Questions_and_Answers_88-103_W91242-18-B-0891.pdf

Questions and Answers #4 Solicitation Number W91242-18-B-0891

88. Question: 05 12 00-1.6.C notes shop-paint applicators must be qualified according to AISC's Sophisticated Paint Endorsement P1 or to SSPC-QP3 "standard Procedure for Evaluating Qualifications of Shop Painting Applicators." Can this Endorsement be waived as long as the steel contractor can meet the requirements of the finish paint system to provide a more competitive bid? For those who don't have this endorsement, they will encur a significant add to subcontract this work.

Answer: No, AISC certification shall not be waived. Provide as specified. Per review of certified AISC erectors listed in NC (Charlotte area), there is sufficient group published for bidding.

89. Question: Please indicate where the asphalt to concrete pavement transition detail 9/C-502 is required on the site plan CS-100 or CS-101.

Answer: Detail is not required and is being omitted from the plan sheet. See Amendment 0005, revised Sheet C-502.

90. Question: Detail 9/C-502 calls for a 1" ASB bond breaker and a 15" thick cement treated base under the concrete pavement. It also calls 10" thick (HMAC) asphalt pavement over a 12" stabilized subgrade. The pavement transition detail conflicts with both the asphalt and concrete paving details 1/C-501, 2/C-501, 5/C-501, and 6/C-501. Please clarify pavement and subbase material thicknesses at the transitions.

Answer: Detail is not required and is being omitted from the plan sheet. See Amendment 0005, revised Sheet C-502.

91. Question: Section 09 67 23 instructs to perform moisture testing of the concrete slab. Is there a specification available for a moisture mitigating system if required?

Answer: Question references RESINOUS FLOORING specification Section (09 67 23) therefore it is assumed question is regarding application requirements for such product. For Concrete Substrate moisture testing requirements, refer Paragraph 3.1, B.

92. Question: Drawing EP-104 (Note 13).Hangar Bay call for Cable Reels to have Explosion Proof Receptacle. We have found a manufacture who can provide the Explosion Proof Receptacle, but it will be installed on a standard SO Cord. Is this acceptable?

Answer: The flexible cord shall be a listed cord in accordance with Article 501 of the NEC and terminated with a listed cord connector. The cord and connector shall be listed for a Class 1, Division 1 location.

93. Question: Please provide panel schedules for Panels CC1A and CC2A. The specified booth manufacturers do not have this information available to provide to electrical contractors for bidding purposes.

Answer: Paint Booth/Sanding Room contractors are responsible to develop panel design as part of their delegated design responsibilities. They are also responsible for power distribution from the control panels. Building electrical contractors are only responsible for providing power to the panels. See Amendment 0005, revised drawings EP103 and EP108, and revised Specification 41 34 23.33.

94. Question: Detail 2/C-502 shows an underdrain system under the rigid concrete paving, but no underdrains are shown in the storm drainage plans or elsewhere in the civil drawings. Please either confirm that underdrains are not required or provide revised civil drawings and details for pricing.

Answer: Underdrains are required and depicted on sheet CG-101 SITE GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN. The underdrain is to be placed near the trench drains located north of the C-17 hangar doors and is called out with Keynote 9.

95. Question: Key Note 4 is applied to the portion of concrete pavement directly abutting the asphalt paved entrance drive, which calls for 6” pavement per detail 2/C-501. However, this same portion of concrete pavement is hatched with the symbol for rigid concrete aircraft apron per the Legend on this drawing, which is 12.5” thick. Is this portion of concrete pavement 6” per 2/C-501 or 12.5” per 7/C-501?

Answer: See Amendment 0005, pavement hatching has been revised on sheet CS-100 and CS-101, clarifying limits of concrete pavement and applicable pavement sections.

96. Question: Division 2 Foundations Note 2.1-D on S-001 says that residual MH soils (PI’s greater than

30) encountered within areas supporting foundations, slabs on grade, and pavements shall be undercut and replaced with engineered fill to a minimum depth of 2’ below foundations, slabs, and pavements. CLIN 0002 requires us to price 500 CY of unsuitable soil disposal and backfill. (A) Within our pricing for CLIN 0001, are we to assume a total overexcavation of 500 CY of undocumented soils for all areas (building footprint, foundations, and site paving)? If not, how much overexcavation should be included in CLIN 0001 for each element (building footprint, foundations, and site paving)? (B) Please confirm that the 500 CY of disposal and backfill in CLIN 0002 is intended to cover all replacement required for all areas (building footprint, foundations, and site paving), and that bidders are not required to include costs in CLIN 0001 for replacing unsuitable soils under foundations and site paving.

Answer: (A) Contractor shall include all costs associated with the over excavation of undocumented fill beneath the building footprint in accordance with Division 2 notes 2.1.c and 2.1.d on sheet S-001 and specification 31 20 00 Earth Moving paragraph 3.5.A.1 within CLIN 0001.

Contractor may reuse the over excavated material provided it meets the soil material requirements specified in paragraph 2.1 of specification 31 20 00 for their intended use.

(B) In the event that it is determined that the over excavated material is unsuitable for reuse on the site, the unsuitable material shall be legally removed and disposed of offsite. The cost and quantity associated with the removal and disposal of unsuitable material and backfill shall be applied to CLIN0002. Bidders are not required to include costs in CLIN 001 for replacing unsuitable soils under footings and site paving.

97. Question: Specification 31 20 00, Section 3.5, Para. A.1. states to “Over excavate the full depth of unsuitable existing fill materials beneath the building footprint.” and that, “Over excavated soils shall be replaced with compacted engineered fill…” but does not mention anything about the over excavated soil being reused if it is determined to be suitable. However, CLIN 0002 (as revised per Amendment 003) states in the description, “In the event that it is determined that the over excavated material is unsuitable for reuse on the site, the unsuitable material shall be legally removed and disposed of offsite.”, which suggests it is permissible to reuse the existing undocumented/over excavated soil if found to be suitable (the basis for pricing of CLIN 0001).

Please confirm that, in our pricing for CLIN 0001, the over excavated soils can be reused for all applications (building footprint, foundations, and site paving) if determined to be suitable per the project requirements.

Answer: Over excavated undocumented fill that meets the soil materials requirements as defined in paragraph 2.1 of specification 31 20 00 EARTH MOVING and is determined to be suitable for reuse on the project site may be reused in accordance with project requirements.

98. Question: Given that there is no sole source justification for the standing seam metal roof panels, will other manufacturers’ products be considered acceptable as alternates to the Centria/Versacor basis of design product called out in part 2.2 of the SSMRP section, 07 4113.16, provided that they meet the performance requirements specified?

Answer: The Centria product called out in specification section 07 41 13.16 - STANDING-SEAM METAL ROOF PANELS is not a sole sourced product. It is the Basis-of-Design Product. Other acceptable products are listed in that section. Also, refer to section 01 60 00 - PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS for the definition of Basis-of-Design and also for Substitution Requests procedures.

99. Question: Question #’s 9, 16, 17, and 19 from the Q&A documents in the amendments have all requested clarification on the sealed concrete vs diamond honed notes. The answers provided give section 03 30 00, 3.11.D (last sentence) as the intended description of “diamond honed”. This sentence reads “Grind smooth any surface defects that would telegraph through applied coatings or floor coverings”. Given the ambiguity of this note and the lack of information in the finish schedule, there is still a bit of confusion over the design intent. Is the intent to only grind at rough areas to maintain an aesthetically smooth finish and then apply a penetrating sealer per para 3.14, or are you requesting a diamond honed polished concrete system? The price difference between the two options is considerable.

Answer: See Amendment 0005, revised Specification Section 03 30 00, 3.11.G for clarification of Diamond Honed Finish for the Hangar floor finish that shall be provided as part of the Base Bid.

Note that this finish cost shall be deducted as part of the Optional Line Item for the Fuel Resistant Resinous Flooring.

100. Question: On page M103, detail A1, mark c5/m303, there is an unmarked exhaust fan. Is this ef-11?

Answer: Yes this fan is EF-11 as indicated on detail C5/M303.

101. Question: Louver schedule for SIM and Fire pump building (M-602) I did not see a SIM building. Has this been removed from this set? The first item on the schedule is L-1S, which refers to a lover associated with AHU-01S & 02S. I cannot find AHU-01S/02S or the Louver. Have these items been deleted?

Answer: The Simulation building was removed from this package. The Fire Pump building louver still applies to this package. See Amendment 0005, revised louver schedule on sheet M-602.

102. Question: GV-1 & 2 ( on M-141 – roof plan) are for a curring oven. This oven is mentioned in the equipment plans, see Q-106, Room H138, equipment C3. This oven is right below the GV-1 & 2 (see Q-102, detail A2 and match it to detail A4). On Q-103, detail A has a building cut section.

Under match line H1 there appears to be some ductwork, it is not sized, nor is there a reference to what it is for. 1. Is this for the oven? 2. Does the government provide the ductwork (with the government setup) and we install? 3. Or do we provide the ductwork and install. a. If we provide it, please request the specifications needed for that install.

Answer: 1. Yes, Ductwork shown is for the oven and shown for illustrative/coordination purposes.

2. Yes, Government will procure the oven directly and oven vendor shall supply ductwork, and yes the Contractor shall install the oven and all infrastructure (as noted on Sheet Q-601). 3. General Contractor will not supply oven ductwork, but will install it.

103. Question: Section 01 23 00, as revised by Amendment 4, calls Optional Line Item #1 for the operable partition OCLIN 002. We are a little confused, since we believe CLIN 002 is for the unsuitable soils. This would make Optional Line Item #1 either CLIN 0003 or OCLIN 0001.

Answer: See Amendment 0005 for revised spec section 01 23 00, which corrects the CLIN numbering to match the SF 1442.