26-Q-A119 - Questions document ver1.docx
DOCX document 22 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W15QKN-26-Q-A119
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document for solicitation W15QKN-26-Q-A119 issued by the Department of the Army Materiel Command Contracting Command at Picatinny Arsenal. The document provides vendor responses to inquiries regarding the Building 668 Asphalt Shingle Roof Replacement project at U.S. Army Garrison RFTA in Devens, Massachusetts. This amendment (Amendment 00001) was posted to address questions received from potential contractors and includes a revised addendum to Federal Acquisition Regulation clause 52.212-4.
The underlying solicitation seeks a contractor to replace the third-story roof of Building 668, which currently consists of asphalt shingle roofing with unknown underlayment supported by low-pitch plywood deck sheeting. The scope includes removal of the existing roofing system and installation of a new asphalt shingle roof, as well as removal and reinstallation of existing lightning protection upon completion of the new roofing system. Interested parties should refer to all attachments to this solicitation for detailed technical specifications and contractual requirements.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
SOLICITATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
W15QKN-26-Q-A119
Bldg. 668 Asphalt Shingle Roof Replacement – Fort Devens, MA 17 June 2026
Q1: Is a post-installation test report sufficient to satisfy the contract requirements, or does the Government require a third party inspection and certification by a UL-listed or LPI-certified lightning protection contractor?
A1: A third-party who meets certification requirements for inspection is required to test, inspect and provide testing report to all areas affecting the lightning protection within the LOW.
Q2: Is the scope of certification limited to the roofing work area, or is certification of the entire building lightning protection system required?
A2: Only what is affected within the LOW.
| Q3: | If third-party certification is required, does the Government require a limited-scope certification or a full system certification (Master Certification)? |
| A3: | Only what is affected within the LOW. |
| Q4: | The existing lightning protection system observed on Building 668 appears to consist of Class I aluminum components. Please confirm whether replacement components may be provided in Class I aluminum to match the existing installation. Specification Sections 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2 appear to require copper conductors and prohibit the use of aluminum materials. Please clarify whether Class I aluminum components meeting UL 96A and NFPA 780 requirements are acceptable forthis project. |
| A4: | Class I aluminum components meeting UL 96A and NFPA 780 or to the strictest standard at the time of installation. |
Q5: Please provide any available records identifying the date of the most recent inspection, testing, certification, or maintenance performed on the existing lightning protection system.
A5: No records could be found.
Q6: Please also confirm whether the system has been inspected or certified within the last five (5) years.:
A6: No records could be found.
| Q7: | Please confirm whether the Government has a preferred manufacturer or basis of design for the permanent roof fall protection system.: |
| A7: | The Government does not have a preferred manufacture. |
Q8: If no preferred manufacturer is required, may the Contractor propose a pre-engineered manufacturer-designed anchor system that complies with OSHA requirements and maintains the roofing manufacturer's warranty?
A8: Yes
Q9: Fall Protection Design Loads
a. Be removed and discarded; : Removed and discarded.
b. Be removed and reinstalled; or: N/A
c. Be evaluated and incorporated into the new roofing system.: N/A
Q10: Please provide the required design loading criteria and performance requirements for the permanent fall protection system, including any minimum anchor capacity requirements.:
A10: What meets current OSHA requirements for fall protection.
| Q11: | During the site visit, sections of the existing aluminum fascia were observed to be missing or damaged. Please confirm whether replacement of damaged or missing fascia is included in the base bid scope.: |
| A11: | The replacement of damaged fascia should be included in the BID. |
| Q12: | The specifications do not identify a required drip edge color. Since the existing fascia is to remain, please confirm the required drip edge color and finish? |
| A12: | Aged Bronze or to match existing. |
Q13: If no specific color is required, may the Contractor provide a brown drip edge to best match the existing fascia system?
A13: N/A
Q14: Please confirm whether bidders are required to include an allowance for roof deck repairs within the base bid. If so, please provide the required allowance basis, including percentage, square footage, unit quantity, or any other estimating criteria to be included in the proposal.:
A14: The respective contractor should include in the base bid sufficient and necessary allowance for the replacement of roof decking material that may be damaged during removal of the existing roofing system or as a result of age and failure.
| Q15: | Please confirm whether the Government has a preferred manufacturer, basis of design, or performance criteria for the snow guard system specified in the contract documents. |
| A15: | The Government does not at this time. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .