26R1300_Note8.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

Notice No. 8 22 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 RESPONSES FROM NOTICE NO.7 DATED 15 MAY 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 this FY and

NLT November 2026. Per section 01 14 00, para. 1.4.d, “Andersen Air Force Base will remove existing 20’ & 40’ containers that are located in IRP Building compound within 60 calendar days after contract award.”

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

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?

ANSWER: Basis of bidding quantities will be provided in Amendment 0004.

DEFERRED RESPONSES FOR NOTICE NO.7 DATED 15 MAY 2026:

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.

ANSWER: An amendment to specification section 01 45 00 will be provided to clarify the qualifications and experience for the “Hydrogeologist” role and “Guam EPA approved” credentials. Guam EPA approved credentials are as follows:

10 years of progressively responsible professional experience in hydrogeology, including 2 years in karst situation with an emphasis on experience in the Territory and graduation for a recognized university with a Masters in hydrogeology or geology with an emphasis on hydrogeology any equivalent combination of experience and training beyond the Master’s degree which provides the minimum knowledge, abilities and skills.

Possession of active certification as a Registered Geologist in a state with national recognition.

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.

ANSWER: The roles and responsibilities for the QCHS and Hydrogeologist will be provided in an amendment to specifications 01 45 00 and 31 00 00, and will generally include the following: The QCHS is responsible for supervising the work of the Hydrogeologist, and reviewing, signing and sealing of professional hydrogeological reports for the project.

The QCHS and Hydrogeologist will work together in review of “Subsurface Extents of Karst Features Reports” prepared by the geophysicist, and in the application of this information and other project information in their preparation of the “Karst Feature Repair Methodology and Hydrogeologic Assessment Report”. The Hydrogeologist is responsible for confirming karst features observed during clearing and grading activities, and coordinating the locations of the ERT work with the geophysicist to meet the requirements of the “Karst Feature Repair Methodology and Hydrogeologic Assessment Report” as shown in the specifications and drawings.

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: The approach is acceptable with the following modifications noted: The individual performing the roles and responsibilities of the Hydrogeologist must have the appropriate qualifications and experience of the Hydrogeologist, and must not have other roles/responsibilities assigned to them from other Areas of the project. The QCHS must provide continuous full-time onsite presence from the start of clearing to when 90% of clearing has been completed, where their work will be side-by-side with the Hydrogeologist. After this period of time, and during the remainder of clearing and grading operations, the QCHS must make site visits for a minimum of 3 consecutive full working days on-site per month, must be available as needed for additional site visits, and must be available remotely for meetings and to perform their specified roles/responsibilities. These responsibilities/requirements will be included in an amendment to the specifications for section 31 00 00.

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.

ANSWER: The hydrogeologist team is responsible for preparing mitigation measures for karst features where required by the drawings and specifications. The minimum requirements of ERT testing to support hydrogeologic assessments for karst feature repairs are presented in the Contractor Documents, where the remaining means and methods for conducting ERT surveys are the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor is responsible for obtaining ERT test results that are conclusive and support the hydrogeologic assessment. No supplemental investigation is required.

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?

ANSWER: The geophysicist roles for the project include a project geophysicist, QC geophysicist, and geophysicist team leader. The project geophysicist role is considered the senior-level specialist, where the specifications indicate exceptions to full-time on-site presence for this role only. No additional exceptions will be made for geophysicist team members for this project.

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.

ANSWER: Refer to the answer for Question #66 from which the Contractor can estimate the number and location of ERT testing arrays within Area A1 (5,000 LF) while satisfying the requirements of the specifications.

The number and locations of ERT testing to be done for unmapped karst features (37,000 LF) and in accordance with the specifications can also be estimated by the Contractor using the answer to Question #66. The number of unmapped karst features and their associated dimensions that will require ERT testing is presently unknown and should become apparent during clearing and grading activities, and may require more or less lineal footage than the 37,000 LF. The existing ERT data will be provided to the Contractor for their own interpretation and use on the project.

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.

ANSWER: Refer to response for Question #109.

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.

ANSWER: The design intent is to locate potential sinkhole features based on how these features present at the ground surface. The project’s hydrogeologist team will be relied upon for their experience in identifying the potential presence of the sinkholes including but not limited to combinations of the following sinkhole characteristic: size and shape, ground surface depressions with or without indications of ponding, presence of exposed cavities, vegetation, or the results of probing or excavations, etc. Once these features are located, the sinkhole throat width must be measured, which will require excavation down to the throat of the sinkhole where the sinkhole throat is not presently exposed (See answer to RFI #17). After the sinkhole throat width is confirmed, coordinates should be obtained and ERT testing should be performed where required by the specifications. Repair methodologies for sinkholes with throat widths greater than 6-feet must be determined by the Hydrogeologist team in accordance with the Contract Documents, and must be presented within the submittal “Karst Feature Repair Methodology and Hydrogeologic Assessment Report”. RFI’s should be submitted if the implementation of Zone 1 or Zone 2 repair methodologies encounters difficulty with installation to determine if field adjusted repairs are necessary.

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.

ANSWER: Bid per RFP.

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).

ANSWER: New cable construction must match existing cabling to be verified prior to telecom construction. For bidding purposes use OS2.

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.

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.

ANSWER: The reference will be removed from the specification in a forthcoming amendment.

RESPONSES FOR NOTICE NO. 8:

155. Spec Section 31 00 00, Para 3.3.3 – Report Submission Timeline

Given the complexity of the ERT dataset, which requires extensive processing, interpretation, and visualization, we kindly request a deadline extension for submission of the final ERT Report. Based on the anticipated project scale, we are requesting a minimum of six (6) weeks to complete data processing and reporting following field activities. The geophysical firm can provide preliminary data during the field effort, along with a follow-up update approximately two (2) weeks after demobilization from the site. Please advise.

ANSWER: No change from the specifications will be allowed. Per specification 31 00 00 subsection 3.3.3, a draft report of the ERT data must be provided within 2 days of each day of completed field testing summarizing the results for a single day of testing, and a final report of ERT testing must be provided within 7 days of the completion of all testing.

156. Spec Section 31 00 00, Para 3.3.3 – Karst Subsurface Voids

Please clarify the minimum size of subsurface voids/karst features that must be detected as part of the ERT investigation.

ANSWER: ERT testing is required throughout area A1 as shown on the drawings, and in other areas as indicated in specification 31 00 00 subsection 3.3.3. In accordance with these specifications and drawings, where a karst feature is located outside of area A1 and is measured as having a throat width of greater than 6-feet, ERT testing will be required.

The Contractor may refer to the existing ERT testing data, and the Hydrogeologist team’s experience to identify karst features per the specifications, and then make their own interpretations of potential sizes of subsurface voids/karst features to plan ERT investigations.

157. Hydrogeological Assessment Report

We request that the following document be provided in full as a reference for the project hydrogeologist:

“Miklavic, B. & Kim, B., “Hydrogeological Assessment of the Area of the North Aircraft Parking Ramp (P-012) Development Plan, Andersen AFB, Guam – Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) Profiling,” Water and Environmental Research Institute of the Western Pacific (WERI), University of Guam, dated October 18, 2024.”

ANSWER: No, this document will not be provided in full. Refer to sheets BB121 through

BB125 for available data.

158. Parag. 3.1.1 Probe hole locations - Specs state that probing and grouting are required on proposed structures and pavement areas.

Parag. 3.1.1.1 Density Probe Hole Locations - states the guidelines on probing and grouting for foundations and slab.

Parag. 3.3 Grout, drainage, and exploratory holes - states probing and grouting on drainage or exploratory hole locations.

Kindly provide guidelines for probing and grouting on pavement areas as per Parag. 3.1.1 and guidelines for probing and grouting on exploratory holes as per Parag. 3.3

ANSWER: Per specification 31 33 10 section 3.1.1, the GROUTING LOCATION PLAN is to show the Contractor’s probe hole locations with respect to the pavement and structure locations (e.g. on a site plan). Probing and grouting of exploratory holes are done only in foundation areas, and must follow the requirements of 3.1.1.1.

159. Reference to drawing sheet CG144, Bid schedule item 0001AH, and question and answer

#66.

Q1: BID ITEM ALLOCATION - Please confirm whether all ERT work (total ~42,000

LF) is to be entirely included under SLIN 0001AH and that no portion of ERT work is included in Base Bid Item 0001AA.

Q2: SEQUENCING AND APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS - Based on the Karst

Features Plan, Area A1 (5,000 LF) represents a defined minimum scope, while the remaining 37,000 LF is contingent upon KO approval for unmapped sinkholes. Please clarify—is the contractor required to complete Area A1 ERT (5,000 LF), submit results to the KO, and receive direction/approval prior to proceeding with the remaining ERT (37,000 LF)? Or may the contractor perform ERT continuously across all areas without phased approval?

Q3: INCLUSION IN BASE BID – Please confirm whether any portion of ERT work

(including Area A1 or preliminary investigations) is intended to be included in Base Bid Item 0001AA, or if all ERT-related work (mobilization, survey, reporting, interpretation, and deliverables) is strictly limited to SLIN 0001AH.

ANSWER: Q1: See answer to Q46.

Q2: The Contractor is responsible for notifying the Contracting Officer obtaining their approval for each occurrence where ERT testing is required by the specifications in unmapped sinkhole areas. ERT testing in unmapped sinkhole areas is not contingent upon ERT testing being first completed in Area A1. The Contractor is responsible for choosing how to phase their ERT work areas in accordance with the specifications.

Q3: See answer to Q46.

160. The RFP and subsequent Q&A responses indicate that the total required Electrical

Resistivity Tomography (ERT) testing quantity is 42,000 LF, consisting of approximately:

• 5,000 LF – associated with Area A1 (mapped sinkholes)

• 37,000 LF – associated with unmapped sinkhole areas

Based on typical execution sequencing, it is understood that the initial 5,000 LF may represent a first phase of ERT testing within Area A1, with the remaining 37,000 LF to be performed in subsequent phases as sinkholes are identified during clearing and site preparation. However, the Contract Documents do not clearly define:

1. Number of Phases for the Remaining 37,000 LF o How many phases will the 37,000 LF be distributed across?

• Will the work be released incrementally based on field findings, or as a single continuous scope?

2. Minimum Quantity per Phase (if phased) o Is there a minimum guaranteed quantity or release size per phase?

o Or will ERT work be assigned on a case-by-case basis (i.e., per sinkhole encountered)?

3. Mobilization / Demobilization Expectations o Should the Contractor assume:

• Multiple mobilizations and demobilizations for ERT crews and equipment, or

• A continuous on-site presence throughout site preparation and karst mitigation?

ANSWER: 1. Bid per RFP.

2. See response to RFI 160 Item #1. In unmapped sinkhole areas, approval of ERT testing by the CO will be on a case-by-case basis.

3. Bid per RFP.

161. The Contract Documents indicate that the Contractor is required to submit the ERT survey report within seven (7) days following completion of field investigations.

Given the complexity of the ERT scope for this project, including:

• Large total testing quantity (42,000 LF)

• Multiple survey areas and potential phased execution

• Data processing, inversion modeling, and interpretation of subsurface conditions

• Coordination with the project hydrogeologist and integration with field observations

The current 7-day reporting duration appears insufficient to allow for:

• Proper data validation and quality control

• Accurate geophysical interpretation and correlation with field conditions

• Preparation of a technically sound and defensible report suitable for Government review

Would the Government consider extending the required ERT reporting period from 7 calendar days to 21 calendar days to allow sufficient time for:

• Comprehensive data processing and interpretation

• Coordination between geophysicist and hydrogeologist

• Preparation of a complete and high-quality technical report

ANSWER: No exceptions will be made to the specifications.

162. Reference 3-P012_Amend0003_Dwgs_Signed – Sheets BB121 through BB125 (Existing

ERT Survey Information: “Hydrogeological Assessment of the Area of the North Aircraft Parking Ramp (P-012) Development Plan…, Andersen AFB, Guam – Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) Profiling,” prepared by the Water and Environmental Research Institute of the Western Pacific (WERI), University of Guam, dated October 18, Clarification on Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) – WERI Participation in

Hydrogeologist and ERT Scope

Question #1: Are the Water and Environmental Research Institute of the Western Pacific

(WERI) and/or any of its personnel eligible to participate as a subcontractor, consultant, or team member for the hydrogeologist and/or ERT scope under this contract?

Question #2: If considered conflicted, please specify whether WERI is fully restricted

(prohibited) from participating? Or participation is allowed with limitations?

ANSWER: As WERI conducted hydrogeological assessment, prepared reports, and assisted in the preparation of drawings and specifications for this RFP, there is a potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). Therefore, WERI may be ineligible to participate as a subcontractor, subconsultant, etc. due to involvement with assisting in the preparation of RFP documents..

163. Reference Bid Schedule SLIN 0001AB and 0001AC (Karst Repair), Drawings CG144, CG145 – Karst Features and Repair Details Karst Repair Zones (Zone 1 and Zone 2)

Request for Clarification on Measurement and Pricing Basis for 9,000 CY Karst Repair

Quantities

The Bid Schedule includes:

• SLIN 0001AB – Karst Repair (Zone 1) – Quantity: 9,000 CY

• SLIN 0001AC – Karst Repair (Zone 2) – Quantity: 9,000 CY

Based on the Contract Drawings:

o Zone 1 Repair Method: Includes concrete and durable crushed stone

• Zone 2 Repair Method: Includes durable stone, durable crushed stone, and filter/infiltration pond components

However, the Contract Documents do not clearly define the basis of measurement for the 9,000 CY quantities. Please confirm the following:

Question #1: Is the 9,000 CY quantity based on Total in-situ void volume to be filled, or excavated volume, or placed material volume (final compacted or loose volume)?

Question #2: Are both Zone 1 and Zone 2 each independently allocated 9,000 CY, or is the quantity intended as a shared allowance, or a maximum not-to-exceed value?

Question #3: For Material Constituents Within CY Quantity For Zone 1: Does the 9,000 CY include both concrete and crushed stone combined, or should these be separated?

For Zone 2: Does the quantity include: Structural fill (stone/crushed stone), AND Filter layers and infiltration pond materials?

Question #4: Please confirm whether the CY quantity represents the Composite repair volume (all materials combined) under a single pay item, or requires an internal breakout for Contractor pricing allocation.

ANSWER: 1. The 9,000 CY includes the Zone’s specific backfill materials above the throat, the

Zone’s specific backfill materials below the throat (where required), and grouting as indicated in drawings CG144 and CG146. The volumes are based on placed volumes, the Contractor is responsible for providing the appropriate volume of material to achieve the in-place requirements indicated in the specifications.

2. Both Zone 1 and Zone 2 are each independently allocated 9,000 CY.

3. For Zone 1, the quantity includes the concrete above the sinkhole throat, the stone beneath the sinkhole throat (where required), and grout for pipe/shafts (see drawings CG144 and CG146). For Zone 2, the quantity includes the portion of the repair above the sinkhole throat (stone, sand, and geotextile), and stone below the throat (where required).

Infiltration pond materials or other earthwork fills are not part of the quantity volumes.

4. See response to Question #163 item #3.

164. Grouting Scope, Quantity, and Bid Item Allocation

Reference to Drawing CG145 – Karst Repair / Pipe & Shaft Details, Drawing CG144 –

General Notes (Note C and Note D)

Clarification on Grouting Scope, Quantity Limits, and Bid Item Allocation

The Contract Drawings indicate the following:

Sheet CG145: Depicts pipe/shaft repair zones requiring grouting of voids Sheet CG144 (General Notes): Note C: Stop grouting at 10 CY Note D: Top off void after 10 CY of grout has been placed

However, the Contract Documents do not clearly indicate:

Where the grouting work is to be included for payment, nor The estimated total quantity of grout expected for bidding purposes

Question #1: Please confirm the following: Under which bid item should grouting work be included?

SLIN 0001AB (Zone 1)?

SLIN 0001AC (Zone 2)?

Separate (unidentified) pay item?

Question #2: Please provide: Estimated total grout quantity (CY) for bidding purposes and clarify whether the 10 CY limitation is per void, per location, or total per feature

Question #3: Clarify whether the 10 CY cap applies to each individual void/shaft, OR it is a cumulative threshold before switching to another repair method.

Question #4: After reaching 10 CY grout (per Note D), please confirm: Required top-off material type (e.g., durable stone, flowable fill, concrete, CLSM, etc.) and confirm that grouting of pipe/shaft is only required in Zone 1.

Question #5 Please provide:

Estimated quantity of top-off material Corresponding bid item where top-off material is to be included

ANSWER: 1. See response to Question #163 item #3. Grouting in Zone 1 areas will be covered under the Zone 1 SLIN 0001AC, and grouting in Zone 2 areas will be covered under the Zone 2 SLIN 0001AB.

2. The total grout quantity for the project for holes/pipe shafts/solution tubes that are required by drawings CG144 and CG146 are to be included in Zone 1 SLIN 0001ACThe 10 CY quantity limitation is per hole/pipe shaft/solution tube as indicated on CG144, and does not include top-off.

3. See response to Question #165 Item #2.

4. Per CG144 Note D, top off with grout. Confirming grouting of pipe/shaft is only required for Zone 1.

5. Top-off material quantity is included in estimated quantity for Zone 1 (SLIN 0001AC).

165. Section 33 82 00, Telecommunications Outside Plant (OSP)

In Comm Plan, CF221-CF234, Provide Trench Drawing Details, Cross Section for bidding purposes.

166. Drawing GI001

FOR CONTRACTOR LAYDOWN/BATCH PLANT (APPROXIMATELY 24 ACRES):

Provide Cross Section Drawing.

167. Drawing ES505, High Mast Light Pole

Provide a Complete Foundation Design Drawing.

ANSWER: See ES505 Note 2.

168. The contractor is kindly requesting an extension to await the requested materials.

ANSWER: No.

169. In recently released Notes 6 and 7, NAVFAC responses refer to "a forthcoming amendment". As we get closer to the current due date of 3 June, we request an extension of one week to 10 June to allow sufficient time for NAVFAC to provide outstanding PPI responses and contractors sufficient time to review and provide to subcontractors, so we can offer NAVFAC the best possible technical and pricing solutions for this project.

ANSWER: No.