Atch_7_-_PAVE_PAWS_Q_&_A's_Am_0002,_13_Mar_18.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 17 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W91238-18-R-0021
About this file
Amd 0002 Atch 7 - PAVE PAWS Q & A's 13 Mar 18
View the file
Other files
Show all 30
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
Sheet1
| PAVE PAWS Bidder's Inquiries | ||
| ID Number | RFI | Government Response |
| 7327658 | In reference to the site visit on 2/21/2018, if our office is already located on Beale AFB, can we meet at PAVE PAWS? | No longer applicable |
| 7327659 | Can the prime and key subcontractors show the same experience and capability past performance in Factor 1 of the proposal submittal? | Yes. The experience and capability in Factor 1 may be the same, however the submittal must clearly state the work elements performed by the prime and the subcontractor. |
| 7331613 | The bidding documents reference an Attachment 5 (Specifications) and various Appendices within the Specifications, however these documents were not posted to FBO.gov. Should we expect to see these documents in an upcoming amendment? | PAVE PAWS SPECS 18 Jan 18 shall be incorporated into the solicitation via Amendment 0001. This is the most current specifications for this project. Please use to prepare proposal and submit further inquiries. All other referenced specifications should not be considered. |
| 7332071 | Are we to identify key design and construction personnel for the project? If so, as part of which factor? If so, which key personnel? | No the Government is not requesting key personnel to be submitted with their proposal. |
| 7335115 | In multiple places throughout the bidding documents, this project is referred to as a "Task Order". Please confirm that this is a language error and that this project is not considered a task order under a MACC project. | References to task will be removed. Nonetheless, this will be a contract and NOT task order. Changes will be included in Amendment 0002. |
| 7335125 | Though there are multiple Modification/Amendments posted on the FBO.gov site, there are no downloadable copies of these amendments and no numbers associated with them. In order to make sure that we are properly acknowledging all official amendments, please provide SF30s or numbers for all amendments we are responsible for acknowledging. | Amendment 0001 is hereby posted 2/28/18 and must be acknowledged in accordance with Tab 2 of the solicitation document (page 22). Other previous changes to the FBO posting were done to provide quick information to the vendor community about the site visit and bidder inquiry information. They were Info-Only in nature and thus no signatures are needed for those changes. |
| 7338421 | The RFP states "In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a prime contractor and subcontractor(s), where the prime contractor submits the proposal in response to the RFP, the prime contractor must have completed at least two of the total number of projects submitted for Factor 4. Does this rule apply to projects submitted in Factor 1? | Yes. This will be clarified in the RFP and incorporated in Amendment 0002. |
| 7338453 | May the offeror submit a PPQ that was filled in and submitted for a previous RFP as long as the format is identical to the form provided in this solicitation? | Yes |
| 7338697 | Phase 2 consists of the following major tasks: (01 10 10 2.3 Phasing) |
1) Replace MDP1 and all associated works with MDP1 Phase 4 consists of the following major tasks: Replace MDP2 and all work associated with MDP2.
Phase 5 consists of the following major tasks: 1) Replace T4160-1 and all work associated with T4160-1 (MDP1 750kva transformer); 2) Replace T4160-2 and all work associated works with T4160-2 (MDP2 750kva transformer.
As these (2) Phase 5 750kva transformers are connected to MDP1 & 2, the contractor will be removing and replacing both the MDPs & transformers at the same time.
Can Phase 2 & 4 work replacing MDP1 & 2 become a part of or be "incorporated" into the Phase 5 work replacing transformers T4160-1 & 2?
| Per Paragraph 2.3, the "Contractor may suggest alternate phasing so long as it complies with the requirements of the Statement of Work." However, for purposes of proposing on this project, the phases shall remain as is. | |||
| 7340033 | Due to the late release of the specifications/drawings, and the issues that occurred with the Bidder Key for submitting questions through ProjNet, will the government allow an extension to the due date for questions? | The proposal due date will be extended until 26 March 2018 at 2pm. And bidder inquiries may be submitted through 15 March 2018. | |
| 7340005 | Due to the specifications and drawings being issued after the site visit, will the government allow a second site visit now that we have had time to review these documents? | No second site visit will be held at this time. | |
| 7340039 | May we have the name and contact information for the fuel system contractor that is currently utilized for the service / maintenance of the existing fuel system for the generators / building? | The systems are maintained by the power plant staff. Testing and maintenance of the fuel tanks is accomplished by the Beale using Hancock Petroleum as the state certified service provider. Hancock Petroleum is located: 3320 Industrial Drive, Yuba City, 95993. 530.671.3642. | |
| 7340049 | Appendix I states, "Two PLC failures required to impact mission. Four PLC failures required before manual operation is required." Rather than a 2N + 2 control solution (an online redundant PLC pair with two offline PLCs), does the client really mean a 2N + 2N solution (an online master redundant PLC pair with an online standby redundant PLC pair)? | There is no Appendix I in the new package dated 18 January 2018. However, Appendix E states, PAVE PAWS has a robust power distribution system configured in a 2N + 2 arrangement. | |
| 7340050 | Alternatives to IP based communications should be considered if dictated by the USAF Industrial Controls policy. Where is this policy? (Ref I: Risk assessment) | The IP based communications is not recommended for replacing the existing PLC controls. The existing control PLCs and RSLogic 5 could be replaced with new microprocessor control system loaded with the executive program. | |
| 7340061 | The attached picture is of the existing MDP-1 Station Power Unit Substation. In the left upper corner of switchgear MDP-1 there is an existing 30-45kva transformer mounted on top of the (E)750kva transformer cabinet. This transformer is presently feeding a subpanel on the back wall. Phase 2 Demolition of MDP-1 will require removal of the existing 30-45kva transformer. Do you want the contractor to re-install the existing 30-45kva transformer back on top of the new MDP-1 or at another location ? | See Air Force Manual 17-1301, Computer Security Manual which will be provided in Amendment 0002. Bottom line is the proposed system needs to be configured as a stand-alone isolated network. |
| 7340101 | Detailed project requirements were only made available on February 23, 2018. Insufficient time is available for the detailed consideration appropriate for such a complex project. Request minimum extension of bid delivery by two weeks. Please advise. | The proposal due date will be extended until 26 March 2018 at 2pm. And bidder inquiries will be submitted through 15 March 2018. |
| 7340125 | Specifications 01 10 10, paragraph 6.1.3 "specs, plans, photo's updated 2-22-18.pdf" page 33, requires various load calculations. Please clarify the following: |
1. Does 6.1.3.a refer only to the new 480V 350kW generator?
2. Does 6.1.3.d "new transformers base" refer to new 4160V-480V transformers T4160-1 and T4160-2? What are new loads? How is Contractor to ascertain load profile of existing and new loads?
3. Does 6.1.3.3 "new generator base" refer to existing 4160V generators? What are new loads? How is Contractor to ascertain load profile of existing and new loads?
1. Does 6.1.3.a refer only to the new 480V 350kW generator? *Yes 2. Does 6.1.3.d "new transformers base" refer to new 4160V-480V transformers T4160-1 and T4160-2? What are new loads? How is Contractor to ascertain load profile of existing and new loads? ** The load configuration for the transformers have been changed to address 2n+2 requirement. In Appendix C, Sheet E2, Note 2 will be changed to "Remove existing 480V MCC1 from MDP1" and Note 4 will be changed to "Remove existing 480V MCC2 fed from MDP2". These changes will be incorporated in an upcoming amendment. 3. Does 6.1.3.3 "new generator base" refer to existing 4160V generators? What are new loads? How is Contractor to ascertain load profile of existing and new loads? *** There is no 6.1.3.3. If you have additional questions, please submit in ProjNet.
7340129 Per (Sheet #14) the One-Line DWG, the new 350kw Generator will be supplying power to a new 600a Distribution panel that will be connected to a new 150a ATS, which will back-feed existing Panel DP-1 in the Power Plant and existing Panel HL at the rear of ECP Bldg.
Per (Sheet #14) the One-Line DWG it "also shows" the new 600a Distribution panel will be connected to a new 400a ATS, which will back feed (Sheet E#16) existing Panel DP-9 in room 105 and also Panel ESDP-1 in room 105.
Therefore the DWGs indicate that two (2) new ATS are required. However, at the 2/21/18 site visit, While touring the 155kw Generator Room and comparing One-Line DWGs regarding the new 350kw generator installation on Sheets #14 & #16 with Ron Hernandez Project/Building Manager. I was told by Mr. Hernandez DWGs that the DWGs contractors have received are "Not Correct" and that there should only be one (1) ATS. Is this correct, only one new ATS required? If so, can we be provided revised drawings for the new 350kw Generator, Distribution Panel and ATS on Sheets #14 & #16 ?
Paragraph 6.1.3.a refers to the new 350kW essential lighting generator only. Paragraph 6.1.3.d refers to either dead load calcs for the MDP replacement transformers or anticipated electrical load sizing for transformers in the essential lighting generator circuit which there is none since we did not add additional load, we transferred existing load to the generator. Neither did we add load to the 4160 MDP transformers.
7340204 Specifications 01 10 10, paragraph 6.1.3 "specs, plans, photo's updated 2-22-18.pdf" page 33, requires various load calculations. Please clarify the following:
1. Does 6.1.3.a refer only to the new 480V 350kW generator?
2. Does 6.1.3.d "new transformers base" refer to new 4160V-480V transformers T4160-1 and T4160-2? What are new loads? How is Contractor to ascertain load profile of existing and new loads?
3. Does 6.1.3.3 "new generator base" refer to existing 4160V generators? What are new loads? How is Contractor to ascertain load profile of existing and new loads?
FORGOT ADDED QUESTION TO PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED QUESTIONS:
Transformer and new egen sizing is already fixed by RFQ. Is it understood that the contractor shall bear no responsibility should load calculations required indicate any problem with egen or transformer sizing?
| No. The Designer of Record is required to provide load calculations as applicable in the SOW and as stated in 6.1.3. | |||
| 7340215 | Appendix A. PLC IO List, "specs, plans, photo's updated 2-22-18.pdf" pages 428-433. The list appears to be an HMI (Human-Machine Interface) taglist rather than a PLC IO (Input/Output) list. Please advise a complete list of PLC physical IO and their location. | The existing interconnection diagrams will be provided in Amendment 0002. | |
| 7340211 | This Key note indicates we are to provide a new 350kw generator , two ATS, a "Load Bank", and new 480/277v electrical circuits to ECP. What size load bank? What is the location of the load bank? (Ref page: Appendix A 428-433) | A new load bank should have capabilities of all load bank test requirements for a new 350KW generator. The existing load bank is located outside of the generator building. | |
| 7340217 | The RFP includes design and delivery of: A) Computerized Utility Control System; B) Ethernet LAN; and C) Windows based PC's. However the RFP did not state any cybersecurity requirements or design guidance. Can the Government confirm if UFC 4-010-06 Cybersecurity of Facility-Related Control Systems or any other comparable Information Assurance / Cybersecurity requirements (NIST800, DOD8500, etc) are applicable to this project? If so, which? (Ref: 01 10 10_ | Interconnecting the power switching system and FMS would require Ethernet LAN, but it should be localized to the inside boundary limit of the building. As The new system does not require to be connected any outside communications, it does not require any cybersecurity. | |
| 7340230 | The RFP states that there will be three Design Submittals (35%, 95%, and 100%) and a single Notice To Proceed (NTP). It is our understanding that to implement the system in 5 phases in order to retain full operational capability that the 3 total design submittals shall include all required design sheets to show the expected integration sequence. For example, the 35% design submittal would include a single-line diagram demolition sheet that clearly delineates what equipment is being demolished in each phase, and also include seven new construction single line diagrams (one for each phase that shows connection of new equipment to phase-dependent amount of existing equipment). Is this understanding correct? (Ref: 01 33 16) | Yes, that is correct. | |
| 7340238 | The solicitation dated 5 Feb 2018 (file named 18R0021_Official_Sol.pdf) lists the proposal exhibits/attachments on page 5, and lists Attachment 01 SOW to have a date of 04AUG2017, and Attachment 05 PAVE PAWS SPECS with 553 pages and dated 20DEC2017. The SPECs that were recently provided (on 2/23/2018) with file name PAVE PAWS SPECS_18JAN2018 does not match the version/date listed in the solicitation. Additionally the new specs document has a cover page stating the document is an RFP, and includes a SOW that is dated 18JAN2017. Government to clarify what portions of the PAVE PAWS SPEC file are to be used (e.g. specifications section only, all other sections superceded). | The Specifications dated 18 Jan 2018 are the most recent specification. The SOW in this specification has an error on the date, it should be "18 Jan 2018" and not "18 Jan 2017". This will be correct in Amendment 0002. Additionally, Amendment 0001 will remove Attachment 01 SOW, dated 4 August 2017. | |
| 7340245 | Any work on existing switchgear requires safety analysis and compliance with NFPA 70E. Photos of switchgear and MCCs show arc flash and shock hazard "danger" labels dated 2009. Will USACE forward existing switchgear short circuit and coordination and arc flash hazard studies including report printouts and EasyPower digital files to the successful bidder ? May the contractor accept the existing analysis as valid, or must the contractor repeat analysis of existing? | The Easypower model for Pavel Paws will be provided in Amendment 0002. As a part of this project, the contractor shall follow the RFP that includes updating the Easypower and do all the required studies as shown RFP. |
File details come from the government source that posted it.