Q A 18 FEB 2010 1PM.pdf

W90FYQ-10-R-0003

Questions and Answers

Make Sure You Have the Latest Version of this Web Page “Refresh” or “Reload” Now

18 FEB 2010

Q1. The Past Performance Evaluation, do you prefer that they are mailed, faxed or emailed to you?

A. We would prefer that they are emailed to us at the following email address 127wg.ngbzcparcomb@ang.af.mil , but they can also be faxed to 586-239-6605 and/or mailed to NGB PARC-S 43200 Maple Street, Building 105, Room 36, Selfridge ANG Base, MI 48085. Please ensure that the Past Performance Evaluations are received at this address by no later than the solicitations closing date and time, 2PM EST on 23 FEB 2010.

Q2. We noticed that the documents for this project had explicit access permissions on the FBO website, but were unclassified documents. Would it be permissible to allow our subcontractors access to the specifications and drawings through our company-controlled FTP site with user name and password?

A. The documents for the project, though unclassified, are sensitive in nature. We do not have a problem if you allow your subcontractors access to the specifications and drawings through your company-controlled FTP site with user name and password as long as it is controlled access. The documents should have been posted to FBO as export controlled but were posted with explicit access.

This action could not be undone once the documents were posted to FBO.

Q3. Specification Section 01410-Testing Laboratory and Field Services; paragraph 1.03B indicates "The contractor shall hire the testing agency that performed the initial geotechnical reports for civil and site related testing". Who is the contractor that performed this initial testing? Can an alternate contractor be proposed?

A. This specification Section 01410-Testing Laboratory and Field Services;

paragraph 1.03B will be deleted in Amendment 03. Yes, an alternate should be proposed.

Q4. Specification Section 01100-Summary; paragraph 1.26B requires "A professional engineer or registered land surveyor licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia..." Can a professional engineer registered in the State of Maryland provide these services?

A. The engineer/surveyor should be licensed in the State of Maryland.

Q5. On Drawing ES-101B \ Electrical Site Plan Area B; the new light fixtures are shown to be fed from existing panelboard M-G and lighting control panel LCP02.

Are these “tie-ins” to be performed by the successful contractor under this contract? If this contractor is responsible for these “tie-ins”, how does this work affect any existing equipment warranties?

A. Tie-in to existing panel/controller as indicated in the drawings. Amendment 03 will include a deductive Line Item OPTION for Electrical Tie-Ins to be applied in the event the Government requires the Tie-Ins to be performed by another contractor.

Q6. Specification Section 02600-Pipeline Installation for Sanitary Sewer and Water Systems; paragraph 3.09, states that "Upon acceptance of the installation work and testing by Terrapin". Is Terrapin responsible for installation and testing of all sanitary and sewer systems? If not, is Terrapin responsible for only the testing and acceptance? Is there a fee schedule charged by Terrapin for this work? If so, please provide.

A. All work on the sanitary sewer and water line will be performed, tested, and accepted by Terrapin. Contact Terrapin at 301.735.4101 to obtain a construction cost estimate for these services. Addendum 00001 will include additional information.

Q7. Please provide profiles for the water and sanitary sewer lines shown on the C- 104B?

A. Included in Addendum 00001.

Q8. Reference Section 00010; Project Manual Table of Contents; Specification Section 02733-Sanitary Sewer Line Television Inspection is not listed, but has been provided.

A. Specification 02733-Sanitary Sewer Line Television Inspection will be added to the Table of Contents.

Q9. This project is located within the LEED boundaries outlined under the existing projects. However no reference is made to any LEED requirements. Is this project subject to LEED requirements? If so, what LEED requirements apply to this project?

A. There are no LEED requirements.

Q10. Specification Section 02316-Fill and Backfill; paragraph 3.03 directs us to “Place granular fill in lifts of 6-inch maximum thickness and compact each lift to minimum of 95 percent relative compaction as determined…” Is granular fill required if relative compaction of 95 percent can be achieved?

A. Provide granular fill as specified.

Q11. In detail 2220B on drawing C-503; is geotextile fabric required between subgrade and the aggregate base?

A. Geotextile fabric is not required.

Q12. In detail 220A on drawing C-503; is a prime coast required between the aggregate base coarse and the asphalt?

A. If large portions of the subgrade or base stone are to be left unpaved for more then 24-48 hours or during a rain event that prime coat is still necessary to protect the stone and subgrade from moisture and sedimentation, if not, prime coat can be deleted. In the event that Contractor has to replace base stone, and correct subgrade issues if they become fouled because no prime coat was used this will be done at no cost to the Government. Because the specifications were written around using prime coat, those provisions are not currently included in the specifications.

Q13. On drawing C-005; SOIL TYPE Note references the soil type and soil map included in the SWM Report Appendix B. It appears that the SWM report was not issued with this solicitation, please provide.

A. SWM report and C-005 are not used for construction, only for permitting of the project. Disregard note.

Q14. On drawing C-102a, there is a note that says “Embankment Centerline SEE C-302 for profile”. Drawing C-302 was not issued. Please provide this drawing or clarify this note.

A. Reference should be to C-303.

Q15. On drawing ES-101b; at location of approx line 2.5/C, the first parking island, light poles appear to be in the parking spaces to account for the sidewalk. Please confirm the light poles are to be located within the island on the West side of the sidewalk or if the sidewalk should shift West to allow the light poles to be in the island closest to their current position.

A. Sidewalk will be shifted west to provide grass area for light poles.

Q16. On drawings L-100 and L-500, the Planting/Landscaping documents have been issued for Area B only (parking lot). Please confirm that no landscaping drawings will be issued for Area A (South Pond location) and define the landscaping scope of work at this area.

A. No landscaping is proposed in the south pond, restore south pond as specified and noted on the drawings.

Q17. On drawing C-000; General Civil Notes-No. 2. tells us to contact AAFB 316 CES to obtain a ‘dig permit’ prior to any excavation. What is the anticipated response time from AAFE 316 CES after request for a “dig permit”?

A. Anticipate the response will take no more than four weeks.

Q18. Drawing C-003 shows 8 borings that have been completed. No additional information about the borings has been issued. Is this information available to bidders? If so, please provide.

A. Geotechnical report issued with Addendum 00001.

Q19. On drawing C-105; Standard Erosion and Sediment Control Notes No. 9 states that the “Site’s Approval Letter” shall be available on-site at all times. What is the “site approval letter”?

A. The letter will be provided prior to site disturbance by the Government upon final approval from the Maryland Department of the Environment.

Q20. On drawing C-105; Standard Erosion and Sediment Control Notes No. 27 indicates a “balanced site” with the use of borrow material from the on-site stockpile (item 27.g). Is the Contractor who is awarded this project to assume this project is balanced and that the stockpile material is suitable for backfill/compaction? If the stockpile is determined to be inadequate and borrow material has to be hauled in from an off-site location, who is responsible for the associated costs? The Government or the Contractor?

A. Assume the stockpiled material is suitable for backfill/compaction and the site is balanced. If insufficient quantities to reach final grades are discovered, refer to specifications section 01250.

Q21. On drawing C-103a, note #6 states that “if existing stockpiled material is insufficient, notify contracting officer.” If this situation happens, how will the contractor be directed to proceed? I.e.-import new material from an off-site source? Import new material from owner provided source on base?, etc… Please clarify.

A. No importing of soil is anticipated.

Q22. On drawing C-103, the grades/contours appear to depict the entire on-site stockpile being available for use in this project. It is our understanding that a portion of this stockpiled material will be used as fill material for the current building project being constructed across the street. How much of this stockpile can we anticipate to be available to build the South Pond?

A. As required to construct pond.

Q23. When is anticipated award date of this solicitation?

A. The Government has ninety (90) days after this solicitation closes to make award.

The Government intends to award within this time period.

Q24. When is anticipated issuance of 100% or IFC documents?

A. The project provided (95%) are biddable as provided, however we do not currently have MDEQ concurrence as relates to permits which the Government is in the process of obtaining. Upon approval the documents will reflect the MDEQ approval and be converted to 100% documents. These will be issued by amendment prior to closing if obtained in time, or after closing but prior to award. In the event changes occur during to the permitting process, all offerors remaining in the competitive range at the time the amendment is issued will be given the opportunity to re-price to address the changed conditions.

Q25. On page 19 of 73 in the RFP; item 3.1 Price Evaluation; a clerical error appears to call out the limit for the entire project to be $15M. Please confirm that the funding limit for the entire project is to be $1.5M.

A. The funding limit for the entire project is to be $1.5M.

Q26. Specification Section 02072 and the RFP seem to indicate that the contractor is responsible for Hazardous Materials abatement that may be found on the site.

Please verify that if any hazardous materials are found on the site, they will be handled with the FAR clause concerning differing site conditions since there is no way to identify and/or quantify the extent at this time.

A. A unit pay item description and contingent quantity provided with Addendum

00001.

Q27. In selecting our relevant Past Performance projects for use on the Exhibit A, please advise if it is acceptable to break out parking lot construction and/or related, applicable work that was included as a component of a larger construction contract and treat that individual component as past performance relevant to the ANGRC Operations Center project."

A. Yes, state the entire project as reference then show relevant work and give value of that work.

Q28. The geotechnical report issued with Amendment 3 was not prepared for the construction of the parking lot and pond proposed in this solicitation. Due to insufficient information being provided in the geotechnical report, it is impossible to determine the suitability of the in-situ soils at the site. For the purpose of this proposal, and in keeping with the assumption that the soils in the stockpile are suitable for placement in fills, can the proposal be based upon the assumption that all excavated earth is suitable for placement in site structural fills and as trench backfill?

A. The geotechnical report was prepared for the entire site area as indicated on page

43. No geotechnical investigation was performed in the stockpile material.

Stockpile material was generated from cut material generated in close proximity to boring P8E. Assume stockpile material is adequate for fill and backfill.

Q29. The geotechnical report issued with Amendment 3 was not prepared for the construction of the parking lot and pond proposed in this solicitation. Due to insufficient information being provided in the geotechnical report, it is impossible to determine the suitability of the in-situ soils at the site. For the purpose of this proposal, and in keeping with the assumption that the soils in the stockpile are suitable for placement in fills, can the proposal be based upon the assumption that the clays required for the cut-off trench and the dam core will be available from the stockpile, or from an onsite proposed earth cut?

A. The geotechnical report was prepared for the entire site area as indicated on page

43. No geotechnical investigation was performed in the stockpile material.

Stockpile material was generated from cut material generated in close proximity to boring P8E. Assume material for cut-off trench and dam core are not available on site

Q30. Drawing ES-101b shows a new 12 Strand FM SO cable from the communications vault to existing building #3537. However, the drawing does not indicate how to terminate the cable at either end. How is the fiber optic cable is to be terminated?

A. Terminate one end of the 12 Strand SM FO cable in a existing patch panel inside

Building #3537 and terminate the other end of the 12 Strand SM FO cable in a new fiber closure inside the Comm Vault. Terminate the cable using ST connectors.

Q31. Drawing ES-101a indicates a new 200 pair telephone cable, concrete encased, to be run through the wooded area within the LOD. The existing cable is direct buried and would need to be rerouted prior to site clearing so that a disruption in service does not occur. The new ductbank is shown within the wooded area, which cannot be cleared until the cable is rerouted. Is it acceptable to run a new cable above ground attached at the LOD so that site clearing can begin and once site clearing is completed install the new concrete encased ductbank?

A. See C-105 for sequence of construction, note 6. Ductbank shall be re-routed prior to site clearing.