised Bid Due Date: May 20, 2026 (HST)

Granting this extension will help ensure fair competition and allow offerors adequate time to prepare thorough and responsive bids following the island-wide disruption caused by the typhoon.

127. Please confirm the trench detail C1/EF504 is for fuel comm line.

ANSWER: Correct.

128. Please confirm that a reinforced ductbank(C1/EF504) is not required for the fuel comm line located outside of the roadway or paved areas. Non-paved area can be used the same detail without the reinforcement.

ANSWER: Correct. Note 2 on C1/EF504 confirms this. Rebar and tie reinforcement is only required under roadways and paved roads and 5' beyond those crossings. If it’s not under a paved area or roadway then it doesn't need reinforcement.

129. Please confirm whether probing and grouting are required for the hydrant outlet pit, high point vent pit, and isolation valve vault.

ANSWER: Probing and grouting are not required for the hydrant outlet pit, high point vent pit, or isolation valve vault, as no such work is indicated on the drawings, and Division 31 only requires probing and grouting where specifically shown on the plans.

130. Reference drawing TS701, please advise many existing conduits or pathways required 1-

3” -3 cell maxcell innerduct in Ductway ID - X1.

ANSWER: New innerduct is to be installed to support new cabling and is not in every existing conduit.Per the description in the Communication Backbone Cable Schedule on sheet

TS701, PROVIDE (1) 3" 3-CELL FABRIC MESH INNERDUCT IN EXISTING

PATHWAYS WHERE NEW CABLING WILL BE INSTALLED

131. If the 2-12 strand fiber optic (FO) cable are in one cell only or each cable to be in a separate cell of maxcell? Also, please let us know if each cables requires a separate splice closures or if these 2-12 fiber cables will use one splice closure only?

ANSWER: Multiple cables can be run in the same innerduct cell. Separate splice enclosures are not required for each cable. Detail A2 on sheet TS502 shows multiple cables in the same innerduct cell.

132. If the 3-72 strand FO cables are in one cell only or each cable to be in a separate cell of maxcell? Also, please let us know if each cables requires a separate splice closure or if these 3- 72 strand fiber cable will utilize one splice closure only?

ANSWER: Multiple cables can be run in the same innerduct cell. Separate splice enclosures are not required for each cable. Detail A2 on sheet TS502 shows multiple cables in the same innerduct cell.

133. If the intent of this project is to install 1- FO cable per cell of maxcell?

ANSWER: Multiple cables can be run in the same innerduct cell. Detail A2 on sheet TS502 shows multiple cables in the same innerduct cell.

134. If the 1-300 Pair of copper is to be installed in a separate conduit and no Maxcell is needed?

ANSWER: All cables must be installed in innerduct. Per the description in the Communication

Backbone Cable Schedule on sheet TS701, PROVIDE (1) 3" 3-CELL FABRIC MESH

INNERDUCT IN EXISTING PATHWAYS WHERE NEW CABLING WILL BE

INSTALLED

135. Please confirm if cable construction is OS1 or OS2. Reference Drawing TS701 under cable schedule fiber cables are OSP, OS1(Tight Buffer) construction and specification section 33 82 00 Par 2.8.2 FO Cable is OSP Loose buffer (OS2).

136. Please let us know if the cutting and splicing of cables required to do outside the regular working hours?

ANSWER: Per Communications Backbone Cable Schedule, Description, on Drawing TS701, coordinate cutover with communication squadron.

137. Because of power outages, flooding and structural damage due to the super typhoon

Sinlaku, local subcontractors have been without power or the ability to work for up to a week.

We respectfully request that the Government extend the due date by at least 10 days;

several areas on the island of Guam are still without power.

138. Specification 32 11 20, Para 2.1.1, Rigid Paving Basecourse

Specification has a “Maximum of 50% on the CBR”. A maximum CBR of 50% would indicate a lower quality product that would be of Clayey Sand/ Silty Soils. We believe the word "Maximum" is a typo and should indicate "Minimum" (Note: Local quarry products/basecourses range well above the 50% CBR threshold). Please clarify.

ANSWER: The table in Specification 32 11 20, Para 2.1.1 should indicate a “Minimum” CBR value of 50%. Specification will be revised in a forthcoming amendment.

139. Drawing Sheets CF101, CF501, Steel Pipe Casing under the Taxilanes

General Note A on Drawing CF101 states to provide two 200 linear foot sections of 18-inch diameter standard weight steel casing pipes for future installation of 12-inch fuel transfer line under taxilanes. Standard weight 18-inch steel pipe would have 0.375-inch wall thickness. However, Detail A1/CF501 calls out 18-inch schedule 80 carbon steel casing pipe, which has a 0.938-inch wall thickness.

Due to the conflict with these two drawings, please clarify and confirm the correct wall thickness needed for the 18-inch steel casing pipe.

Will both ERW pipe and seamless carbon steel pipe be acceptable for the casing pipe?

Please confirm whether any interior or exterior coating is required for the 18-inch casing pipe. If so, please provide specifications for the coating.

ANSWER: Contractor must provide Schedule 80 CS casing pipe. No exceptions to either ERW or seamless for the casing pipe. Section 33 52 43.13 will be updated with casing pipe material. Provide exterior and interior coating of CS pipe in accordance with UFGS 33 52 80 Para 1.2. A forthcoming amendment will delete General Note A on Drawing CF101.

140. Section 33 52 80, Exterior Coating of Buried Stainless-Steel Pipes

As a follow-up to pre-proposal questions & answers #12 and #13 issued in Notice No. 4, RFI’s response states that the required exterior coating for buried stainless steel pipe must be in accordance with Section 33 52 80, paragraph 2.1 and 2.2. As previously stated in the pre-proposal question, Section 33 52 80 currently calls for AWWA C213 Fusion Bond Epoxy to be shop-applied to the exterior of buried stainless-steel pipe.

Based on prior experience working on DoD hydrant fueling projects, we have not been able to find any domestic coaters that can apply AWWA C213 FBE to the exterior of stainless-steel pipe. Requesting NAVFAC to provide contractors with at least three recommended domestic applicators/coaters that can apply the AWWA C213 to the exterior of stainless-steel pipe.

ANSWER: Section 33 52 80 will be updated in a forthcoming amendment to provide AWWA

C215 Extruded Polyolefin Coating in lieu of AWWA C213 FBE, in the event the

Contractor is unable to find coating applicators that can apply AWWA C213 FBE to the exterior of stainless-steel pipe.

141. With reference to Drawing TS701, please clarify the following:

1. How many existing conduits or pathways require a 1-3”-3 cell maxcell in Ductway ID

- X1?

2. Whether the 2-12 strand fiber optic (FO) cables are to be installed in one cell only, or if each cable is to be installed in a separate cell of maxcell?

3. Whether the 3-72 strand FO cables are to be installed in one cell only, or if each cable is to be installed in a separate cell of maxcell?

4. Whether the intent of this project is to install 1- FO cable per cell of maxcell?

5. Whether the 1-300 Pair of copper is to be installed in a separate conduit and no Maxcell is required?

ANSWER: Refer to Questions 130 – 134.

142. Please clarify whether the fiber cable construction is OS1 or OS2. Drawing TS701, under the Cable Schedule, indicates OSP OS1 (tight buffer), while Specification Section 33 82 00, Paragraph 2.8.2, indicates OSP loose buffer (OS2).

ANSWER: Refer to Question 135.

143. With reference to Drawing Sheet ES505, fixture types A1A and A1B are shown; however, their complete descriptions are not indicated in the Light Fixture Schedule. Kindly provide this information.

ANSWER: Fixtures indicated as A1A and A1B are fixture A1. Drawing ES505 will be updated to reflect this in a forthcoming amendment.

144. With reference to drawing sheet ES503, Detail 2, kindly provide the complete dimensions of the precast electrical pull box.

ANSWER: The depth of the hand hole will be 24 inches. Drawing ES503 will be updated to reflect this in in a forthcoming amendment.

145. With reference to Drawing ES505, Detail 4, which states: “Provide lightning protection air terminal on top of the high mast pole. Route the down conductor to a 10’ x ¾” ground rod at the base of the foundation,” kindly clarify the complete specification of the lightning air terminal. Additionally, please confirm the type and size of the down conductor.

ANSWER: The air terminal must be 24” copper blunt tip. The down conductor must be Class II copper down conductor per NFPA 780. Note 3 will be modified in a forthcoming amendment.

146. During the site visit, there were a couple of office containers stacked along the access road toward existing Buildings 2550 & 2551, please confirm that removal of these containers are not part of this project scope of works and that they will be moved prior to start of work.

ANSWER: Refer to response for Q54.

147. During the site visit, there were a couple of Jet Blast Panel/ Wall at the site, please confirm that removal of these are not part of this project scope of works and that they will be moved prior to start of work.

ANSWER: Jet Blast Deflectors shown on Drawing CD107, Demolition Plan – Area 6, must be removed and disposed of. Keynote 106 on Drawing CD107 will be revised in forthcoming amendment.

148. With reference to Drawing TS701, please clarify the following:

1. How many existing conduits or pathways require a 1-3”-3 cell maxcell in Ductway

ID- X1?

2. Whether the 2-12 strand fiber optic (FO) cables are to be installed in one cell only, or if each cable is to be installed in a separate cell of maxcell?

3. Whether the 3-72 strand FO cables are to be installed in one cell only, or if each cable is to be installed in a separate cell of maxcell?

4. Whether the intent of this project is to install 1- FO cable per cell of maxcell?

5. Whether the 1-300 Pair of copper is to be installed in a separate conduit and no maxcell is required?

ANSWER: Refer to Questions 130 – 134.

149. Please clarify whether the fiber cable construction is OS1 or OS2. Drawing TS701, under the Cable Schedule, indicates OSP OS1 (tight buffer), while Specification Section 33 82 00, Paragraph 2.8.2, indicates OSP loose buffer (OS2).

ANSWER: Refer to Question 135.

150. With reference to Drawing Sheet ES505, fixture types A1A and A1B are shown; however, their complete descriptions are not indicated in the Light Fixture Schedule. Kindly provide this information.

ANSWER: Refer to Question 143.

151. With reference to drawing sheet ES503, Detail 2, kindly provide the complete dimensions of the precast electrical pull box.

ANSWER: Refer to Question 144.

152. With reference to Drawing ES505, Detail 4, which states: “Provide lightning protection air terminal on top of the high mast pole. Route the down conductor to a 10’ x ¾” ground rod at the base of the foundation,” kindly clarify the complete specification of the lightning air terminal. Additionally, please confirm the type and size of the down conductor.

ANSWER: Refer to Question 145.

153. On the QC Specialists Experience Matrix- Fuels Systems Specialist and QC FSE states

"See section 01 45 00, paragraph 1.5.8.1 Qualifications". However there is no para

1.5.8.1 on section 01 45 00 not paragraph "Quality Control Fuels Systems Engineer".

Kindly provide information.

154. Installing a central mix plant on site is not practical considering the relatively small amount of PCC paving required by the project. One concrete supplier has a dry batch plant on AAFB about 2.4 miles away. Being on base offers the advantage of avoiding truck inspection and potential delays. A second dry batch plant is located off base about 10 miles away. The plant on AAFB has been used successfully on many airfield projects including parking aprons and taxiways. The dry plants are capable of meeting uniformity tests and all wet mix properties. Will the dry batch plants be allowed in lieu of a central mix plant on site?

ANSWER: Batch plant must be located on P-012 site as reflected in the plans and specifications.