Question and Answers Log_Questions 1-37.pdf

Q&A Log M&I Page 1 5/20/2024 9:04 AM

Question Answer and Comment

The pre-bid presentation indicated that the Superintendent, SSHO, and QC Manager would be required to be three separate positions, held by three separate individuals full time on the project. Spec section 01 35 26 1.6.1.1.1 states that “The SSHO may also serve as the Quality Control Manager. The SSHO may also serve as the Superintendent.” Please confirm that the government’s expectations are for three separate, full-time onsite, individuals serving in each position.

SSHO can be either the Superintendent or the QC Manager. The three separate positions shall be the Superintendant, QC Manager and PM - See posted Site visit slides.

Specifications provided indicate that Spec Section 07 17 00 Bentonite Waterproofing has been removed from the project. However, the drawings still indicate waterproofing and “Waterproofing as specified” on several building sections and details. Is any waterproofing required or has the scope been removed from the project? See revised drawings & specifications for clarification.

Spec Section 03 30 00; 1.5 & 1.7.1.2 – Will flexibility be given on the 30 day preinstallation and 60 day mix design submittal requirements prior to concrete placement if a mix design needs to be developed? There is concern that the requirements and the length it takes to develop the mix design will impact the overall project period of performance.

The contractor shall show due dilligence in acquiring the design mix and approval at the beginning of the construction schedule allowing for the lead/lag time.

Spec Section 03 30 00; 1.7.7.1 & 1.7.7.2 & Spec Section 32 13 13.06; 1.4.2.2 – ACI & NRMCA Certifications. Will WisDOT HTCP certifications be acceptable in lieu of the ACI and/or NRMCA certification requirement? Yes, the Quality Manager and Field Testing Technicians can be certified by the

Wisconsin DoT instead of the ACI.

Spec Section 03 30 00; 1.7.8 & 1.7.9 (C) & Spec Section 32 13 13.06; 1.4.2.1 – Will a WisDOT Certified laboratory be acceptable in lieu of an ASTM C1077 certified laboratory? An ASTM C1077 lab would be utilized in developing a new mix design but a WisDOT approved lab would be utilized in the field and strength testing.

Yes, the Concrete Testing Laboratory can be certified by the Wisconsin DoT instead of the specified ASTM standards.

Spec Section 03 30 00; 2.3.1.3 – Slab-on-grade - Does this specification section pertain to exterior concrete pavement or sidewalk? If so these requirements do not align with the requirements outlined in section 32 13 13.06. Specification section 03 30 00; 2.3.1.3 Slab-on-grade is intended for interior slabs only.

Spec Section 03 30 00; 2.3.1.5 – Concrete Curbs, Gutter, and Sidewalks – specification is requiring monofilament polypropylene fiber reinforcement at 1.5 lbs/CY. Plan sheet C-403 is calling for 6x6 2.9x2.9 WWF. Please confirm which is actually going to be required.

The sidewalk shall include the WWF as specified on page C-403.

Spec Section 03 30 00; 2.3.1.7 – Can the 90-day strength requirement be waived to allow time to develop the mix design within the project period of performance?

Given that the 28 day strength is the most important, you can substitute a 60 day strength test for the 90 day test due to time constraints.

Spec Section 03 30 00; 2.4.1.5 & Spec Section 32 13 13.06; 2.1.1.2 – ASTM C595 Type IL is not listed in the specs and is the only available cement in the Midwest. Is Portland Cement Type IL an approved material? Type 1L meeting ASTM C595 is an acceptable substitute.

Spec Section 03 30 00; 3.9.1.6 – Please confirm that this does NOT apply to exterior pavement or sidewalk. If it does, then the penetrating sealer will not be effective on a surface that has been cured using liquid membrane forming compound meeting ASTM C309, type 2, class B.

The penetrating water repellent treatment if used would only apply to exterior pavement and sidewalks. Note that this section requires that the concrete surface be cleaned and free of any contaminants that would interfere with the proper penetration of the penetrating water repellant.

Government can omit this requirement if desired.

Spec Section 03 30 00; 3.10.3 – Please confirm that the hand pressed fiberboard strip does NOT apply to exterior pavement or sidewalk. Pavement and sidewalk contraction joints are typically tooled or sawcut.

See C-405 for exterior PCC pavement joint details.

The sidewalk detail notes indicate that preformed expansion material shall be used at joints spaced no more than 36' apart. Intermeidate joints may be tooled.

Spec Section 03 30 00; 3.13.2.6 – Please confirm that the Ion Concentration does NOT apply to exterior pavement or sidewalk. If it does apply we would request that it be waived for the pavement and sidewalk.

It should not apply.

Q&A Log M&I Page 2 5/20/2024 9:04 AM

Spec Section 32 13 13.06; 1.4.1 – The local batching and mixing plant is not NRMCA certified, but is WisDOT certified. Will a WisDOT certification be acceptable in place of the NRMCA certification?

Wis Dot certification is adequate.

Spec Section 32 13 13.06; 3.7.8 – ASTM C42 coring is required per specs. Can this requirement be waived due to the relatively small quantity of pavement and allow for alternate thickness verification methods such as measuring with a stringline between forms or site survey?

As an alternate to pavement cores, survey may be taken of the finished aggregate surface and the finished concrete to verify pavement thickness. This survey should be done on a 25' grid.

Spec Section 32 01 19.61 – Given the relatively small quantity of joint sealing, can the requirement for testing under

1.3 submittals be waived? Per section 1.3 "For small quantity projects involving less than 10,000 linear feet of joint sealing, the requirement for testing may be waived provided that a Factory Test Report is submitted." Please submit all applicable Factory Test Reports.

Spec Sections 03 30 00 & 32 13 13.06 - Time and consideration will be required to develop a mix design that meets the specifications as the previous mix design used for past projects has an aggregate source that is now depleted.

There is a high likelihood that all of the fine aggregate sources in WI will fail the ASTM C1260 test which will require the ASTM C1567 test to be performed using Contractors Mix Proportions.

Government reviewing question

16.1 Can Class C fly ash be utilized in the mix, in lieu of Class F, if it mitigates ASR based on ASTM C1567 test results showing less than 0.08 percent expansion at 28 days using contractor mix proportions? Class F fly ash can be used, but is not locally available and drives the price of material up considerably.

Yes.

16.2 If the results of the ASTM C1567 pass without reaching the minimum total cementitious values using either GGBF or Fly Ash, will that be acceptable or will the minimum values be required regardless of a passing result? The minimum percentages of GGBF or Fly Ash required in the specification be required as specified.

There seems to be incomplete and unclear information in specification 08 39 55 for the Sliding Metal Blast Resistant Doors. Sections 2.7.1.2, 2.7.1.3, 2.8.3 & 2.8.4 are not completely filled out or appear to not be completely filled out with the information required for Blast Resistance, Air Leakage, and Shop Testing. Please provide or clarify the information for these required fields.

See updated specifications.

For the specifications I am missing Division 27 to properly quote any telecommunication requirements of the project.

See updated specifications.

I reached out to a counterpart, and they strongly suggested that I get ahold of the ICD 705 “Certifying Official” due to perimeter penetrations. Who is that? ICD 705 referes to this role as the Accrediting Official (AO). The Governement will not be relesing this name prior to award. If there are questions that need to be directed to this person, submit the question to the Contracting Officer and they will get answered.

There are references to other buildings to connect this structure to the main panels for security, fire alarm, and data.

Do you have an exact size of raceway and wire with a distance and direction of the building this would be going to?

The fire alarm fiber line between buildings is noted to be 1" buried conduit on sheet FA701. Seet Sheet ET601 Sheet notes 2 and 3 and Riser diagram. This is a locate function that will verify before construction.

Is the 2020 version of ICD 705 the most current version? The 2020 edition of the ICD 705 Tech Spec was version 1.5. The latest version of that document, 1.5.1, was published in July of 2021.

Is the 2011 AFMAN91-201 the most current version? Most current is dated 27 May 2020, however, there is no real need, the siting doc, drawings and placement all approved by the DDESB. Based on AMFAN 91-201. Daily Risk Management and explosive safety brief will be the big rock.

Q&A Log M&I Page 3 5/20/2024 9:04 AM

The precast prestressed concrete planks are called out to have a 29” stem and a 3” flange for an overall 32” precast tee. The 29” stem is an odd dimension for a stem (typically they’re an even number, and the prestressing strands start 2” up from the bottom of the stem). Would it be acceptable to provide a 32” deep double tee with a 28” stem and a 4” flange? This will keep the overall tee depth of 32” the same as the plans.

FSB has no issue with the use of a 28” stem depth with a 4” thick flange. The 3” flange depth was a minimum requirement from a government review comment.

08 39 55 Sliding Metal Blast Resistant Doors: In order to design/price the doors, the manufacturer wants to know what the wind speed and static pressure is for then as well as if they are seated or unseated.

Wind speed is listed on S-001 at 115 MPH. See revised spec for seated information.

21 13 13 Wet Pipe Sprinkler Systems: Is a deluge system needed for the new sprinkler system? Contract documents call for a typical wet-pipe system assembly. The static pressure (i.e., equivalent static loads caused by the design wind speed) should be calculated in accordance with ASCE 7-22.

Is there a quantity for the existing on-site soil which we will be using around the new building? Is the quantity sufficient for the project or will we need to include bringing in additional soil?

Some material is on-sites as shown at the walk through. All soil will have to be tested to determine if it meets requirements. The government does not have a borrow pile other than soil on-site for this project. Soil meeting requirements will have to be purchased and hauled from off-site.

In the description of the CQC System Manager, from the site visit slides, it mentions the person needs to have a couple of qualifications. One of the qualifications is “the person needs to have at least 10 years of experience on similar construction projects” , if they do meet that, do they still need the college degree of graduate engineer, graduate architect or graduate of construction management? Is this an either/or requirement or are both requirements needed?

Refer to 3.4.2 of the specs. "The CQC System Manager is required to be a graduate engineer, graduate architect, or a graduate of construction management, with a minimum of 10 years construction experience on construction similar to this Contract."

In reference to Q&A #26: Since it is unknown at this time if the soil stockpile will meet requirements, can a bid clarification be provided? For example, the clarification could be that we are to assume the soil will meet requirements but in case testing shows (after the contract is awarded) that it does not, a unit price is provided at time of bidding to bring in new soil?

Also, since the stockpile quantity is unknown at this time, this unit price could be used if there isn’t enough material in the stock pile and new material needs to be brought to the site.

1.Refer to sheet C301 Removal Plan. There is a stockpile of material shown that will have to be removed for the new work. Additionally, there is required removal of earth for the roughing of the road, sidewalks and large build-up pad. This will all result in a significant borrow for the new work. The government believes most of the material in the “existing stockpile” will be suitable for the new work.

2.The material that is in excess shall be placed and graded into the new contours for the site so that material will not have to be hauled away.

3.The contractor shall develop estimate of quantities for the bid based on the plan and profile sheets C-502, C-503, C-504 and C-505.

4.The earthen material on this site labeled as “existing stockpile” was placed as result of project (XGFG 029201) completed in early 2007. The exact depth below grass of “stockpile material” is unknown. It is believed to be a well graded material suitable for backfill somewhere on the site. Based on the volumes which can be calculated on C-502 (and others), it is evident that additional material will be required. Refer to the specifications for exact backfill material requirements.

Q&A Log M&I Page 4 5/20/2024 9:04 AM

We’ve noticed that within the documents appearing on Sam.Gov yesterday, 05/14/24, the file named “Add+3+Table+of+Contents”, references “ADDENDUM #3; 05-09-2024”.

Additionally, in the original solicitation the file named “IFC Specifications Vol 1_Project No. XGFG219012”, references “ADDENDUM #2 – 03/12/24” on the cover page.

Our question is then, where and on what date is Addendum #1 referenced? I’ll need that information when completing the 1442.

The solicitation was issued with Addendum 1 & 2 included. The addendums in question are only for the plans and specs are not changing the solicitation documents. Addendum #3 is the corrections from the bidder questions on the waterproofing. At this time there are NO actual amendments's to the solicitation. I will do a amendment to the solicaition to capture all the addendums once the questions are closed.

Regarding the blast doors, I am still not seeing a standard referenced (UFC 0-410-0 or UFC – 340-02 referenced) and we still need a duration for this blast rating (psi-ms). Can this be provided?

Government reviewing question

Please confirm that the blast doors are to have a maximum ductility limit of 10 and a maximum support rotation of 2 degrees?

Government reviewing question

32 clerical/admin clarification – the last Q&A and associated documents that was released, is that technically an amendment? I just want to make sure I complete the SF1442 accurately and not make assumptions.

See Question and answer 29.

Per details A1,A2/AE301, there are plumbing items shown that are not shown in the plumbing or civil drawings.

Please advise if these are required. It also doesn’t appear these are draining anywhere per the architectural drawings. Government reviewing question

There is a spec section for 02 81 00 Transportation and Disposal of Hazardous Materials, however, per the document’s all excavated material is to remain onsite. Please advise if there are other hazardous items that are to be disposed of.

Government reviewing question

35 Details for the fence include gate details. Confirm there are no gates, only chain link fence. Government reviewing question

Structural drawings show CFMF being two walls and anchored off exterior concrete walls. Architectural show it as a 4 sided box. Please advise which is correct.

Government reviewing question

Need contact information for the following companies:

Advantor Security Systems Marshall Beast Security Systems Monaco Enterprise Inc.

Andover Automated Controls.

Government reviewing question

NO MORE QUESTIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED. ALL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED ARE LISTED ABOVE.

IF YOU DO NOT SEE A QUESTION ABOVE THAT YOU SUBMITTED, CONTACT SMSGT KATE FOX.