Responses_to_Technical_Questions_from_Industry_102612.pdf

Questions from Industry

W9124J-12-R-0014

Below are questions received for the solicitation and the respective answers. The solicitation and/or solicitation attachments have been modified, if appropriate, to reflect the answers provided below. Questions and answers have been grouped by topic. If similar or duplicate questions were received for a specific topic, only one answer is provided to avoid repetition.

Note: The sample task will NOT be awarded as a result of this MATOC solicitation.

Offerors are advised to prepare their sample task order proposals for technical evaluation in accordance with the SOW as written and the answers to questions herein.

Past Performance

1. Reference page 70 of 76. TAB F, Past Performance. This paragraph indicates offeror is to submit past performance for jobs which are the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services being procured under this solicitation. Per the coefficient schedule, jobs similar in size would range anywhere from $3,000.00 to $500,000.00.

Past performance for projects between $500,001 and $600,000 be considered or rated as unacceptable?

Past performance for projects between $600,001 and $700,000 be considered or rated as unacceptable?

Answer. The subject Solicitation is for a Multiple Award Task Order Contract with a maximum magnitude of $13.5M and encompasses three states. It is at the Offeror’s discretion to submit any past performance they believe is relevant to the MATOC effort.

2. At the top of the past performance information sheet, what number is meant by

"Reference #"?

Answer: The Offeror shall indicate the numerical assignment of the reference within their past performance volume submission. For example, if the Offeror submits 5 references, each submitted past performance sheet shall indicate Reference #1, Reference #2, Reference #3, Reference #4, or Reference #5. References should be numbered consecutively and be inclusive of all references for the team.

3. Can you please clarify if for Volume III-Past Performance Section of this RFP we can utilize KEY PERSONNEL Experience?

Answer: The past performance evaluation will be conducted in accordance with Sections L & M of the solicitation and FAR 15.305(a)(2). It is within the Offeror’s discretion to submit information in accordance with the referenced sections they believe to be relevant to the instant acquisition for evaluation by the Past Performance Team.

4. The RFP states that we are to provide a consolidated list of key personnel. Do you want resumes included?

Answer: Resumes are not required.

5. According to the Proposal Preparation Instructions, a sample past performance consent letter is supposed to be enclosed as Attachment 1; however, Attachment 1 is the Past Performance Information Sheet. Is there a sample consent letter that has not been included?

Answer: No sample consent letter was provided in the solicitation. The reference to the sample letter has been removed. For applicable projects, Offerors may utilize their own letter which clearly authorizes the release of past performance information to the prime offeror.

6. Under Tab D in Volume 3, we are directed to include authorization letters for commercial customers we are submitting a past performance references. We assume that if all of our references for past performance are federal government agencies/personnel then we are not required to submit authorization letters. Is this correct?

Answer: As stated in the solicitation, Section L(I)(C)(3)(c), the client authorizations are for commercial customers.

7. Other than the 50-page limit for the Past Performance Volume, is there a limit on the maximum number of past performance information sheets that can be submitted?

Answer: Please reference Section L(I)(C)(3)(c). Past performance sheets are limited to 3 pages per reference. Offerors shall submit a minimum of 5 references (if proposing without teaming partners), a minimum of three contracts per partner - if proposing as a Joint Venture, and if proposing as a team, a minimum of 3 references are to submitted for the prime and a minimum of 1 reference for each team member is required. Offerors may exceed the minimum requirements. However, the volume must remain within the 50-page limit.

8. Reference Section I.C.3.c.iv, page 71/76 - Please consider allowing offerors to submit completed CCASS evaluations or recently completed PPQ forms in lieu of requesting another PPQ form as evidence of past performance. It is our experience that clients are reluctant to complete a PPQ form for projects that have a final CCASS evaluation or a completed PPQ form.

Answer: CCASS evaluations will not be permitted in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires. The PPQ forms the government provided for this solicitation are specific to this acquisition. Therefore, no other PPQ forms should be utilized in lieu of the provided forms.

9. If the offeror is submitting a project for past performance that was completed as a subcontractor for a DoD agency project (i.e., NAVFAC or USACE), do we need to complete the Client Authorization Letter for the Prime Contractor on that DoD project?

Or, is the Client Authorization Letter only for private sector commercial projects?

Answer: If the project past performance reference is being sought from the [commercial] prime contractor, a client authorization letter would be required. If the project reference is being sought directly from a Government source, with knowledge of the subcontractor’s performance (without input from the prime contractor), a client authorization letter is not required.

10. If the offeror is not utilizing any subcontractors, Joint Venture partners, or teaming partners to qualify experience or past performance, Volume 3, Tab C Consent Letters is not applicable to them, correct?

Answer: Correct.

11. Please confirm Volume 1 Tab H Letters of Intent/Teaming Agreement is not applicable to those Offerors not utilizing teaming partners, subcontractors, or joint venture partners for past performance.

Answer: The requested Letters of Intent/Teaming Agreements apply to any contemplated teaming arrangements utilized for work under the MATOC, not just past performance consideration. If no teaming partners, subcontractors, or joint venture partners are contemplated, no Letters of Intent/Teaming Agreements are required.

Bid Security

12. Per block 13B of the SF-1442, this project requires a bid bond. Please confirm this solicitation requires a bid bond.

If required, please verify bid bond is for 100% instead of the customary 20%.

Bid bonds are usually 20% of the price bid. At page 61 of the solicitation it states that the bond is to be 100% of the bid or $1 M, whichever is less. Is it correct that the bid bond is to be 100% of the bid/price proposal for the sample project?

Answer: A bid bond is no longer required.

Design-Build

16. This MATOC involves both Design-Build Task Orders and Construction Only Task Orders. According to the solicitation, selection for Design-Build Task Orders will be two-phased; the first phase being technical qualifications, the second phase based on price. The proposal preparation instructions state that the Offeror’s proposal shall include price. Therefore, are we to assume that the sample (seed) project at Los Alamitos is not a Design-Build Task Order, but construction-only?

Is the Sample Task Order project considered a design-build or bid-build? There seems to only be a few drawings, none of which seem to be stamped. Is it the requirement of Offeror to finalize the design to IFC’s, then construct, or will the Government provide final, stamped design documents to bid?

If the sample (seed) project at Los Alamitos is a Design-Build Task Order, does the 120-day Period of Performance assume time for owner design review and approval?

Answer: The sample task shall be priced as a SRM project, not design/build. No stamped drawings will be provided for proposal preparation purposes.

17. At the pre-proposal conference it was stated that design build task orders would use the two-phase approach. Generally, what criteria will be used in selecting the prime contractor to prepare a phase two proposal?

Answer: The evaluation criteria for design/build task orders will be delineated in the individual Request for Task Order Proposal (RTOP). Reference Section H.21(5) for the two-phased design build process.

20. Reference: Page 8 of 77, Section C – Descriptions and Specifications, Statement of Work, Paragraph 1. General: General. Work under this contract will be ordered by issuance of individual task orders. Task orders will be in the form of Requests for Task Order Proposal (RTOPs). Contractors will compete for work by responding to issued RTOPs. All RTOPs issued for Design/Build task orders will utilize 2 Phase Design/Build procedures. Award of each task order will be based on either price or best value to the government. The contractor shall, upon acceptance of a proposal by the government, furnish all labor, material, equipment, transportation, and supervision to accomplish the required work described in the RTOP. The contractor shall also be responsible for all site visits, investigations, feasibility studies, designs, calculations, work plans, equipment startup and testing and/or repair, warranties, and training, when required. Each contractor may be required to accomplish work on several task orders at one time. It is critical that the contractors diligently execute all work under this contract and meet all project schedules and completion dates. Question: After the award of the anticipated MATOC, will each task order be a new two-phase process? Or does the MATOC represent Phase 1 of the “2 Phase Design/Build procedures” referenced at the above location?

Answer: For Design-Build projects, a two-phase process will be utilized to award the task order. (Note - Award of the overall MATOC does not represent Phase 1 of the two-phased process). For all other projects each task order will be competed in one phase.

21. For Design Build projects will we be able to include RS Means line items 01 11 31.10?

Answer: Fees associated with architectural services should be included as NPIs.

Proposal Preparation

21. It appears that the Section B (Coefficient Schedule) is to be included in Volume I at Tab D and in Volume IV at Tab A. Is this correct?

Answer: This is correct.

22. It appears that the Sample Task Order (STO) price proposal is to be included in Volume II at Tab C (Element 3) and in Volume IV at Tab B. Is this correct?

Answer: The STO price proposal is only required in Volume II (per revised solicitation).

23. Please confirm that Offerors can submit the completed, print-out of ORCA in lieu of completing Section K Reps and Certs.

Answer: This section has been modified to incorporate the newly released System for Award Management (SAM). SAM has replaced several contractor registration systems, to include CCR and ORCA. If the Offeror has a copy of its unexpired ORCA registration, they may make the appropriate indication in Section K and submit Section K with the completed ORCA print-out. Offerors without an ORCA printout, will need to complete and submit Section K of the solicitation.

22. In the non-inclusive list of items to be accounted for in the coefficients is “compliance with EPA/OSHA regulations and protection and safety laws”. Does this mean abatement of hazardous materials are to be included in the coefficient? Or will abatement activities be priced per Division 2 of RS Means?

Answer: Abatement activities shall be priced per the RS Means for applicable task orders.

23. Sub Factor 1, Element 3 requests both a Quality Control and Safety Plan for the

MATOC. The page limitation of 30 for this subfactor will not allow a complete QC or Safety Plan to be included along with the other information requested under this Sub Factor. Please consider increasing the page limit, requesting only a summary QC and Safety plan or allowing the inclusion of full QC and Safety plans as an appendix to the response, with no page limit.

Answer: The Quality Control Plan and/or Safety Plan may be submitted as an appendix to the Tab A, Factor 1, Element 3 response. No page limitations will apply for these appendices.

24. Is the Sample Task Order going to be awarded?

Answer: No.

25. The RFP states that the Sample Task Order is awarded as LPTA. Will the Government confirm that the MATOC IDIQ contract is awarded as Best Value, Trade-Off? If not, how will the MATOC be awarded?

Answer: Reference Section M(I)(A)(1) of the solicitation. The MATOC will be awarded on the basis of Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable proposal.

26. As the Area of Responsibility is Region 1 (CA, NV, AZ), and therefore most offerors are located in those states, yet the submission address is in San Antonio, Fort Sam Houston, will the Government allow Offerors to submit their proposal via email or uploaded to AMRDEC SAFE site to minimize the expense with delivery?

Answer: No. Hard copy proposals must be delivered to the Fort Sam Houston Contracting office at the time designated for receipt of proposals.

27. It appears that multiple volumes have the same submission requirements; i.e., Volume 1 Tab G Bid Guarantee; Volume 1 Tab D Section B Coefficient Schedule; Volume 2 Tab C Subfactor 3 Element 3 Price; and Volume 4 Section B Coefficient Schedule. Typically, in our experience Price is not allowed in Technical Volumes. Will the Government please confirm the stated submission requirements?

Answer: The proposal submission requirements are as stated in the solicitation (as amended). It should be noted, while it appears duplicate information is requested, each proposal volume will be evaluated by a different evaluation team (i.e. - past performance evaluation team, price evaluation team, technical evaluation team). Each team will be evaluating the respective volume in accordance with Section M of the solicitation.

28. Volume I calls for a 6 part Classification Folder. My tab count is 7. How do you want those organized?

Answer: Tab A and/or Tab H will not apply to all offerors. If all tabs are applicable to the submission, Offeror’s may place two divided sections together in the volume.

29. Can the organizational chart be placed on 11x17 paper?

Answer: Yes, but it will be counted as two pages.

General MATOC

30. Is Volume 2, Tab B, Factor 1, Subfactor 2 Subcontractor Management Plan for the Sample Task Order, or the life of the MATOC?

Answer: The Subcontractor Management Plan is applicable for the life of the contract.

31. The RFP does not provide the minimum qualifications for the Project Manager or

Superintendent. Will the Government provide those qualifications so we can ensure we are technically acceptable?

Section 00 45 00 Quality Control section is not provided in the RFP. As such, we don’t have the minimum qualifications required for the QC Manager or SSHO. Will the Government provide Section 00 45 00, as well as the qualifications for the QC Manager and SSHO?

Answer: No key personnel minimum qualifications will be provided. The presented personnel shall have the education, experience/qualifications to fulfill the requirements of the SOW.

32. Are the key personnel requested in Volume II for the Sample Task Order, or for the life of the MATOC contract?

Answer: The key personnel presented in Volume II are applicable to the overall MATOC.

33. The evaluation criteria lists the sections as Factors (Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, and Factor 3 Price), while the submission and instructions to offerors lists the sections as volumes (Volume 1 General, Volume 2 Technical, Volume 3 Past Performance, and Volume 4 Price). Please confirm the labeling of the sections for production and numbering purposes.

Answer: The correct volume labeling is as follows: Volume 1: General; Volume 2:

Technical; Volume 3: Past Performance; Volume 4: Price.

34. As the RFP states that there will be two types of Task Orders released under this MATOC, Construction and Design-Build, is it the intent of the Government to review DOR experience and past performance? Or, will Offeror’s experience on both bid-build construction and design-build construction projects suffice for past performance and experience? There is no reference to any Designer of Record requirement stated in the

RFP.

Answer: Offeror’s experience in any project type contemplated by the MATOC may be submitted for past performance evaluation. There are no Designer of Record experience requirements in the base MATOC solicitation or sample task order. This will be requested in RTOPs for applicable design-build task orders.

35. Will this project be awarded to multiple trades?

Answer: The MATOC may be awarded to prime contractors of any trade. The task orders will include work from multiple trades.

36. B1.3.1 indicated the G&A and general conditions in the coefficient will work in each state, the tax rate on materials varies. How should that factor into the calculation?

Answer: Sales taxes should not be included in the coefficient. A separate line item will be included on individual Task Orders (as applicable) for state material taxes.

37. Who is the incumbent? How much work have they completed per year? How much work have they completed per year? What is the coefficient of the incumbent?

Answer: This is considered a new requirement by the SBA. There are currently no contractors performing this requirement to the scope and magnitude under consideration for this MATOC.

38. Section C Paragraph 2.b. indicates that one of the deliverables for Design-Build Task Orders is a cost estimate broken out by CSI division. Does this mean we would not have prior to award of the contract?

Answer: This section has been removed.

39. Do the two or three awarded contractors compete for each task order?

Answer: Yes, awarded contractors must compete on all task orders.

40. In determining the lowest price proposals (Section M.I.4 Factor 3-Price) how will the coefficient schedule be combined to determine proposals evaluated price?

Answer: Reference revised Section M and newly released Attachment 5 - Price Evaluation Example.

41. Please clarify if 8(a) contractors need to have bona fide offices in all states or just one state?

Answer: The 8(a) firm must have a bona fide office in one of the states in Region One.

42. If the contracts are going to be competed among MATOC contractors why is there a need for the coefficient?

Answer: The purpose of the coefficient is for the contractors to be able to recoup their O&P.

43. About how much work will be done in each state?

Answer: The exact distribution of work in each state is unknown at this time.

44. In the coefficient schedule the line “non-priced items” (NPI) coefficient does not have a CLIN. Are we to insert a coefficient for this item?

Answer: Yes, it does not have a CLIN because the NPI will be applicable to standard and non-standard hour CLINs.

Technical

45. Must each task order have a quality control manager on site full time? Can that QC manager be assigned other duties in addition to QC, such as safety or superintendent?

Must each task order have a safety manager on site full time? Can that safety manager be assigned other duties in addition to safety, such as quality control or superintendent?

Can the on-site QC manager (MATOC SOW § C ¶ 6.b) also serve as the Project Superintendent?

Can the Superintendent, QC Manager, and SSHO be the same individual, if they meet or exceed the minimum qualifications and education requirements?

Answer: The work distribution of individuals on the Offeror’s team is at the Offeror’s discretion. The Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s approach will be in accordance with Section M of the solicitation and the ability of the contractor to meet the requirements of the Statement of Work.

46. SOW is missing Attachment 1, which is a 2001 report on Asbestos Containing Material.

It is referenced in Paragraphs 2.1.1.9 and 4.1. Can you please provide.

The scope of work for the sample project contains a relatively long section on asbestos abatement (¶ 4.1-8). However at the pre-proposal conference it was stated (in response to a question asking about a 2001 asbestos report that was to have been attached to the SOW) that no asbestos work is to be included with the sample project. Can you clarify how we are to approach ACMs?

Reference Sample Task Order documents and drawings: Scope of Work page 2 SITE WORK 2.1.1.9 "Abate all Asbestos Containing Material as specified in Environmental Survey (Attachment 1 to this SOW)" . Please provide Attachment 1.

Answer: All asbestos work has been removed from the Sample Task Order SOW.

47. MATOC SOW § C ¶ 6.a states that all work shall be completed under the direction of a contractor Project Manager. At the pre-proposal conference it was stated that the PM did not have to be on site as long as there was a “binder” on site. Is this correct?

Answer: This is correct, this is left to the discretion of the company as long as there is an official from your company that has the ability to bind your company at all times on-site.

48. Will the Government please confirm that the CPM schedules requested in Volume 2, Tab C, Subfactor 3 Project Manager, is only a graphical schedule, and that no narrative is to accompany that graphical schedule/CPM schedule for the Sample Task Order?

Answer: The sample task order Project Execution Narrative is required in Element 1 of Volume 2, Tab C - Factor 1, Sub-factor 3. The Offeror’s Sub-Factor 3 submission shall be within the 30-page Sub-Factor 3 page limitation.

49. Sample (seed) project: Construction will likely disrupt communication service to the building for at least 1 or 2 weeks. Do we need to provide temporary communication service to the building during construction? "If there is a disruption in communication to the building during construction, the contractor does not need to provide temporary communication services to the building."

Answer: There should not be a disruption in communication that lasts longer then a day, the contractor does not need to provide temporary communication service to the building.

50. Is any work required on the east side of the building, fenced area 108?

Answer: There is a new double door shown as #1 on Plan drawing 2. This project does not include a Building 108.

51. Reference Sample Task Order documents and drawings: To correctly quantify the wall square foot, please provide ceiling height (above finished floor).

Answer: The ceiling will be 8 feet from the floor.

52. At the manhole on Saratoga will the new conduit be routed to a knockout in the manhole or will it require coring?

Answer: Knockouts are in place.

53. Does building 17 have an existing fiber enclosure in the computer room?

Answer: There is a multimode patch panel in the network room.

54. Does the Saratoga manhole have an existing splice enclosure? If so does it have room for the new cables/splices?

Answer: A splice enclosure will be required.

55. Does the Gettysburg manhole have an existing splice enclosure? If so, does it have room for the new cables/splices?

Answer: Please see revised Statement of Work. 24 strand cable in Gettysburg Manhole will not be used.

56. What is in the existing conduits running from the manhole on Gettysburg to the manhole on Saratoga and from the manhole on Saratoga to building 17?

Answer: Gettysburg to Saratoga conduit will not be used. New conduit is in place from Saratoga manhole to pull box outside Bbldg-17.

57. Are there any records/drawings of underground site utilities, specifically where new underground conduit will be installed?

Answer: Utility drawings will be submitted, all utility drawings and permits go through the National Guard.

58. SOW section 2.1.12.3 calls for GPF outlets. Should this read GFCI outlets?

Answer: Yes.

59. At the pre-proposal conference, it was stated that the AC units would be removed from the scope of work. Is this still correct? If so, is it all three units (two 4-ton roof top and one ¾-ton) that are to be deleted?

Is 2.1.4 of the STO SOW referring to an additional ¾ ton (800 btu) a/c unit for the server/electrical room?

In paragraph 2.1.4 of the SOW we are directed to install a ¾ ton HVAC unit. Where is this to be installed? HVAC will not be a part of this project, it has been removed from the Statement of Work.

Answer: Only the 2- 4 ton units are being removed from this project. The ¾ ton unit will stay in and is for the communications room.

60. If the HVAC units are deleted from the SOW, does this include all work on ductwork, registers, boxes, controls, etc.?

Answers: No. All interior ductwork, registers, and flow control (balancing dampers) are still required and included in the SOW.

61. Will the existing duct system be reused with the modifications or will a new duct system be required?

Answer: All new duct system is required.

62. If replacing the existing 4-ton units is removed from the SOW, do the existing 4 ton units need to be serviced and tested for repairs?

Answer: The new 4 ton units will only require air flow balancing of duct system.

63. Regarding SOW Item 2.1.2.1 – Will solid foam insulation be included with the Z-Bar for furred walls? If so, what R value is required?

Answer: R-12 (2”)

64. SOW 2.1.2.8 refers to the two windows shown on Plan 2. No other information is provided. What frame material is required? Is there a specific thickness of safety glass that is required?

Answer: The windows shall be vinyl clad aluminum with ¼” safety glass.

65. The existing interior windows are operable. Do the new interior windows need to be operable?

66. Will existing window AC units be left in place?

67. Regarding SOW 2.1.7, does the R-30 Insulation require FSK facing for fire rating?

Answer: No

68. SOW 2.1.11 is silent on the frames to be provided for the interior doors. Plan 2 references steel frames for the interior doors. Are hollow metal frames to be supplied for the interior doors?

Answer: Yes

69. SOW 2.1.10 does not address the finishes for the exterior doors/frames. We assume they are to be painted. Is this correct?

Answer: Yes. One coat corrosion resistant primer and two finish coats.

70. Are there currently DDC controls or are DDC controls part of this proposal? Or, are these local controls only?

Answer: Local controls with duct flow balancing.

71. In the drawing “PLAN 2”, there are four doors marked 1, 2, 3, and 4. We assume that these doors correspond with the doors discussed in ¶ 2.1.10 of STO SOW. Is this correct?

Answer: That is correct. The SOW has been edited.

72. In the STO SOW at ¶ 2.1.11, it indicates we are to replace nine (9) interior doors. PLAN 2 indicates eight new doors and frames. However, some of the lines drawn from the caption go to exterior doors. What is the new exterior and interior door requirement?

Answer: Four wood doors are being replaced and 5 doors with steel frames are being installed.

73. Are the doors to Men’s and Women’s restrooms to be replaced?

Answer: Yes.

74. The existing suspended ceiling is constructed with a 2’ x 4’ grid. Is that the configuration desired for the new suspended ceiling?

Specify the size 2x2 or 2x4? Manufacture, and tile model number (SOW 2.1.5)

Answer: The suspended ceiling will be 2x4. Specifications have been included in the revised Statement of Work.

75. Is there a specific acoustical grid/tile system and/or model that is desired/required for the sample project?

Answer: Standard white grid and drop-in non beveled white tiles.

76. Is the new interior lighting to be on sensor switches?

Answer: Yes, multiple sensor switches

77. Statement of Work items 2.2.3.2, 2.2.3.3 & 2.2.3.4 all say to leave 10 feet of cable at both ends of installed cable. However, item 2.2.3.5 says to terminate 6 strands each at Bldg.

17 & Bldg. 274 using new fiber patch panels. Which is correct?

Answer: Please reference revised SOW paragraphs 2.2.3.2, 2.2.3.3, and 2.2.3.4.

78. In paragraph 2.2.3 we are informed that “J-6 is the required contact for termination and splicing of fiber cable”. Who/what is J-6? Since this paragraph also states J-6 doesn’t affect cost, we assume that they are not a subcontractor the prime contractor will have contract with. Is this assumption correct? If not, what is their contact information?

Answer: Base J6 is the base communications division. They control what types of cabling and terminations are used and where cable will be run/terminated. Offerors shall not contact J6 prior to award of the sample task order regarding this task. Offerors shall price this effort based on the information provided in the Sample Task Order SOW.

79. What is the make/model of the fire alarm system to be replaced? Is there a base standard for fire alarm systems?

Answer: The model of the existing system is unknown. The current system is inoperable.

New system is to be current code compliant and will be connected to the base by wire (primary) and cell-phone (secondary) connections.

80. Paragraph 3.2 states that submittals are to be sent to the office of Mr. Wayne Alves. Is this located at Los Alamitos AFRC? If not, where is his office?

Answer: The location and process for material submittals will be addressed with the awarded MATOC contractors at the post-award conference. The location for submittals may vary by task order.

81. The SOW for the STO does not include any fire sprinklers. Is this correct, no fire sprinklers are to be provided?

Answer: That is correct. No fire sprinklers shall be included in the sample task order proposal.

82. Are all walls to be removed non-load bearing?

Answer: All walls to be removed are non-load bearing.

83. Are all exterior windows to remain?

Answer: Exterior windows are to be replaced; the Statement of Work has been revised to include further specifications.

84. Please provide manufactures, models, and part numbers for the bathrooms (i.e. fixtures, equipment, paint, hardware etc)

Answer: Specifications have been included in the revised Statement of Work. Contractor will submit Material Submittals (ENG Form 4025) during the construction process for approval by the Government for exact fixtures, paint colors, etc. prior to installation.

85. Specify the gauge (SOW 2.1.2.1).

Answer: Specifications have been included in the revised Statement of Work.

86. Is there an associated floor tolerance (flatness) specification?

Answer: 1/8th inch per 10 feet.