Questions_and_Answers_78-95__W91242-18-R-0002.pdf

Questions and Answers (78‐95)

Date: 23 February 2018

Solicitation Number W91242‐18‐R‐0002

C‐17 Type III Hydrant Refueling System Ramp Expansion

Question 78: Spec section 33 52 80 para 2.2 requires that coating provider certify that the shop applied FBE lining be suitable for immersion in aviation fuel, We are unaware of a coater that will certify this. Can the Government provide a source that will comply with this requirement?

Answer: See Amendment 0006. The fusion bonded epoxy interior coating (AWWA C213) requirement has been removed and replaced with the interior epoxy coating (MIL PRF 4556). See revised specification sections 33 52 43.13 and 33 52 80.

Question 79: Reference Sheets C‐509, CU220‐CU226, B‐101, CD106, CD107, C509 & C511. Detail A1 on

Sheet C‐509 indicates that the bottom of trench for Line A of the Hydrant Loop is approximately 9’ wide. The invert elevation of line A in the existing airfield paving is approximately 7’ deep. While

Sheet B‐101 is difficult to read, it appears that the existing concrete thickness is approximately 18” leaving a 6’ trench depth, to include excavation for sand bedding. Again, while B‐101 is difficult to read, it appears that the existing soil is comprised of sandy‐silt classifying it as Type C and requiring a

1.5:1 slope of the trench sides. If our interpretation of Sheet B‐101 is accurate, then that would imply that the top of trench is approximately 27’ wide for Hydrant Loop Line A in the existing airfield paving.

Sheet CD106 indicates that the Scope of Work requires the Contractor to demolish one panel of the existing airfield paving. Observations from the site walk indicate that the existing concrete panels are approximately 20’ in length, running parallel to Line A, but much narrower in width. This indicates that the demolition of one panel of airfield paving may not be sufficient to accommodate a trench that is 27’ wide at the top. If accurate, then this would require the Contractor to install trench boxes and weld each length of pipe in place, which would be a detriment to the Government in both schedule and price. As such, please provide the dimensions of existing airfield paving panels. Also, please confirm that the scope of work only requires the demolition of one panel width of airfield paving for Line A.

Answer: The pavement panels are generally 20 ft. square. Pavement demolition for the pipeline is limited to one panel width except where needed to construct a fuel structure such as a hydrant pit. See drawings CS206 & CS207.

Question 80: Reference Sheets C‐509, CU220‐CU226, B‐101, CD106, CD107, C509 & C511. Detail C1 on

Sheet C‐511 indicates that the bottom of trench for Hydrant Lateral Lines B & C are approximately 5’ wide. The invert elevation of lines B & C in the existing airfield paving is approximately 7.5’ deep.

While Sheet B‐101 is difficult to read, it appears that the existing concrete thickness is approximately

18” leaving a 6.5’ trench depth, to include excavation for sand bedding. Again, while B‐101 is difficult to read, it appears that the existing soil is comprised of sandy‐silt classifying it as Type C and requiring a 1.5:1 slope of the trench sides. If our interpretation of Sheet B‐101 is accurate, then that would imply that the top of trench is approximately 24’ wide for Laterals B & C in the existing airfield paving.

Sheet CD106 & CD107 indicate that the Scope of Work requires the Contractor to demolish one panel of the existing airfield paving. Observations from the site walk indicate that the existing concrete panels are approximately 20’ in length, running parallel to Line A, but much narrower in width. This indicates that the demolition of one panel of airfield paving may not be sufficient to accommodate a trench that is 24’ wide at the top. If accurate, then this would require the Contractor to install trench boxes and weld each length of pipe in place, which would be a detriment to the Government in both schedule and price. As such, please provide the dimensions of existing airfield paving panels. Also, please confirm that the scope of work only requires the demolition of one panel width of airfield paving for Laterals B & C.

Answer: The pavement panels are generally 20 ft. square. Pavement demolition for the pipeline is limited to one panel width except where needed to construct a fuel structure such as a hydrant pit. See drawings CS206 & CS207.

Question 81: Please confirm that NDE must take place after 5 pm on weekdays. If so, please confirm that a full compliant of Site Management is required to be on site during these operations, to include

Superintendent, Quality Control Manager and SSHO.

Answer: Section 33 52 90.00 20 ‐ Contains NDE testing requirements It is a overall project requirement for all 3 (Safety, Super & QCM) to be onsite full time for all activities. Requirements contained in Specs

01 30 00, 01 35 26, 01 45 00.00 20. Also, See Amendment 0005, revised Section 01000 paragraph 36

Question 82: Paragraph 2.2.2 of Spec Section 33 52 80 states that the Contractor must furnish a certification from the coating manufacturer stating that the Fusion‐Bonded Epoxy Coating System is suitable for immersion service in aviation fuel. This has been researched extensively and it has been determined that no FBE coating manufacturer has performed the necessary tests to furnish this certification. Please provide clarification of this requirement.

Answer: See Amendment 0006. The fusion bonded epoxy interior coating (AWWA C213) requirement has been removed and replaced with the interior epoxy coating (MIL PRF 4556). See revised specification sections 33 52 43.13 and 33 52 80.

Question 83: Specification 09 90 00 PAINTING AND COATINGS does not appear to have a definitive limitation to its scope. Is it the intent of this specification to apply for ALL surfaces referenced in the specification, or to only those surfaces that directly reference back to this specification? For example, 09 90 00 Para 3.4.1 requires that concrete slab on grade requires a 90 day cure time before painting.

In the drawings, the pump house slab coating requirements refer back to 09 96 00 HIGH‐

PERFORMANCE COATINGS which has no such cure time requirement. Specification 09 96 00 HIGH‐

PERFORMANCE COATINGS does NOT reference back to 09 90 00 PAINTING AND COATINGS. Would 09

90 00 still apply? Please note that if 09 90 00 PAINTINGS AND COATINGS applies to all surfaces referenced within its specification (regardless if referenced elsewhere or not), then there would be significant cost and time impacts associated with the installation of concrete structures, and significant costs associated with all applications.

Answer: 09 90 00 PAINTING AND COATINGS scope is limited to interior and exterior finishes as identifed on the drawings and as referenced in other specification sections, excluding finishes identified for 09 96

00 HIGH‐PERFORMANCE COATINGS and 09 97 13.27 EXTERIOR COATING OF STEEL STRUCTURES.

Question 84: Specification 09 90 00 PAINTING AND COATINGS Para 1.3.1 – This section requires that the contractor performing the work covered in this specification section is to be SSPC QP 1 certified.

This section covers coatings for concrete, gypsum board, & plywood. Typically, we find that the SSPC

QP 1 certification is limited to work performed under 09 97 13.17 & 09 97 13.27. Please note that the

QP1 requirement will significantly increase the cost of coatings that are within the scope of 09 90 00.

Will the Government consider reducing the requirements for this section to eliminate the SSPC QP1 certification requirement?

Answer: See Amendment 0006 revisions to Spec 09 90 00 Para 1.3.1.

Question 85: Specification 09 96 00 HIGH‐PERFORMANCE COATINGS Para 2.2.1.1 – This section requires that an epoxy coating system be applied for vertical concrete surfaces. Does this section apply to ALL vertical concrete surfaces regardless if they are called out on the drawings or not, or to only those surfaces that specifically are called out on the drawings for an epoxy coating?

Answer: Specification section is only applicable to concrete walls called out in the drawings to have epoxy coating.

Question 86: Drawing GC001 – Note 2: Contractor to delineate a work zone using new or existing security fences meeting the standards of NC ANG around work areas. Note 3 indicates all work is inside the base security fence. Please clarify where the contractor is to provide additional security fencing.

Answer: Additional security fencing shall be coordinated and installed at the direction of the North

Carolina Air National Guard if any delineation is needed for construction work areas and airfield operations areas. Please coordinate with the ANG if any additional fencing is needed other than the existing security fence.

Question 87: Clarification is being sought with regards to how the fuel piping system is to be exterior coated and interior lined. Specification section 33 52 43.13 “Aviation Fuel Piping” addresses the individual materials requirements and standards as well as connections of materials and some various fuel line accessories such as valves, strainers, flex connectors, Automatic air vents, quick connectors.

Paragraph 2.2.4 “Protective Coatings for Buried Steel Piping” refers the contractor to specification section 33 52 80 “Liquid Fuels Pipeline Coating System”. Paragraph 2.2.5.2 (d) states that the interior

Coating system shall be applied in paragraph “Carbon Steel Piping or 2.2.1.1 which requires an Interior

Epoxy coating system. There is no other specifics provided such as mil thicknesses of coatings or guide standards. Where the confusion comes in is that in specification section 33 52 80 “Liquid Fuels

Pipeline Coating Systems addressed as the specification section to be followed for the exterior coating of the piping also contains paragraph 2.2.2 is a spec requirement for Internal Pipe Coating but this section is not referenced in Specification Section 33 52 43.13 as the guide to be followed for interior lining system. Specification section 33 52 43.13 only references Section 33 52 80 for the “Exterior coating of buried piping”. Will the exterior coating be required on both carbon steel and stainless steel buried piping? Does the double wall piping exterior casing also require external coating to be applied?

Answer: Per Specification section 33 52 43.13‐2.2.3 "Protective Coatings for Aboveground Piping" addresses the external coating system to be applied to aboveground carbon steel pipe. Specification section 33 52 43.13 Paragraph 2.2.5.2 (d) refers to "Carbon Steel Piping" (paragraph 2.2.1) and that paragraph refers to the buried/internal/external coating specs. Also paragraph 2.2.3 "Protective

Coatings for Aboveground Piping" further clarifies the external coating specification to be applied to aboveground carbon steel pipe. Coating Thickness for buried piping external coatings and internal coatings can be found in Section 33 52 80 paragraph 2.2. The total coating thickness for aboveground piping can be found in 33 97 13.27 paragraph 3.6.3. Per previous bidders questions, the internal coating system is referenced in Section 33 52 43.13 paragraph 2.2.1 d). Specification section 33 52 80 paragraph

2.2.2 was further clarified to indicate that that the spec covers the internal coating for buried and aboveground lined carbon steel. See Amendment 0006, Specification section 33 52 43.13‐2.2.4 has been revised to clarify that all buried CS carrier pipe, and CS containment pipe and buried SS piping piping will require external coating in accordance with 33 52 80.

Question 88: In Amend 3, the Spec 33 52 43.13‐2.2.1.d was modified and deleted the interior epoxy coating system MIL‐PRF‐4556 for pipe. It refers now to Spec 33 52 80‐2.2.2. This spec calls for Fusion

Bonded Epoxy certified for immersion service in aviation fuel. This has been asked for before on other projects and no coating manufacturer will provide this certification. Also, for buried pipe, there is no coater that can coat FBE to AWWA C‐213 specification on the ID and OD of the same piece of pipe. I request the interior pipe coating system of MIL‐PRF‐4556 be reinstated to the 33 52 43.13 spec.

Answer: See Amendment 0006. The fusion bonded epoxy interior coating (AWWA C213) requirement has been removed and replaced with the interior epoxy coating (MIL PRF 4556). See revised specification sections 33 52 43.13 and 33 52 80. This response supersedes previous responses regarding the type of interior pipe coating.

Question 89: Spec 33 52 43.13‐2.2.5.2.c requires weld neck flanges. Drawing M‐513 points out socket weld flanges for the Pressure Gauge Assembly and TRV Assembly. Can socket weld flanges be used for all 2” and smaller pipe connections throughout the project for carbon and stainless steel? Similar to the fitting requirement for 2” and smaller fittings (Para 2.2.5.2.b).

Answer: Per UFC 3‐460‐01, section 9‐8, g), "In steel piping systems, use socket weld joints on 2‐inch (50

mm) diameter nominal size and smaller pipe." Socket weld flanges are acceptable for applicable piping

2‐inches or less. See Amendment 0006, specification revised section 33 52 43.13.

Question 90: The drawings show labels for the Low Point Drain Pits as LPD‐A3, LPD‐2, LPD‐3, LPD‐4. Is there a LPD‐1 on the project?

Answer: There is no LPD‐1 in this project.

Question 91: Spec 33 52 90.00 – 3.2.2 NDE Testing Frequency states to “Provide 100% radiographic testing for all underground piping and aboveground piping down‐stream of the hydrant issue pumps.

Provide random radiographic testing in accordance with ASME B31.3 for all aboveground piping.”

Please clarify the extent of “…piping down‐stream of the hydrant issue pumps.” Does this consist of the above ground piping from issue pumps to the pig launcher, where the pipe then goes belowground, or all pressurized piping thru the return venturi and back to the tanks?

Answer: Refer to UFC 3‐460‐01 9‐7 Welding Criteria. All piping downstream of the hydrant issue pumps including the above ground piping from the discharge of the issue pumps to the pig launcher, where the pipe then goes belowground, including all pressurized piping thru the return venturi and back to the tanks, basically all new piping that will be subject to cyclical pressures. No changes to specifications or drawings required.

Question 92: We are in receipt of amendments 3 and 4 and because of the fast approaching bid date and amount of information we need to review, distribute (to subs and suppliers) and incorporate, can you please extend the bid date till the week of March 12th (at a minimum). I am sure you have deadlines on when an award is to be made, however, this is a very large and complicated project that requires careful consideration in all areas. Any changes to the current documents requires careful thought and considerations. The simplest changes which may seem insignificant can have a huge impact on costs and understanding so the time to research is critical.

Answer: See Amendment 0006

Question 93: As a follow‐on to the answer to Question 35 (dated 15 February 2018); please confirm that the Marine Chemist is only required to certify tank and piping as safe for “HOT Work” and not during clean construction activities that don’t represent an explosive hazard. Also, do other qualified persons, such as an ABIH Certified Industrial Hygienist, meet this requirement?”

Answer: See answer to question #35

Question 94: When will the remainder of the contractor’s technical questions be responded to and will these be presented in the Q&A format? Will the proposal due date be extended after all contractor responses have been posted?

Answer: Questions received by the latest deadline have been answered and posted on FBO. Please visti

FBO for details. See Amendment 0006, for revised proposal due date.

Question 95: Addendum for contains the Revised Exhibit H Bid Schedule. Are you going to issue a new

CLINN as well? (Section 00010 – Solicitation Contract Form)

Answer: See Amendment 0005