QA Document as of 07 Feb 2011

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RELATED TO:

SOLICITATION W912J6-11-R-0001

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

Dated 21 Jan 2011

1. Q. How do I access the files/documents for the Project?

A. See, Sections 4.4, 4.5 & 4.7 of the FBO Vendor Guide available for download in PDF format via the Federal Business Opportunities / FBO Home Page. See also, Section 00100 of the Solicitation. Additionally, to view and/or download Export Controlled Materials, a company must be certified (via an approved DD Form 2345) by the Joint Certification Program (JCP) administered by the Defense Logistic Information Service (DLIS). This certification establishes that a company is a U.S. or Canadian contractor eligible to receive unclassified technical data that is under the control of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) or the Canadian Department of National Defense (DND). Questions about this program or DD Form 2345 should be addressed to U.S./Canada Joint Certification Office, Defense Logistics Information Services (DLIS), Federal Center, 74 Washington Avenue North, Battle Creek, MI 49017-3084; or telephone (616) 961-4358, toll free (800) 352-3572; or email jcp-admin@dlis.dla.mil.

2. Q. I am trying to access the [export controlled] packages and have a number as assigned on DD Form 2345 but cannot get the packages to open. Our DD 2345 Number is ####### expiration ##/##/2015.

A. The U.S./Canada Joint Certification Program (JCP) office reported to this office that once a company is certified with the JCP office (3 to 5 business days), the company should contact FBO to have them add their JCP number to their FBO account. The FBO help desk (Federal Service Desk) reported to this office that companies need to make sure that they are registered and login as a Vendor to FBO. When the Vendor click's to open an export controlled package/document, they should be asked for their MPIN. After entering the MPIN, the export controlled package/document should be viewable/downloadable by Vendors that have gone through the JCP process. If a Vendor still has problems, the Vendor should check to make sure that their CCR registration and MPIN are valid and up-to-date. If problems still persist, the Vendor may call the FBO help desk at 866-606-8220, selection option 2 for FBO issues, and ask for troubleshooting assistance.

Dated 27 Jan 2011

3. Q . Bid Drawings are formatted for 8.5” x 11” (letter-size) paper. As a result, we are unable to print/distribute a legible set of bid documents. Can you please re-issue the drawings to make it readable and legible, maybe into a 22” x 34” format

A. New Zip. Layout Drawings have been posted under Beddown layout and SQD OPS Layout.

4.Q. is there an extension to the Proposal due date?

mailto:jcp-admin@dlis.dla.mil�

A. At this time the Government does not intent to extend the Proposal Due date.

5.Q. Please clarify where to email RFI’s, per Section 001000, 3.1 email to manuel.llanes@us.army.mil ; florence.nii@us.army.mil whereas Exhibit F shows different (jesse.sannicolas1@us.army.mil). Do we send per Section 00100 or per Exhibit F?

A. Please use the e-mail addressed as illustrated on

Exhibit F manuel.llanes@us.army.mil jesse.sannicolas1@us.army.mil

6.Q. Sheet B-001 in both the beddown and AMU drawings state: Geotechnical data obtained by GeoLabs, Inc. Geotechnical report is included as part of the project specifications.

A.- Geotechnical report is being added by Amendment 0002. "For information/reference only".

7.Q. We believe that the requirement for Bidders to provide a dewatering plan at the time of bid submission as stated in Paragraph 9.b.(1) of Specification Section 312000 (Hangar) and Paragraph 9.b.(1) of Specification Section 312000 (Infrastructure) is an obvious error.

The dewatering plan is a contract submittal requirement, it will require the services of a geotechnical engineer or dewatering specialist, and will be engineered specifically for this project. There would be no point in requiring all of the bidders to incur this expense.

Additionally, there is no mention of a location within the proposal to put dewatering plans

A - Dewater plan corrected be submitted by Contractor 30 days after NTP - in addendum 0002.

8.Q Section 083300 - Coiling Security Grilles Door 156A in the Door Schedule on plan page A-603, is shown as being a Type D8 door, a Coiling Security Grille. However, in the Remarks column for Door 156A there is a Note #11 which below says that this door is to be a "Coiling Smoke Door".

Also, in Detail 34 on A-606, there is a note that this door is a "fire door".

Is Door 156A a security grille or a fire/smoke door?

A. Coiling Security Grilles - discrepancy corrected in addendum 0002.

Dated 02 FEB 2011

9.Q We wish to submit American seating’s stellar series as a proposed alternate to the Basis-of-Design product.

A. American Seating – Stellar series is not an equal to the specified seating (as is evident by the fabric testing, chair mounting hardware, etc)

10. Q. Paragraph 1.02 A 1 lists the Basis-of-Design as a product that is manufactured and sold by a foreign country, how does it qualify for the Buy American act, required on this project?

A. Figueras is Buy American qualified.

mailto:manuel.llanes@us.army.mil� mailto:florence.nii@us.army.mil� mailto:jesse.sannicolas1@us.army.mil� mailto:Exhibit%20F%20%20%20manuel.llanes@us.army.mil%20jesse.sannicolas1@us.army.mil� mailto:Exhibit%20F%20%20%20manuel.llanes@us.army.mil%20jesse.sannicolas1@us.army.mil�

11. Q. Paragraph 1.05 B 3 requires the seating Complies with California Technical Bulletin

133. The fabric chosen for the upholstery is 38% Acrylic and 62% Polyester. It is doubtful if that fabric, when combined with the other elements of the seating will pass CA TB 133. Since neither the US Air Force, the State of Hawaii, or the Federal Government recognize CA TB 133 as a standard, can this requirement be excluded from the specifications?

A. The Figueras seating does meet the CA fire code – no change to specification is required.

12. Q. 4. Paragraph 2.02 B 1 requires chair mounting standards to be steel. Is cast iron an acceptable alternate? Cast iron is shown as an approved product under Paragraph 2.01 B?

A. Cast Iron is not equal to steel construction. Chair mounts shall be steel as per specification.

13. Q. In review of the most recent contract drawings posted to the FBO site 1-27-11 is appears that there is a scale to print discrepancy. For example Sheet A-101 indicates a graphic scale of 1/16” = 1’0” and the printed document scales at approximately 5% discrepancy. For example when you scale a long dimension string that indicates a know dimension such as 174’ it will scale at say 170’. It appears to be problematic throughout a large number of drawings. Most quantification for estimates are scale based and this type of printing error will ultimately translate into cost discrepancies throughout the estimates of the contractors bidding the project.

A. The drawings scale correctly. When you print a PDF it will put a ¼” margin around the whole drawing which throws off the scale. Unless you set the page scaling in the PDF print dialog to None.

14. Q Reference Section 00010 – Solicitation Contract Form: Item Number 0001 and 0001AA appear to be the same description of work. Please clarify the difference between these two cost line items. Item Number 0002 and 0002AA appear to be the same description of work. Please clarify the difference between these two cost line items.

A. CLIN 0001 and 0002 are for Information only. Please use 0001AA and 0002AA.

15 Q. The FBO postings have an Amendment 1 (posted 24 Jan 2011) but the document does not reference that it is an amendment, but rather a solicitation. The site also has document W912J6-11-r-0001-0001 Summary of Changes (posted 31 Jan 2011) that does indicate it is Amendment 1. On the SF1442 are we to indicate both as an amendment?

A. W912J6-11-r-0001-0001 Summary of Changes (posted 31 Jan 2011) is the same. The intent of this document was to show the changes in yellow highlights.

16. Q In 3.4.1.7 and 3.4.2.2 of Section 00110, the RFP states the the offeror is to provide a Construction Schedule (CPM). In which volume does the Government want the schedule to go?

A. Please provide in VOL 2.

17. Q. The SF1442 states in Box 13B that an offer guarantee “is not required” for this soliciation, is this correct?

A. Yes, Correct.

Dated 03 Feb 2011

18. Q. In reference to Section 00110, paragraph 3.4.3.12 - If offeror has sufficient, relevant past performance projects, is a key personnel information still required?

A. Additional information may be required depending on the situation. Your attention is directed to these two references that answer your question. Reference question # 4 on Exhibit A-

4. "If you intend to use any of the same key personnel on this solicitations’ project, indicate by name and position those personnel proposed to be utilized on the referenced contract.

(Project Manager, Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager). Indicate what position they will have on this solicitation’s contract. If you do not intend on utilizing any of these same personnel please so indicated." Also in Section 00110, paragraph 3.4.3.12 "In the event the intended key personnel for this construction do not have demonstrated past performance in the project(s) submitted in the Exhibit As, additional information is required. Each key personnel without prior past performance history submitted shall complete an Exhibit B, “Subcontractor/Team/Key Personnel Information and Consent Form” and provide a summary of experience or a resume. The Government may seek additional references and reserves the right to use the information provided to obtain additional references."

19. Q. If an offeror intends to utilize sub contractor’s relevant past performance, is the subcontractor required to complete Exhibits A and C as well as B? Or is the Exhibit B sufficient?

A. Offeror should present Exhibit A's and send Exhibit C's for projects that they have performed. If you intend on enhancing relevancy through subcontractors then the proposal should indicate why you consider the subcontractors experience relevant, the work they will be performing and follow the instructions at Section 00110 paragraph 3.4.2.9 and its subparagraphs

3.4.2.9.1 and 3.4.2.9.2.

20. Q. Instead of submitting references on Exhibit C2 format can our respondents submit evaluations from previous recent NAVFAC solicitations? See attached sample NAVFAC performance survey.

A. A CCASS Evaluation Form may be substituted for the Exhibit C but must be sent by the reference. Otherwise, it is requested that the Exhibit C be questionnaire be returned. It may be supplemented by the reference with their own form/format if desired. The questions on the Questionnaire (Exhibit C) are similar to those on a CCASS evaluation required on all DOD contracts above $500,000 and the Government wishes to ensure it is fair in the evaluation by looking at similar data on each offeror.

21. Q. Please clarify possible delay caused by the NPDES permit process through the State?

A. The Contractor can expect a 60 – 90 day process time in order to attain their (contractor)

Construction NPDES permit from the Hawaii State Government.

Dated 07 Feb 2011

22. Q. Updated drawings and specifications were posted to FedBizOpps on February 1, 2011 and identified as Addendum 1. Please confirm that these updated documents shall be incorporated into the solicitation documents as an amendment to the solicitation.

A. Confirmed.

23. Beddown Infrastructure Drawings: Sheet E-502, Keyed Note 3 states, "For Bid Option No. 9 the lift station (LS1) control panel and enclosures shall be mounted to the electrical equipment screen wall." Section 00010, Bid Item 0002 options do not include an Option 9. Please clarify.

A. Item 0001AK – lists item “Option 9 – Screen Walls/Mechanical Encl”.

24. Q. Beddown Infrastructure Drawings: Sheet C-211, Utility Note 2 states, "All work associated with the aircraft wash water tank,...shall be completed and operational 3 months after notice to proceed and included as Bid Option 3." Section 011100, paragraph 1.10.E states, "Contractor shall allow 90 calendar days after Notice to Proceed in the project schedule for submission and approval of the NEPDES permit. During this duration no construction activities will be allowed. Please clarify the operational date requirements for the aircraft wash water tank scope of work given the constraints of the NPDES permitting process.

A. Drawing C-211, Utility Note 2 shall be changed “All work associated with the aircraft wash water tank,… shall be completed and operational 3 months after NEPDES permit approval and included as Bid Option 3.”

25. Q. Beddown Infrastructure Drawings: Sheet E-002, Enlarged Electrical Yard detail indicates the electrical screen wall as an option. Please confirm that this option is the same as the Squad Ops/AMU Hangar Bid Option 0001AK Option 9 and shall not be included in Bid Item 0002 base bid nor Bid Item 0002 options.

A. Item 0001AK – lists item “Option 9 – Screen Walls/Mechanical Encl”. Confirmed Sheet E-002 screen wall is included in item 0001AK.

26.Q. Beddown Infrastructure Drawings: See attached. Sheet C-210 indicates the POC at the existing 4" SS. Sheet C-102 indicates that entire 4" SS section to be demolished.

Please clarify.

A. The existing 4" sanitary sewer force main shall be removed to the coordinates N 55341.94 and E 1656353.34 indicated on C-210 where the new 6 inch force main will connect to it.