QA Document as of 11 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.

mailto:jcp-admin@dlis.dla.mil�

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

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.

Dated 08 Feb 2011

27. Are the irrigation and temporary irrigation systems to be included in the base bid or in Option -6?

A. Notes on drawing L-3 indicate for Base Bid to install 4” pop-up heads for the irrigation system and to upgrade to 12” heads in the locations indicated as part of the Bid Option 6.

Temporary irrigation is part of the Base bid as noted on L-3 and is required for all areas not covered by the permanent sprinkler system.

28. C-110 #8 states that all landscaping except seeding or sodding shall be bid as part of bid option 6. The Base Bid note on L-1 states that the 4” screened soil is to be included in the base bid. Please clarify whether the topsoil is to be included with the base bid or option 6.

A. Topsoil is part of the Base Bid as it is required for the seeding and sodding portions of the base bid.

29. Specification section 0123000 3.01.S. states that Option 19 is for the 2nd floor special ceiling and lighting. Drawing sheet C-112 shows Option 19 as the aircraft static display foundation. Please clarify what is included in bid option 19.

A. Issue will be clarified with Addendum 0002. Option 19 will remain the static display.

Addendum will address new option number for 2nd floor lighting and ceiling.

30. Sheet A-105 notes that the photovoltaic panels are an Option. Please clarify in which option the photovoltaic panels are to be included.

A. Issue will be addressed by Addendum 0002. PV system will be made an option.

31. Sheet A-112 and wall sections K & M on sheet A-308 show stucco soffits. Is there a specification section for the stucco?

A. SPECIFIED IN SECTION 092400 Portland cement Plastering

32. Wall section H on sheet A-307 and Wall section V on sheet A-311 show a paver tile roof system. Is there a specification section for the paver tile roof?

A. Specifications were inadvertently omitted. Addendum 0002 will provide requirements.

33. Please confirm north Shop- option 3 includes only the following door number 139A, 147A, 147B, 148A, 149A, 150A, 152A, 152B, 152c.

A. Confirmed.

34. 2.22 Hardware Sets:

Cylinders; Sargent Signature 6-pin interchangeable core - A. No Substitution

35. Will IC cores be used only for the Exit devices?

A. IC cores for ALL Doors.

36. Reference is made to drawing A-407 and bid option 20 – Graphic Panel/Mural. Please revise the proposal schedule issued in Amendment No. 1 to include bid option 20.

A. – Issue will be addressed in Addendum 0003.

37. Reference is made to bid option 13 – Markerbrds/Screens/etc. Please provide list of specific items to be included in this option in lieu of using ‘etc.’ which may be interpreted differently by all.

A. Contract drawings and specifications clearly identify elements in this bid option. Please refer to drawings and specifications.

38. Reference is made to bid option 11 – All Casework. Is this to include all countertops on this project?

A. All countertops are not in option 11. See Contract drawings for specific allocation of countertops in base bid and option 11.

39. Reference is made to drawing A-105 and the photovoltaic panels (option) noted. The proposal schedule issued does not include an option for this. Please advise.

A. Drawing A-105 is correct notes the PV panels as option. Addendum 0003 will address this issue.

40. Reference is made to drawing A-111 and notes regarding Other Cost Savings

Adjustments: 1. Delete raised floor on the 1st floor and 2. Delete raised floor the 2nd floor – in the secured (DCID 6/9, 705). Where are we supposed to apply these cost savings adjustments? Please advice.

A. These notes were errant left on the issued for bid drawings. Please disregard these two notes. Issue will be addressed in Addendum 0003.

41. Door mark 100C calls for a frame but the details 4,5&6/A604 show them to be aluminum. Pls advice which type is required and advice corrected details.

A. Door 100c is full glass wood set in Holow Metal frame in wall type P1C, door details 4,5,6 on sheet A-604. This will be addressed in addendum003.

42. Door marked 102A, 103A, 104A, 105A, 106A, 107A, 108A, 110A, 113A, 115A, 116A, 131A, 162A, 163A, 203A, S05A, 206A, 207A, 235A, 236A, 250A, and 251 all call for HM frames type F1 which look like the standard 3-sided frames but no details are called out. In the remarks box it refers to no.1 demountable partition manufacturers standard details. Please clarify demountable partition.

A. Door 113A is an exterior door, not in demountable partition. All other doors listed in inquiry item #2 in addition to doors 205A, 206A, and 238A are in demountable partition, frame details similar to F1 but as per demountable partition manufacturer.

43. Specification Section 01 32 16, Paragraph 1.04 B requires the use of Microsoft Project for all scheduling related activities. Can Primavera scheduling software (P3, P6, etc.)

be used in lieu of Microsoft Project?

A. will be addressed in Addendum 0003.

44. Note 5 on C-211 states that the upgrades to the fire pump house, new fire water tank, new piping, pumps, electrical work and below grade piping to the LOCRF shall be completed, tested and operational by August 1, 2011. This is not possible when considering the time required for shop drawings, government review and approval, tank manufacturing and delivery, installation and testing. Also, the answers provided tell us to allow up to 90 days for the NPDES permitting in which case site work can not begin until mid July. Request you review the schedule requirement and allow at a minimum until January, 2012. It appears the liability for providing services to the LOCRF project is falling on the bed down contractor.

A. Issue will be addressed in Addendum 0004.

45. Please provide hazardous materials reports for the buildings being demolished.

A. Issue will be addressed in Addendum 0004

46. This has already been asked in a Question and Answer document that stated another contractor was having issues with the DD form 2345 and being able to access the export controlled packages from the FBO site, We here at Halbert Construction received our approved and accepted DD2345 (attached) form over a week ago however we are still unable to access or download the “locked” export controlled documents from the FBO website. We have contacted the JCP office with no returned phone calls (apparently due to inclement weather) as well as the FBO help desk with no success. We are diligently trying to gain access to the system will continue to do so but it is for this reason that would ask that the bid due date be postponed so that we may gain access to the locked documents in order to submit a complete and accurate proposal.

A. Addendum 0003 will be issued an adjustment to closing date to Feb 17, 2011 (2:00pm o’clock HST). Q&A will be extended to Feb 11, 2011. (12:00pm Noon EST)

47. It was noted on the job walk that Building 3431 (scheduled for demolition) contained hazardous materials, please clarify the type of hazardous materials to be removed from this building, and who’s responsibility it will be to remove the hazardous materials.

A. Issue will be addressed by Addendum 0004.

48. Sheet C-101 on the infrastructure drawings states that the demolition is part of bid option 1 but the pricing schedule states that work performed from the infrastructure drawings should be performed under bid option 2AA, please clarify.

A. Bid Option 1 from the drawings is identified on the Schedule.

49. Sheet C-101 on the hangar drawings states that “all work on this sheet to be part of bid option 1” however that pricing schedule states that all work on building 3400 is to be bid as bid option 1AB, please clarify.

A. Bid Option 1 from the drawings is identified on the Schedule.

50. On sheet C-102 of the infrastructure drawings please clarify the depth of the existing wet wells to be demolished and the type of equipment associated with these wet wells and pump stations.

A. Issue will be addressed by addendum 0003.

51. On page C-100 and C-105 of the infrastructure drawings please clarify the volume of the water tanks to be demolished.

A. Issue will be addressed by addendum 0003

52. On sheet C-102 of the Hangar drawings please clarify the existing footing dimensions and existing wall height of the CMU wall to be demolished.

A. Issue will be addressed by addendum 0003.

53. On sheet C-110 a note calls out for an armag secured explosives storage unit and our supplier has a few questions in regards to the unit as follows:

• Single or double doors?

• Door location?

• Heavy duty floor? ( usually ordered when a customer is using pallet jacks)

• Line-X coating? (coating like Rino liner; to offer added protection for areas with lots of salt air and sun)

• Lights?

• HVAC?

• Termite treatment?

A. Issue will be addressed by addendum 0004.

52. On sheet A-111 please clarify that bid option 3 is ONLY inclusive of rooms 139, 147, 148, 149, 150, and 152.

A. Rooms 139, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, and 152 are in Bid Option 3.

53.The pricing schedule for Clin item 1 option item 19 requests a price for a Mass

Notification System, however on sheet C-111 and C-112 of the hangar drawings it states that option 19 is for a static display image, please clarify

A. issue will be addressed by Addendum 0003.

54. On sheet A-407 of the hangar drawings it is called out for a graphic panel system and vinyl graphics to be included under option 20 however there is no option 20 on the pricing schedule, please clarify.

A. issue will be addressed by Addendum 0003.

55. On sheet A-423 of the hangar drawings Enlarged lobby second floor reflected ceiling plan is listed as option 19 however on the pricing schedule option 19 is for the installation of the mass notification system, please clarify the bid options.

A. Issue will be addressed by Addendum 0003.

56. Reference Standard Form 1442 block 19 Acknowledgement of amendments. What date should be entered for acknowledgement of amendment 0001 since a Standard Form 30 was not issued for amendment 0001.

A. Please reference date posted.

Dated 11 Feb 2011

57. Sheets C111 & C112 have a note on the south side of the building that states “Static

Display Foundation – Bid Option 19 – See Structural Drawings.” Per the bid form, Bid Option 19 is “Mass Notification System.

a. Is the static display foundation part of the base bid or another option?

b. Structural Details for the static display were not found – where are they located in the structural set?

A. Response – Item is addressed in Addendum 0002.

58. The demolition spec (section 024100.2.01.A) states “Government shall remove all items and materials to be salvaged from the work area prior to Notice to Proceed. There is a note on Sheet C 102 stating “Remove turnstile, gate, and security equipment. All security equipment to be turned over to the Government.” Will the Government remove the security equipment that is to be salvaged?

A. Response – Item is addressed in Addendum 0002.

59. Sheet C112 shows the gate and operator on the AGE pavement area as Bid Option #

17. Sheet E002 shows electrical work associated with the gate controls and is not noted to be part of any bid option. Is the electrical work associated with the gate part of Bid Option # 17?

A. Response – Item will be addressed with Addendum 0002.

60. Note 12 on Sheet C100 states “See site electrical demolition drawings for demolition of electrical and communication lines.” The only demolition scope on the electrical drawings is part of Bid Option #1. Is there other site electrical/ communication demolition that is required?

A. As part of the Hangar drawing package, there is no other site electrical or communications demolition except what is noted as part of Bid Option #1.

61. Note 5 on C-211 states that the upgrades to the fire pump house, new fire water tank, new piping, pumps, electrical work and below grade piping to the LOCRF shall be completed, tested and operational by August 1, 2011. This is not possible when considering the time required for shop drawings, government review and approval, tank manufacturing and delivery, installation and testing. Also, the answers provided tell us to allow up to 90 days for the NPDES permitting in which case site work can not begin until mid July. Request you review the schedule requirement and allow at a minimum until January, 2012. It appears the liability for providing services to the LOCRF project is falling on the bed down contractor.

A. Response – issue will be addressed in Addendum 0004.

62. Please provide hazardous materials reports for the buildings being demolished.

A. Response – issue will be addressed in Addendum 0002.

63. Specification Section 01 32 16, Paragraph 1.04 B requires the use of Microsoft Project for all scheduling related activities. Can Primavera scheduling software (P3, P6, etc.)

be used in lieu of Microsoft Project?

A. Response – will be addressed in Addendum 0004.

64. On the Infrastructure drawings, page C-211, under the new work, there is a sump pump manhole listed at location N 56078.15, E 1655652.19. Currently, there is no mention of this sump pump on the electrical drawings. Please provide a electrical drawing, showing the source of power and layout.

A. Response – issue will be addressed with Addendum 0004.

65. Regarding the demolition of existing building 3400a, to determine methods and quantities for slab on grades and foundation systems removal as-built structural drawings from construction would assist. To include the extent required for existing structures scheduled to remain.

A. Response – See demolition drawings S-800 and S-801. Available information that is known about the foundation system is provided on these two drawings.

66. There are no station details or profiles provided for the water lines. Please review the utility drawings and provide station details and profiles for the water.

A. Response – We have reviewed the utility drawings and project documents are complete and biddable.

67. The interior finish legend on A-602 shows RES-4, I can not find this in any of the rooms. Please verify that RES-4 is not used.

A. Response – Please strike RES-4 from the Interior Finishes Legend and Abbreviation from

Room Finish Schedule sheets A-601 thru A-604. RES-4 similar product type was transferred to FF&E package under abbreviation code MAT-1.

68. Can not locate light fixture type AA, it is a red obstruction light probably roof mounted but no roof plan is provided for the lighting.

A. Response – Fixtures are shown on Drawing E-106

69. Can not locate type HE light fixtures.

A. Response – See Drawing E-124 Room 252

70. Light fixture HH is shown on E-003 and HI is shown on E-121 but neither fixture is in the lighting fixture schedule, what are these?

A. Response – issue will be addressed in Addendum 0004

71. Per section 00800, 11.3 “special contract requirements”; is the use of P6 considered an approved equal to the listed scheduling programs?

A. Response – issue will be addressed in Addendum 0004.

72. Please provide as built drawings of building 3400 and its foundation.

A. Response – See demolition drawings S-800 and S-801. The existing information on the existing foundations is very limited and is reflected on these drawings.

73. On the Infrastructure drawings, page C-211, under the new work, there is a sump pump manhole listed at location N 56078.15, E 1655652.19. Currently, there is no mention of this sump pump on the electrical drawings. Please provide a electrical drawing, showing the source of power and layout.

A. Response – issue will be addressed with Addendum 0004.

74. Regarding the demolition of existing building 3400a, to determine methods and quantities for slab on grades and foundation systems removal as-built structural drawings from construction would assist. To include the extent required for existing structures scheduled to remain.

75. Note 5 on C-211 states that the upgrades to the fire pump house, new fire water tank, new piping, pumps, electrical work and below grade piping to the LOCRF shall be completed, tested and operational by August 1, 2011. This is not possible when considering the time required for shop drawings, government review and approval, tank manufacturing and delivery, installation and testing. Also, the answers provided tell us to allow up to 90 days for the NPDES permitting in which case site work can not begin until mid July. Request you review the schedule requirement and allow at a minimum until January, 2012. It appears the liability for providing services to the LOCRF project is falling on the bed down contractor.

A. Response – issue will be addressed in Addendum 0004.

76. Please provide hazardous materials reports for the buildings being demolished.

A. Response – issue will be addressed in Addendum 0002.

77. In the main briefing room 233, it shows a built up platform, but no details on what it is built out of.

A. Response: issue will be addressed with Addendum 0004.

78. Reference C-100 Note 1 reference to hazardous materials and spec section 132800

Asbestos Abatement. Please provide a hazardous material survey.

A. Response – issue will be address in Addendum 0002.

79. On drawing C-112, the aircraft static display calls to include in foundation bid option

19, but Option 19 on the bid form calls for Mass Notif System Equipment.

A. Response – issue will be address in Addendum 0002.

80. The specifications 102600 list corner guards, but locations are not shown on the drawings.

A. Response: issue will be addressed with Addendum 0004.

81. Reference spec section 00110, 3.1.3 “ Submit the proposal in its entirety on Compact

Disk (CD) or DVD.” We request the electronic copy of the price proposal Volume 1 be submitted the next business day. We expect subcontract and supplier bids up to the bid closing time which will not allow time to submit the price proposal on CD or DVD.

Paper copies of Vol 1 and Vol 2 and electronic copies of Vol 2 can be submitted by the proposal due date.

A. CDs must be turned in with proposal.

82. On drawing C-112, the sidewalk just above the main parking area has a note "see note

3", but in the notes list there are only notes 1 & 2.

A. Response – issue will be addressed in Addendum 0004.

83. Reference spec section 00110, 3.4.2.2 – Please confirm Notice to Proceed date of

15April 2011.

Section 3.4..1.7 inidicate NTP date of 15April 2011 Section 3.4.1.7.1 indicate NTP date of 15 March 2011

Secton 3.4.1.8 indicate NTP date of 15 March 2011 Section 3.4.2.2 indicate NTP date of 15April 2011 Section 3.4.2.2.1 indicate NTP date of 15April 2011

A. Response – will be changed to March 15, 2011

84. Toilet Accessories legend on both drawings A-403 & A-404 calls for TA-1 "Grab Bar", but does not list a size and the specifications 102800 does not list a size either.

A. Response: issue will be addressed with Addendum 0004.

85. Drawing S-135 has a foundation detail listed as Static Display Foundation - Option 19.

Option 19 on the bid form is Mass Notif System Equipment.

A. Response – issue will be address in Addendum 0002.

86. Reference Standard Form 1442 block 19 Acknowledgement of amendments. What date should be entered for acknowledgement of amendment 0001 since a Standard Form 30 was not issued for amendment 0001.

A. Response- Use the date when posted on FBO

87. Access Flooring 096900 2.03 Accessories. Please confirm if Post installed Anchors can be excluded, if Seismic Calculations determine adhesive bonding of pedestal bases to subfloor meets project loading requirements.

A. Response: Provide as in accordance with drawings and specifications.

88. Access Flooring 096900 1.05 A. Please confirm that stringers are not required.

A. Response: Stringer system or pedestal only system may be used.

89. On drawing A-115, there are details 23-24 that are calling for bird control netting. The details are not called out on A-113 and there are not specifications for this.

A. Response – issue will be addressed in Addendum 004.

90. Please elaborate on exactly what is included in Bid Option 19 Mass Notification System

Equipment and Wiring. Hangar Drawing Sheet FA-601indicates it is integral with the Fire Alarm System. Where does the option start and stop?

A. Response – Electrical drawings and specifications clearly define the mass notification system with one-lines, etc. Contractor is capable of defining bidding/pricing base bid and option.

91. Please clarify the options for both the Hangar and the Infrastructure:

Specification Section 012300 (Hangar) lists the following options that are not included on the "Schedule of Prices":

(1) Option 5 Concrete Towway Connection;

(2) Option 19 2nd Floor Special Ceiling and Lighting; and

(3) Option 20 Wall Mural Art on Both 1st and 2nd Floor. Additionally, the "Schedule of Prices" includes one option (Bid Item 0001AV Mass Notification System Equipment and Wiring) that is not mentioned in Specification Section 012300 (Hangar). Please clarify what options are required for the Hangar.

A. Response – Will be addressed with addendum 0002

92. Specification Section 012300 (Infrastructure) incorrectly lists the Hangar Options 1 through 20, and does not correlate to the "Schedule of Prices". Please review.

A. Response – Will be addressed with addendum 0002

93. Hangar Drawings C-111 and S-135 refer to the Static Display Foundation as Bid

Option 19, however the bid schedule lists Bid Option 19 as the Mass Notification System Equipment. Should the Static Display Foundation be included in the Base Bid and not as an option?

A. Response – Will be addressed with addendum 0002

94. Hangar Drawing Sheets A-111 and A-116 both have "Option Notes" listing various options; however, the list is not the same as the "Schedule of Prices". Please clarify what options are required for the Hangar.

A. Response – New schedule will be posted on Feb 14, 2011.

95. Hangar Drawing Sheet A-407, Elevations A and B, show graphic panel systems and vinyl wall graphics labeled as "Bid Option 20"; however the "Schedule of Prices" does not include Bid Option 20. In what bid item does the cost of the graphics belong?

A. Response – Will be addressed with addendum 0002

96. Hangar Drawing Sheet A-423, includes an architectural floor plan for Option 19;

however, the "Schedule of Prices" states that Option 19 is for Mass Notification System Equipment and Wiring. What is required?

A. Response – Will be addressed with addendum 0002

97. Note 5 on Infrastructure Drawing Sheet C-112 states that the fire pump house, fire water storage tank, fire pumps, generator, and all associated work must be completed, tested, and operational by August 1, 2011. With a Notice to Proceed of approximately April 15, 2011 (per Paragraph 3.4.2.2 of Section 00110 of the Solicitation) and no construction activities allowed for 90 days after the Notice to Proceed while awaiting submission and approval of the NEPDES permit (per Paragraph 1.10E of Hangar and Infrastructure Specification Sections 011100), there is not adequate time allowed to complete the fire pump house work. Essentially no on-site construction work will be able to start until approximately July 15, 2011. Additionally, after approved submittals, there is a 10 week lead time for the fire water storage tank and fire pump and a 16 week lead time for the generator and transformers. That would mean that earliest one could expect the tank and fire pump to be delivered would be approximately August 1, 2011and the generator and transformers September 12, 2011.

How should bidders proceed concerning this phasing requirement?

A. Response – issue will be addressed in addendum 0004

98. On the Infrastructure drawings, page C-211, under the new work, there is a sump pump manhole listed at location N 56078.15, E 1655652.19. Currently, there is no mention of this sump pump on the electrical drawings. Please provide a electrical drawing, showing the source of power and layout.

A. Response – issue will be addressed with Addendum 0004.

99. Regarding the demolition of existing building 3400a, to determine methods and quantities for slab on grades and foundation systems removal as-built structural drawings from construction would assist. To include the extent required for existing structures scheduled to remain.

100. Based on the drawings there are 39 cathodic protection test stations however the specification call for test stations every 1000 ft. Please confirm the number of test stations.

A. Response – Bid the drawings as indicated.

101. Each test station is associated with one of three locations and anode configurations based on drawing C-508. Please confirm if that is correct and the number.

a. Single Fitting – 25: Two (2) 17lb anodes

b. Fire Hydrant – 10: Two (2) 17lb anodes

c. Water Main into building – 4: Two (2) 17lb anodes and a reference cell

A. Response – Install in accordance with drawings C-210, 211, 212, 213. C-210 and C-211 modified as part of Addendum 001 are the latest. C212 and C213 will be updated as part of IFC drawing set. Final test station layout and configuration to be based on Contractor’s Corrosion Expert.

102. The specifications call for Close Interval Survey (CIS) testing – please confirm total length of piping to be surveyed.

A. Response – Shall be based on the requirements of the Contractor’s Corrosion Expert.

103. The specifications call for holiday coating testing – please confirm length of piping requiring testing.

A. Response – All metallic piping with external coating shall be tested in its entirety.

104. Specify number, size and type of isolations required.

A. Response – As required by the Contract specifications based on piping materials installed.

105. The specification call out that pipe under concrete slab shall have 3 magnesium anodes however this situation is not seen in the drawings. Please confirm the number of locations that require this anode configuration.

A. Response – Install the anodes in accordance with the drawings and as determined by Contractor’s Corrosion Expert.

106. The specifications state that valves, connectors, metallic pipe sections are all to be protected by 9lb anodes however the drawings only show three anode configurations all using 17lb anodes. Please clarify.

A. Response – Install 17 lb anodes as indicated on the drawings.

107. The drawing on page C-508 detail an anode cable splice kit, where would a splice kit be needed? The drawings do no indicate any locations where splice kits are needed.

A. Response - Drawing details indicate each anode has its own lead wire. Detail may not be necessary.

108. Drawing C-508 details two locations where bond wires are needed: continuity bond and pipe bond; please confirm the number of locations where each bond is present so the amount of bond wire can be determined.

A. Response - Metallic to Metallic pipe connections shall be bonded as indicated on the drawings and specifications.

109. Do all isolators require lightening protection?

A. Response – Bid shall be based on the information in the drawings and specifications.

110. The specifications state that each isolator requires a test station. The only isolation flange kits seen are where the water main enters building. Please confirm the size piping and number of locations.

A. Response – Pipe sizes and locations are indicated on the drawings.

111. The specification call for a corrosion inhibiting product to be installed in the annular space between the pipeline and casing when underneath a roadway or railway.

Please confirm the number of casing locations where this is required and the length of the casing so I can determine amount of product needed.

A. Response - No casing pipes for water lines.

112. The Roofing Plan Drawings indicate that photovoltaic panels are an option, however that option is not provided in the bid schedule. Please clarify.

A. Response – Issue will be addressed in addendum #0002.

113. In drawing C-101, hatching shown at Pump Building & Tanks indicates Demolition by others and conflicts with Note to include as Bid Option 1. Confirm Scope of Work required.

INF Support

A. Response – INF Bid Option 1 includes the demolition of the pump building, tanks, piping, slabs, etc.

114. In drawing C-101 it states "Repair all cracks and seal prior to overlay of existing asphalt" - Should the area required below Option 2 be included in Option 2 or the Base Bid?

A. Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0004.

115. In regard to drawing C-102, note 3, No quantities of Asbestos and lead are provided. Confirm that all disposal of asbestos and lead are to be removed and disposed as a change order.

A. Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0002.

116. In regard to drawing c-102, note 3, Please provide copy of hazardous Waste Survey if available.

A. Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0002.

117. In regard to drawing C-110, new parking space blocks at each space - please confirm that parking blocks are required at all new parking spots shown at new pavement areas or only along south end of site.

A. Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0004.

118. In regard to drawing C-111, please confirm if parking blocks are required at south side of parking lot or at all new spaces shown within Option 2.

A. Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0004.

119. In regard to drawings C-110 & C-111, curbs & gutters is shown along north side of parking lot. Do light pole foundations get installed in sidewalk or in parking lot?

A. Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0004.

120. In regard to drawings C-111 & C-112, the scope of work for demo of existing water line and installation of new water line, new fittings and relocated hydrant is unclear.

The callout for the relocated hydrant appears to be missing information. The water line work beyond the hydrant connection to the existing water main appears to be existing on C-211. Tank fill line shown on C-211 is 12" and drawing F-101, the fill line is 6".

A. Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0004.

121. In regard to drawing C-112, the demolition plan does not depict all of the concrete and asphalt demolition required by the new work shown on other drawings.

(Compressed air line, sanitary lines under asphalt and concrete walkway.

A. Response - See drawing C-102 for additional pavement demolition. Contractor shall remove and replace all pavement and site elements necessary to install the compressed air, sanitary, and electrical utilities for the wash water tank and pumps.

122. In regard to drawing C-113, light poles shown on E-003 and E-501 are not shown in

Bid Option 5 Site Plan. Are poles to be installed in sidewalks or paved areas?

A. Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0004.

123. In regard to drawing C-113, is temporary fencing required for this work area or will

4'-0" high safety fence be required?

A. Response - Contractor shall install temporary fence as needed to provide construction site security and safety from the adjacent public areas.

124. In regard to drawing C-113, new 16" water line work on west side of site is called out for this project and is also called out on Hangar project. Please clarify under which project portion of the project we need to incorporate the cost (hanger or infrastructure)?

A. Response – Issue will be addressed in addendum #0004.

125. In regard to drawing C-113, please clarify what the limits of new curbs are.

A. Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0004.

126. In regard to drawing C-211, single 2" PVC line shown on west side of site along

12"W. Confirm if there should be 2-2" PVC Lines 4'-0" apart. Confirm if LO/CRF is providing HH or if it should be provided under this project.

A. Response - Handhole by LO/CRF contractor. Install a single 2” PVC conduit.

127. In regard to drawing C-211, LO/CRF is providing PIV and capped pipe for tie in at

West side of Bldg 3407. Confirm if PIV is required. If so, will it need a tamper switch.

A. Response – PIV is by the LO/CRF Contractor.

128. In regard to drawing C-211, 14" FW - "Connect to Existing Water Line (By Others)"

Is the connection by others or the 14" water line?

A. Response - The 14” water line to be installed and capped by the Apron contractor. INF contractor to remove cap and connect to the end of this pipe.

129. In regard to drawing C-211, Will the connection to the existing ductbank east of the water tanks require a handhole? It is assumed that all 2" PVC conduits for the pump start circuit will require 4 foot separation horizontally.

A. Response - Yes a handhole will be installed by the Apron Contractor. Yes the two 4” conduits shall be separated by 4 feet.

130. In regard to drawing C-211, 14" W is called out as 14"SS on bottom of drawing, please clarify.

A. Response - Issue was addressed in addendum #0001.

131. In regard to drawing C-212, confirm the required locations for Test Stations. There appears to be missing test stations based upon new water line work called out on C-210, especially along north side of site and at all connection to existing locations.

A. Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0004

132. In regard to drawing C-212, [2"] COMM DUCT - confirm if there should be 2-2"

PVC conduits 4'-0" apart.

A. Response - Issue was addressed in addendum #0004

133. In regard to drawing C-212, 14" FW is labeled 14"W and 14"SS.

A. Response - Issue was addressed in addendum #0001.

134. In regard to drawing C-213, Confirm number and location of Test Stations. PIV is by LO/CRF. HDPE Fire Mains use HDPE fused fittings. Locations with existing fire hydrant and valves may require more than 2 anodes.

A. Response – Issue was addressed in addendum #001 and Addendum #003, see sheets C-210 and C-211 for test station locations.

135. In regard to drawing C-210, C-213 & other civil drawings, numerous pipe designation callouts are incorrect. For instance Fire Water lines are labeled as "W" and "FW" and "SS", we respectfully ask the engineer to re-label the lines and provide revised civil sheets via amendment.

A. Response - Issue was addressed in addendum #0001.

136. In regard to drawing C-213 & F-100, please provide detail where Fire Water enters

Pump House to comply with ETL.

A. Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0004.

137. In regard to drawing C-213 & F-100, please provide detail for connection of HDPE to above grade CI. Where does transition take place? Above grade or below grade?

A. Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0004.

138. In regard to drawing C-400, Profile SS1 and SS2 - Concrete Encase Sewer Line detail does not exist on C505.

A. Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0004.

139. In regard to drawing C-400 and spec 334100, Para. 2.03, Class III Pipe is called out on drawings. Spec 334100-2, Para 2.03 calls out Class III RCP with joints per ASTM C443. This pipe is not manufactured locally and must be shipped in from the mainland.

Confirm if locally availably RCP can be used with bell and spigot fittings.

Response – Bid the project in accordance with the specifications. All material substitutions will be addressed after contract award as part of the submittal phase.

140. In regard to drawing C-503, detail 10 Note 8 - State of Florida is referenced.

Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0003.

141. In regard to drawing C-503, Detail 10, Note 9 - Where does this note apply?

Response – This applies to storm drain structures installed in areas where final grade is not immediately established. The weep holes will control water ponding around the structures until final grading or pavement installation.

142. In regard to drawing C-503 and spec 331216, Para. 2.06, Detail 3, Note 2 -

Specification for hydrants does not call out Stortz Adapter. Specs call out hydrant color as red and to match Base standard, which is not red.

Response – Specifications do require Stortz adaptor and identify color of hydrant, see Section 32 12 16 Para 2.06, Part B.8.a and Part C.

143. In regard to drawing C-504, is any grounding required at fencing?

Response – No.

144. In regard to drawing L-3 & E-003, Irrigation Controller is shown at different location than what is shown on E-003. Drawing L-3 shows a symbol at the location shown on E-003. Is this a second controller? Where should controller be installed?

Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0004.

145. In regard to drawing S-001, Note 6.A makes reference to "SA004" Please clarify if this drawing exists.

Response – Issue will be addressed in addendum #0004.

146. In regard to drawing F-201, additional Alarms and Signals references FA-601. It is assumed that FA-101 is the correct reference.

Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0004

147. In regard to drawing P-101, Note on drawing references "See C-112 for

Continuation". The referenced drawing does not show the continuation of the compressed air line.

Response - Issue will be addressed in addendum #0004

148. In regard to drawing P-101, Keyed Note 1 does…