Questions and Answers 4.pdf

F-35 3-Bay Hangar, Solicitation # W50S9F-22-B-0001 Posted to SAM.Gov 05 May 22

Questions & Responses #4

Question Response

1.

The Government’s response to Question 26 states, “All Electrical system Commissioning shall be done by NETA-Certified individuals.”

We understand that Subpart 1.7.2b of Section 01 91 00.15 10 of the specifications requires the Electrical Technical Commissioning Specialist duties to “be performed by an engineering technician certified by the InterNational Electrical Testing Associated (NETA) with five years of experience inspecting, testing, and calibrating electrical distribution and generation equipment, systems, and devices.”

The issue is that commissioning firms do not employ NETA-certified engineering technicians. NETA-certified engineering technicians are employed by companies that perform apparatus inspections and testing services, such as the responsibilities outlined in Section 26 08 00 Apparatus Inspection and Testing of the specifications.

Additionally, the companies that perform apparatus inspections and testing services, which employ NETA-certified engineering technicians, do not perform total building commissioning.

Would the Government reconsider allowing the commissioning firm to utilize an Electrical Technical Commissioning Specialist with qualifications other than a NETA certification, as long as the Contractor utilizes a NETA-certified engineering technician to perform the apparatus inspection and testing responsibilities specified by Section 26 08 00 Apparatus Inspection and Testing of the specifications?

Substitution requests will be managed as part of the RFI process during construction. Please bid on the plans and specs as provided.

2.

The Government’s response to Question 27, provided with Amendment 0001 clarified the “Privacy Film is Architectural Window Film” and provided Section 08 87 35 Architectural Window Film. However, the specification does not provide the privacy level or function this film is designed to provide. Typically, this film is provided with various opacity levels to provide the level of privacy desired and can range in price from $4.26 per running foot to well over $185.00 per running foot depending on the privacy level desired but can be much more expensive depending on the custom graphic or design desired.

Can the government provide a basis of design for this film or at a minimum the level of privacy you are attempting to achieve in order to mitigate unnecessary cost.

This film is to provide a level of privacy that one could see that someone is walking in the hallway, (shadow), but can't determine who they are. Basically, enough privacy that your meeting can continue w/o being distracted.

The custom graphic could be expected to be similar to Attachment Entitled, “Q&A Set 4, Question 2 – Custom Graphic”

3.

Who will be responsible for the fees associated with the water and sewer connections shown on Sheet Number C-601? We’ve coordinated the work associated with the water and sewer directly with City of Madison Water Utility Engineering and the following fees apply to this project. A $1,000 water main tapping fee if performed by Contractor, a $4,000 water main tapping fee if performed by the City of Madison. In addition, there’s storm water & sewer plug and tapping fees to be determined depending on the quantity and sizes. There are approximately six (6) new water connections to existing mains and approximately three (3) new storm / sewer connections to existing storm sewer mains. Please confirm these fees shall be included in the Contractor’s proposal or if these fees will be paid for by the Government.

Contractor is to carry the fees associated with noted work to be performed.

4.

Response Number 30 provided in Questions & Responses #1, Amendment 0001 indicates possible associated fees that the contractor will be responsible to pay MG&E. We’ve coordinated the fees associated with electric directly with MG&E and those fees for electric are “to be determined” by the City Engineer. This fee covers the fees associated with the secondary service from the transformer to the CT cabinet / meter. Please identify these fees or clarify what amount shall be included in the Contractor’s proposal. We understand the costs of the work is paid for by MG&E/Government.

MG&E provides to the Gov't the primary service at no charge to the Gov't or to the contractor. Contractor will coordinate w/ MG&E to install these at a time beneficial to all involved with the project. The secondary service is the responsibility of the contractor to install and cover the cost in their proposal. MG&E provides primary to us and recoups their cost via rate charges on electric usage.

5.

Response Number 30 provided in Questions & Responses #1, Amendment 0001 indicates possible associated fees that the contractor will be responsible to pay MG&E. We’ve coordinated the fees associated with the gas directly with MG&E and those fees for gas service are an “estimated” cost of approximately 115 LF minus 65 LF (by MGE) = 50 LF. 50 LF @ $7.75 / LF = $387.50 for the costs of “new service”.

Please confirm that these costs are for the new service Work paid for by MG&E / Government and there are no others fees to be paid for by the Contractor?

Correct.

6.

The Government’s response to Question No. 62, provided with Amendment 0001, advised, “It appears that there are options on the most recent DOD list (March 2022) with a 34’ opening.” A review of the DOD Anti-Ram Vehicle Barrier List, dated March 2022, does in fact include two active drop-arm beam gates, one with 40’-10” net width and another with a 34’ clear opening. The manufacturer for both of these gates is Barrier1 Systems, Inc. When I inquired about these gates shown on the “DOD list”, I receive the following response from Dan Madden, Global Strategic Accounts Manager for Barrier1 Systems, “While both are listed on the DOD certified anti-ram list, as a manufacturer we do not supply the electric unit in lengths greater than 24’ clear opening. Just too much weight, even at low cycle rates.”

Drawings are being modified to accommodate a 24' drop beam barrier.

After confirming that there is no manufacturer shown on the DOD list that is able to provide a gate with a 34’ opening, please clarify how we are to proceed or provide us with the manufacturer that the government believes can provide this gate in the length desired.

7.

Please provide the material, color, and finish for the dimensional letters on the exterior of the building on Sheet Number A-201 and A-202.

Requirements for exterior signage are included in the Base Design Guide. Use the following for exterior signage:

Manufacturer: Gemini Inc. www.signletters.com, 800-583- 8377 or equal. Local Rep for Gemini Inc.: Menzel Sign & Graphics, 868-B Progress Way, Sun Prairie, WI 53590, 608- 837-4900. Font style of Helvetica, 12” capital letter for the first letter of each word, then the rest of the letters will be lower case; 6” for numbers. Cast aluminum, flush stud mount, color: Dark Bronze Anodized, Aluminum Finish. The entire BDG has not been included as significant architectural items have changed on base since it was last updated in 2020.

However, this is the exterior signage portion.

8.

Subpart 1.10 of Section 01 30 00 states that the “Contractor shall host the partnering session within 45 calendar days of contract award.”

Is the Contractor required to provide and pay for a third-party independent facilitator to lead the partnering session, or will the partnering session be informal and only attended by the key members from the Contractor and the Government?

Is the Contractor required to provide and pay for an off-site facility to hold the partnering session, or can the partnering session be held in the Contractor’s project site office or one of the Government’s facilities at Truax Field?

Is the Contractor required to provide and pay for any meals for the partnering session?

A "Partnering session" will not be required as part of this contract. As such, this spec section has been updated to reflect this. Partnering sessions will only be needed if we're not getting the work done.

9.

The Government’s response to Question 54 contained in Amendment No. 0001 clarified that a mix design, to be utilized for the PCC pavement (apron), will be provided by the Government upon award.

Will the Government please provide the mix design to the bidders so that we can source and obtain pricing on the materials? Additionally, we request that the

The 115 FW is not in possession of the mix design (awaiting 90 day breaks - 17 July 2022). However, mix design has met specifications and will be approved. Mix design can be obtained from Barlovento LLC or from Treweiler Construction. Barlovento LLC is the Prime contractor for the Apron Repair project. Treweiler is their paving sub.

Government allow sufficient time for the bidders to source and obtain the pricing after the mix design is provided.

10.

FSB’s “Addendum No. 03” letter included with Amendment No. 0002 indicates that “ITEM 01.5-1 Refer to attached document – RYTEC Clean-Roll High Performance Rolling Door Cut-sheet, dated 14 June 2022, as attachment to Bidder RFI Question #90” was included with Amendment No. 0002. However, it does not appear as though the “RYTEC” attachment was provided.

Please provide the “RYTEC” attachment.

Attachment has now been posted to SAM.gov as attachment entitled: 39_ITEM 01.5-1_ADD 03_Bid Question Attachment_2022.06.14

11.

Section 01 33 29 Sustainability Reporting of the specifications requires the Contractor to “attain a sustainability rating of GBCI GP Assessment” and to “provide construction related sustainability documentation.”

Since the Contractor is only responsible for construction related sustainability documentation, please confirm our interpretation of the specifications; specifically, that the Contractor is only required to pay the “Construction Review” fees to GBCI and that the Government will be responsible to pay the “Design Review” fees to GBCI for the GBCI GP Assessment.

Confirmed.

12.

General Note D on Sheet Number AD-101 states, “Condition of existing facility during preconstruction walk through/site visit may not match condition of existing facility at start of construction due to facility training on interior walls and doors.”

Please clarify what the Government means by “due to facility training on interior walls and doors.”

Gov't plans to do some fire, security, and EOD training within the facility. This would involve explosive breaching of doors (all explosive material removed at completion), fire rescue through CMU walls, and sim munition security forces training (hostage rescue via sim (paint) rounds). Facility will still be structurally sound at completion of training and weather tight. No training would be done on any asbestos or LBP containing materials so as to not disturb those.

13.

Reference is made to Question and Response 3 included in Amendment No. 0002.

The response stated, “Record drawings from previous construction work provided by the Government to A/E firm during design indicate the removal of underground tanks. A/E was not able to directly determine if underground tanks had, in fact, been removed. If still in place, size of underground tanks would be as provided in Record Drawings noted. Record Drawings can be provided at the Contracting Office’s discretion for use and review.”

Additionally, Section 02 65 00 was revised in Amendment No. 0002; however, the

There are NO underground storage tanks (OWS, fuel oil, used oil, used solvent or detergent storage tanks). These have all been removed. All that remains on site is a sand interceptor basin which is approximately 6,000 gals in size.

Government still did not clarify the sizes (gallons) of the existing underground storage tanks.

Are the bidders to still include the costs for the underground storage tank(s) removal in our bids, or assume (as explained in the Government’s response) that the record drawings indicate the previous removal of underground tanks?

If the bidders are still required to include the costs for the underground storage tank(s) removal in our bids, please provide the sizes (gallons) of the existing underground storage tanks. We underground storage tank removal subcontractors cannot bid the work unless the sizes of the existing tanks are provided.

14.

Amendment No. 0002 includes an email attachment, “Subject: FW: MMP Approval for 3-Bay Hangar,” dated November 2, 2021, which states in the fourth paragraph, “Since both soil and groundwater samples from this location contain PFAS compounds WANG must treat all soil and groundwater removed from this location as PFAS containing soil and handle it in accordance with the Materials Management Plan approved for this site on July 21, 2021. The soil may be temporarily stored at this location, or may be moved to the location to the west of building 1209. Upon completion of the project the PFAS containing soil must be below an impervious surface.”

The Government’s response to Question 38 included in Amendment No. 0001 clarified that the “Contractor should not include costs for environmental remediation associated with PFAS-contaminated groundwater as part of the base bid,” and Section 02 61 13 of the specifications only requires the Contractor to include 25 cubic yards of excavation and handling of contaminated soils in its bid.

Please confirm our interpretation of the requirements; specifically, that (1) “Contractor should not include costs for environmental remediation associated with PFAS-contaminated groundwater as part of the base bid” (per Response 38 in Amendment No. 0001) and (2) the Contractor is only required to assume and include a total of 25 cubic yards of contaminated material removal, hauling, disposal, and replacement in its bid as required by Section 02 61 13 of the specifications (per Response 39 in Amendment No. 0001).

Confirmed. However, disregard any mention of 25 CY of contaminated material removal. If you are removing material from the project site and it contains PFAS, it will be placed behind B1209. This haul distance is less than 2 city blocks away. Additionally, no further treatment will be required.

15.

Paragraph 4.2 “Site Preparation” within the “Geotechnical Engineering Report” states, “In the building slab on grade and pavement areas, after the initial site preparation described above, we recommend compacting the exposed material. Any areas of significant deflection during compaction may be disked, dried, and re-compacted if weather permits, or removed and replaced with engineered fill.”

The paragraph then states that, IF any “soft or unstable areas” are identified during proof rolling of the compacted subgrade, “the type of remediation and the depth needed should be determined at the time of construction based on drainage, weather, and soil conditions.” The paragraph then goes on to include various options, such as, “Mechanical Stabilization,” “Geogrid,” and/or “Removal and Replacement,” all of which are very expensive options.

The geotechnical report goes on to further discuss more specifics about potential “subgrade soil corrections;” however, also includes the following statement: “The information presented in this report may be used to evaluate the site conditions for construction, but the contractor is responsible for determining site preparation means and methods required to complete the project. An aggressive construction schedule or construction during seasons with limited drying time may not allow for reconditioning of the subgrade and soil correction may require removal and replacement with imported granular fill or use of geogrid with granular fill.”

Please clarify whether or not the Government expects the bidders to include any “subgrade soil corrections” (e.g., “Mechanical Stabilization,” “Geogrid,” and/or “Removal and Replacement”) in their bids, OR if a modification will be issued if “subgrade soil corrections” are ultimately required.

Based on the total area of airfield concrete paving, asphalt paving, and the building pad, if the Contractor is required to perform “subgrade soils corrections,” it could add millions of dollars in increased costs. A review of the geotechnical engineering report reveals that the Government and the designer are unsure as to IF any “soft or unstable areas” will be identified. The bidders need to understand whether or not the Government expects the bidders to account for the costs associated with bearing this substantial risk in their bids.

Please bid on the project using the geotechnical engineering report and determine through that if suitable material exists to construct upon.

16.

The solicitation and associated specifications appear to be missing the “Time Extensions for Unusually Severe Weather” clause. This clause is typically included in the solicitation and provides the Contractor with the “Monthly Anticipated Adverse Weather Delay Work Days,” which are typically included in the Contractor’s Project Schedule, and are used to determine time extensions resulting from delays caused by the actual adverse weather that occurs during each month.

Will the Government please provide the “Monthly Anticipated Adverse Weather Delay Work Days” that will be required to be included in the Contractor’s Project Schedule.

BCO has updated response that was submitted in Q&A Set 3 Solicitation contains:

Clause 52.236-4 - PHYSICAL DATA, states that weather data will be obtained from the National Weather Service Clause 52.249-10 Default, which does not hold contractors liable for "Unusually severe weather."

17. On sheet A-702, FRRF fuel resistive resinous system, is called out in 4 rooms as bid option 1. Also, these 4 rooms are calling for a cove base finish while the other

Correct. A cove base is to be installed in the four (4) rooms noted to be included in Bid Option 1 for consistency in these rooms calling for FRRF on sheet A 602 are not. Is a cove base only to be installed in the bid option 1 areas? Any clarification would be appreciated.

rooms. A cove base is not required in areas noted to receive FRRF as part of the Base Bid.

18.

Drawing A601 shows Fire Shutters on Hangar side required for Window. Please provide spec for fire shutter.

Please refer to Specification Section 08 33 13 Coiling Counter Doors for requirements for Fire Shutters noted. This was updated as part of Addendum No. 04, dated 28 June 2022.

Please see Addendum No. 04, Specification Section 08 33 13 Coiling Counter Doors.

19.

Related to previously answered question #67, what is the cavity wall insulation at the masonry wall system? Reference detail A3/A-502 for example. If the R-15 4” insulation is a sheet product, please provide a specification. If the intention is for it to be spray foam insulation, please notate as such, and remove the dashed line representing air barrier.

Please provide rigid board-type insulation. Contract documents have been updated to provide requirements for rigid board-type insulation in Specification Section 07 21 13 and to provide updated reference to 07 21 13 in Specification Section 04 20 00, Subpart 2.6.6. This was updated as part of Addendum No. 04, dated 28 June 2022. Please see Addendum No. 04, Specification Section 04 20 00 Unit Masonry and Specification Section 07 21 13 Board and Block Insulation.

20.

A1/A-201 referenced colored split faced CMU. Has a color selection been made?

Block prices vary by color selection.

Please refer to Specification Section 09 06 00 Schedules for Finishes for exterior finish color noted. This was updated as part of Addendum No. 02, dated 8 June 2022. Please see Addendum No. 02, Specification Section 09 06 00 Schedules for Finishes.

21.

05 12 00 Per 2.6.2 Shop primer is required. Please clarify if this is in addition to or part of the primer as stated in 099713.27 2.2?

Shop primer noted in Specification Section 05 12 00 is part of the primer as stated in Specification Section 09 97 13.27.

22.

09 90 00

3.14.2.3 A This chart is for interior steel, but unclear if this is supplemental to

09713.27. I interpret that the dryfall does not go over the 3-coating process as outlined in 099713.27. Does Dryfall go over 099713.27? Please Clarify?

See Related Response in Q&A Set 1. Specification Section 09 97 13.27 is intended for use with structural steel in the hangar bays (Weapons Training, Room 101; Fuel Cell, Room 119; and Wash Bay, Room 128) and Specification 09 90 00 is intended for use with all other structural steel within the facility. Contract documents have been updated to provide clarification in Subpart 3.14.2.3. This was updated as part of Addendum No. 04, dated 28 June 2022. Please see Addendum No. 04, Specification Section 09 90 00 Paints and Coatings.

23.

099713.27

2.2 – Complete coating system in the shop. My interpretation is that this can be the fabricator but only if they have qualifications and facility per 1.4.6.8. Please Confirm Interpretation that fabricator's facility may "shop" apply 99713.27 paint if the shop is certified. i.e. they can only apply it in there shop if they are certified at time of bid?

Confirmed. It is acceptable for Fabricator to provide shop coating system required by Specification Section 09 97 13.27 if they meet the qualifications required of Coating Contractors specified in Subpart 1.4.6.8 of Specification Section 09 97 13.27.

24.

RFI concerning the USTs (Underground Storage Tanks), I see that the Specifications 02 65 00 have been updated as of 14JUN22, however, there is no number of tanks that need to be removed, no tank sizes (gallons) of those tanks, and no tank types listed (Steel, Fiberglass, etc.).

Is this information available? Is there a record available listing these tanks? Is there a State of Wisconsin Site ID Number for these tanks?

There are NO underground storage tanks (OWS, fuel oil, used oil, used solvent or detergent storage tanks). These have all been removed. All that remains on site is a sand interceptor basin which is approximately 6,000 gals in size.