Q A 01 MAR 2012 1000 hrs.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RELATED TO:

W912J6-12-R-0001

As of 01 Mar 2012 1000 hrs

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

Dated 02 Feb 2012

Q1. How do I access the files/documents for the Project?

A1. 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 DLA 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, DLA Logistics Information Services (DLIS), Federal

Center, 74 Washington Avenue North, Battle Creek, MI 49017-3084. The Joint Certification

Office may be contacted by telephone at: 1-(800) 352-3572; or email: jcp-admin@.dla.mil.

Q2. 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.

A2. The U.S./Canada Joint Certification Program (JCP) office reported to this office that once a company is certified with the JCP office (normally 7 to 12 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 14 Feb 2012

Q3. Paragraph 3.1 indicates to write all questions via Exhibit E, Proposal Inquiry Format.

Please provide this document.

A3. Exhibit E, Proposal Inquiry Format, is posted on FBO in Word format. The document is titled Exhibit D and E Jan 11.

mailto:jcp-admin@.dla.mil

Q4. It appears pages 9007 S-102, 9008 S-104, 9007 S-300, and S-510 are missing from the drawings. Please provide.

A4. Sheet S-510 has been issued with Addendum 1.

UPDATED 29 Feb 12 Sheets 9007 S-102, 9008 S-104, and 9007 S-300 were re-issued with

Addendum 2.

Dated 21 FEB 2012

Q5. The current specification has deleted the previous Section 071113 – Bituminous

Damproofing. In the drawing sheets A-322 and A-323 wall details, the damproofing mastic note is still indicated on the wall section datails. Is this previous damproofing section to be replaced by the new Section 071400 – Fluid-Applied Waterproofing? Please kindly verify in your amendment.

A5. Yes. Clarification issued with Addendum 1 states that all references to Damproofing and

Damproofing Mastic refer to Fluid Applied Sheet Watrerproofing as specified in Section 07 14 00

Q6. On Drawing S-002 under “MICROPILE FOUNDATIONS” Note 11.A.b. indicates that the Micropile allowable and ultimate tension capacities are 90 kips and 180 kips respectively. However, the Geotechnical Report on page 14 indicates that TYPE I

Micropiles have an allowable tension capacity of 60 kips. See the TYPE I table included above in the RFI Question 3. Please clarify the discrepancy between the allowable tension capacity of 90 kips on Drawing S-002 Note11.A.b. and the 40 kip capacity on Page 14 in the

Geotechnical Report.

A6. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration has been amended to reflect tension capacities called for in structural notes. Amendment was issued as part of Addendum 1.

Q7. On Drawing S-001 under "SOIL PREPARATION AND MICROPILES" Note 7 indicates that "DESIGN DEPTH FOR BOTTOM OF MICROPILES SHALL BE AT

ELEVATION -32'-0" PER SOILS REPORT. THE BONDED ZONE LENGTH IS 11FT

PER THE SOILS REPORT." However, on Drawing S-002 under "MICROPILE

FOUNDATIONS" Note 6 indicates that "MINIMUM ROCK SOCKET (bonded zone)

LENGTH AS INDICATED ON DRAWINGS, OR AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE

PENDING RESULTS OF STATIC PILE LOAD TESTING."; and Note 10 indicates that

"THE FINAL LENGTH OF THE PRODUCTION MICROPILES SHALL BE

DETERMINED SUCH THAT THE REQUIRED GEOTECHNICAL CAPACITY IS

DEVELOPED BY SKIN FRICTION BETWEEN THE GROUT AND SOIL OVER A

SUITABLE LENGTH IN AN APPROPRIATE BEARING STRATUM (BOND ZONE)."

The Notes on these two sheets appear to be in conflict. Our questions are:

a. If the Notes on Drawing S-001 govern, and the Micropile Pre-Production Test indicates that longer Micropile lengths are required in order to provide the required Design

Capacity, how are we to be paid for the required additional depth below Elevation -32’- 0” and additional bond length beyond 11FT? There is currently no provision in the bid documents for an ADD Price for Additional Length of Micropiles. Please clarify.

b. However, if the Notes on Drawing S-002 govern then would you please modify or delete the conflicting notes on Drawing S-001?

A7. Design depths and bonded lift zone length have been revised on sheet S-001 and in the amended Geotechnical Engineering Exploration document. These revisions were issued as part of

Addendum 1. In all cases, the final depths/bonded zone lengths will be determined in the field.

Q8. On Drawing S-001 under “SOIL PREPARATION AND MICROPILES” Note 9.b indicates that “RETAINING WALLS AT BUILDING STRUCTURES SHOULD BE

DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN

THE MICROPILE FOUNDATION NOTES.” However, the “MICROPILE

FOUNATIONS” Notes on Drawing S-002 do not address anything about Designing

Retaining Walls. Would you please clarify the intent of Note 9.b?

A8. The intention of this note was to require the same peformance characteristics for the micropiles shown beneath retaining walls as for micropiles beneath building structures, since the gravity loads for the retaining walls are different than the building gravity loads. Note that the retaining walls on the project are the „wing walls‟ at the ends of the Igloo cluster.

Q9. On Drawing S-002 under “MICROPILE FOUNDATIONS” Note 11.A indicates that the Micropile piles are to be “TYPE I.” Then Note 11.A.a. indicates that the Micropile allowable and ultimate compression capacities are 120 kips and 240 kips respectively.

However, the Geotechnical Report on page 13 indicates that TYPE I Micropiles have an allowable compression capacity of 20 tons (40 kips). See the TYPE I table below. Please clarify the discrepancy between the allowable compression capacity of 120 kips on Drawing

S-002 Note 11.A.a. and the 40 kip capacity on Page 13in the Geotechnical Report.

A9. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration has been amended to reflect ultimate compression capacities called for in structural notes. Amendment was issued as part of Addendum 1.

Q10. Section 01 33 29 LEED Documentation references in several places “Table 1” which identifies the LEED credit items that are designed into the project. No such table exists in the project specifications. Please provide.

A10. The “Table 1” is the ANG Sustainability Score Sheet which will be provided in an

Amendment.

UPDATED 29 Feb 12 The “Table 1” is the LEED NCv2.2 Scorecard, and this document was issued with Addendum 2.

Q11. Sections 00110 paragraph 3.4.2.4 and 00120 paragraph 2.2.2.3 discuss the requirement to submit a construction schedule with Offeror’s proposal and how the Government will evaluate the schedule.

Nowhere does it state if a proposed schedule that is quicker than the 540 calendar days allowed by the RFP will be receive more favorable consideration. Please verify.

A11. No favorable consideration will be given, as a reminder the completion date includes punchlist and all closeout activities.

Q12. Reference is made to drawing sheet E-801 details 3 and 4 and what appears to be a reinforced underground ductbank. Please advise if the ductbank is to be reinforced around the conduits and if so, what the reinforcing requirements are.

A12. Reinforcement is not required. The „dots‟ indicated are part of the schematic indication for conduit separators that is shown. Many prefabricated duct spacers do contain holes or slots for rebar.

Q13. Specification Section 01 33 29 LEED (™) DOCUMENTATION, paragraph 1.3, references a Table 1. Please provide Table 1.

A13. This is a repeat of Q10. See A10.

Q14.Please provide specification section 08 91 00 – METAL WALL AND DOOR

LOUVERS

A14. Specification for louvers will be issued in a future Addendum.

UPDATED 29 Feb 12 Specification for 08 91 00 Louvers was issued with Addendum 2.

Q15. Please provide specifications for bike racks as shown on drawing CS-101.

A15. Section 12 93 00 for Bicycle Racks will issued in a future addendum.

UPDATED 29 Feb 12 Section 12 93 00 Bicycle Racks was issued with Addendum 2.

Q16. Reference is made to drawing 9008 A-103 and note that building 9008 is an additivie option 7. Please explain.

A16. Note is incorrect and may be disregarded. Building 9008 is part of the Base Bid. This note will be deleted in a future addendum.

UPDATED 29 Feb 12 This note was deleted in Addendum 2.

Q17. On Drawing S-001 under "SOIL PREPARATION AND MICROPILES" Note 7 indicates that "DESIGN DEPTH FOR BOTTOM OF MICROPILES SHALL BE AT

ELEVATION -32'-0" PER SOILS REPORT. THE BONDED ZONE LENGTH IS 11FT

PER THE SOILS REPORT." However, on Drawing S-002 under "MICROPILE

FOUNDATIONS" Note 6 indicates that "MINIMUM ROCK SOCKET (bonded zone)

LENGTH AS INDICATED ON DRAWINGS, OR AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE

PENDING RESULTS OF STATIC PILE LOAD TESTING."; and Note 10 indicates that

"THE FINAL LENGTH OF THE PRODUCTION MICROPILES SHALL BE

DETERMINED SUCH THAT THE REQUIRED GEOTECHNICAL CAPACITY IS

DEVELOPED BY SKIN FRICTION BETWEEN THE GROUT AND SOIL OVER A

SUITABLE LENGTH IN AN APPROPRIATE BEARING STRATUM (BOND ZONE)."

The Notes on these two sheets appear to be in conflict. Our questions are:

a. If the Notes on Drawing S-001 govern, and the Micropile Pre-Production Test indicates that longer Micropile lengths are required in order to provide the required Design

Capacity, how are we to be paid for the required additional depth below Elevation -32’0” and additional bond length beyond 11FT? There is currently no provision in the bid documents for an ADD Price for Additional Length of Micropiles. Please clarify.

b. However, if the Notes on Drawing S-002 govern then would you please modify or delete the conflicting notes on Drawing S-001?

A17. This is a repeat of Q7. See A7.

Q18. On Drawing S-001 under “SOIL PREPARATION AND MICROPILES” Note 9.b indicates that “RETAINING WALLS AT BUILDING STRUCTURES SHOULD BE

DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN

THE MICROPILE FOUNDATION NOTES.” However, the “MICROPILE

FOUNATIONS” Notes on Drawing S-002 do not address anything about Designing

Retaining Walls. Would you please clarify the intent of Note 9.b?

A18. This is a repeat of Q8. See A8.

Q19. On Drawing S-002 under “MICROPILE FOUNDATIONS” Note 11.A indicates that the Micropile piles are to be “TYPE I.” Then Note 11.A.a. indicates that the Micropile allowable and ultimate compression capacities are 120 kips and 240 kips respectively.

However, the Geotechnical Report on page 13 indicates that TYPE I Micropiles have an allowable compression capacity of 20 tons (40 kips). See the TYPE I table below. Please clarify the discrepancy between the allowable compression capacity of 120 kips on Drawing

S-002 Note 11.A.a. and the 40 kip capacity on Page 13in the Geotechnical Report.

A19. This is a repeat of Q9. See A9.

Q20. Current TYPE I Micropile Load provisions from the Geotechnical Report and the

Contracting Drawings listed in Table 1 below:

TYPE1MP

Allowable

Compression

Ultimate

Compression

Allowable

Tension

Ultimate

Tension

From the

Geotechnical Report, pages 13-14

40 kips

60 kips

From Drawing S-002

Micropile

Foundations Note 11

120 kips 240 kips 90 kips 180 kips

A20. See A7 and A9

Q21. On Drawing S-002 under “MICROPILE FOUNDATIONS” Note 11.A.b. indicates that the Micropile allowable and ultimate tension capacities are 90 kips and 180 kips respectively. However, the Geotechnical Report on page 14 indicates that TYPE I

Micropiles have an allowable tension capacity of 60 kips. See the TYPE I table included above in the RFI Question 3. Please clarify the discrepancy between the allowable tension capacity of 90 kips on Drawing S-002 Note11.A.b. and the 40 kip capacity on Page 14 in the

Geotechnical Report.

A21. See A9

Q22. Please provide missing Structural drawings (S-101 and S-510)

A22. S-510 was issued with addendum 1.

Q23. Please provide specs for Louvers

A23. This is a repeat of Q14. See A14.

Q24. The connection detail (Sheet 9013 S-402 Detail 3 or Detail 5) show 4ea #5 bars withACI hooks. This is a typical connection detail. Typically we see the reinforcing barextending into the pile cap with a nut-plate-nut connection to achieve the required loadtransfer. Will the Air National guard accept alternate connection details?

(MalcolmDrilling).

A24. In this particular instance, the contractor may propose an alternate connection for the micropile to footing connection for the structural engineer to review with the Shop Drawings. The connection of the mucropile cap to the footing is considered a foundation detail, which is not regulated by DOD Explosive Safety Board. Other reinforcement detailing not related to the foundations is strictly regulated by DOD ESB, and no alternates will be considered.

Q25. Sheet S-002 Micropile Foundation note 3 states that the minimum diameter of the casing be .545 wall. This size does not exist. There is 7.625 x .500 wall or 9.625by .545 wall.

Which one is it? (Malcolm Drilling).

A25. Minimum pipe casing wall thickness has been revised to .430 in Section 31 63 00 REV, issued with Addendum 1. Micropile Foundation Note 3 will be revised in a future addendum to reflect change in 31 63 00 REV. The 7.625 x .430 wall does exist, and is a pipe casing regulated under World Standard API 5CT – 11. This question has revealed that most of the sources of pipe manufactured under this standard appear to be from China, and will not be allowable for use on this project under FAR. As the (revised) .430” thickness is a minimum, a wall thickness of .500 would be acceptable.

Q26. The Structural Drawings from the www.fbo.gov website appear to be missing some pages. The table of contents G-002 show there being sheets S-102, S-104, S-300 and S-510 but did not see them in the drawings package. Please provide these missing sheets.

A26. Sheet S-510 was issued with Addendum 1.

UPDATED 29 Feb 12 Sheets 9007 S-102, 9008 S-104, and 9007 S-300 were re-issued with

Addendum 2.

Q27. We are a subcontractor bidding to the prime contractors for the micropile work on the reference project. Would you please send us a copy of the list of planholders for this job, or let us know how to obtain the list?

A27. Persons to have registered for this project can be located at www.fbo.gov. Additionally, a list of those persons who have attended the Pre Proposal Conference can be locaed on www.fbo.gov.

Q28. Under 3.3 Proposal Format 3.3.4 the RFP states that "Written proposals shall be prepared on standard 8.5 x 11 inch paper ...." To aid in readability and allow a more reasonable timescale to be displayed, can the schedule be printed on 11x17 paper, folded to fit into an 8.5x11 binder?

A28. Yes, will amend para 3.3.4 of Section 110 to reflect this direction.

Q29. Under 19 (Work Progress and Preparation of Progress Schedules and Reports) 19.3 states that "...the contractor shall provide a project plan in the most current version of

Microsoft Project to define work tasks and track progress." Would it be permissable to provide a project plan using Primavera P3, P6 or Suretrak instead of Microsoft Project?

http://www.fbo.gov/

A29. Yes, if awarded the Government will consider other formats to be negotiated with the

Contracting Officer.

Q30. The SF 1442, Item 13.B. indicates that an Offer Guarantee is NOT required. Please confirm a Bid Bond is not required to be submitted with our Proposal that is currently due

3/6/12.

A30. Bid Bond is not required.

Q31. Buildings 9007 & 9008 appear to have the same foundation footprint, and seem to have the same micropile layout. However, Building 9007 shows 51 micropiles while

Building 9008 shows 56. It appears that some of Building 9007 micropiles may have been omitted from the drawing due to a drafting error. Would you please clarify if the number of micropiles shown on Drawing 9007 S-101 is the correct number?

A31. Correction to micropile layout at Building 9007 was issued with Addendum 2.

Q32. For estimating purposes, may we please get the CAD files for grading plans, drawings

CG-101 through CG-107?

A32. It is our policy not to release CAD files prior to bid. We typically release CAD files only to the successful bidder/offeror and only upon request. The government has already selected the format for bid documents (being electronic copies in PDF format ). Preparation of CAD format files so as to be useable by the entire bidding pool (who may have different releases of ACAD or entirely different CAD programs) is not feasible and could be perceived as providing an advantage to some offerors over others.

Q33. Section 32 17 24.00 10 pavement markings Para 2.1.1.Composition requirements of thermoplastic to be hydrocarbon. The approved material in the State of Hawaii and City &

County is alkyd thermoplastic….hydrocarbon is a special order item and not used in

Hawaii. We have done numerous projects at Pearl Harbor, Schofield Barracks, Hickam as well as State highways, roads with alkyd thermoplastic. Please advise.

A33. Per the civil engineer, Alkyd thermoplastic pavement markings in conformance with State of Hawaii DOT Spec Section 755.05 Retroreflective Thermoplastic Compound Pavement

Markings are acceptable.

Q34. Please confirm that no offer guarantee is required.

A34. No Bid bond is required, see A30.

Dated 27 FEB 2012

Q35. If not specified otherwise, do all concrete floors receive concrete floor sealer?

A35. Interior areas receiving sealed concrete floor finish CON-1 are called out on each building floor plan. The generic description of CON-1 is called out on the Finish Legend on sheet 9015 I-105. The specification for the material to be used is described under 09

90 00 3.11.2.B . This is a three coat epoxy sealer. The answer to the question is „Yes, using sealer meeting requirements of 09 90 00 3.11.2.B‟.

Q36.Please confirm that the 2” roof topping on buildings 9007 and 9008 do not require reinforcement.

A36. The concrete topping at buildings 9007 and 9008 is intended to provide a substrate for the waterproofing membrane beneath the earth cover. It is not bonded to the precast tees beneath nor is is it part of a composite slab design. It is not structural concrete and is not exposed. No reinforcement is shown. Section 03 20 00.00 10 require submittal of shop drawings for reinforcement. Paragraph 3.1 of this section notes that fabrication and placement details of steel not specified or shown shall be in accordance with ACI SP-66 and ACI 318. If these documents require reinforcement of this topping, then it needs to be provided. Note that reinforcement for the 3” topping above building 9000-9003 is called out.

Q37. Please provide as-built drawings for the precast EOD wall footing connection for pricing of relocating these walls.

A37.This information is not available. Photographs of the EOD enclosure are posted in the Pre-

Proposal Meeting Slides and are being re-posted with updated Q&A. Contractor will have to infer and make appropriate allowance for the connection to the footings.

Q38. Reference is made to RFP Section 00110, 3.4.2.3 - Subfactor 2 Experience and

Capability Proposal: will resumes for proposed project personnel count toward the proposal's 15 page limit?

A38. No resumes will not count toward the proposal‟s 15 page limit. This will be corrected in

Amendment #1.

Q39. Per the RFP, the Experience and Capability Proposal is limited to 15 pages. We understand that the page limitation includes the proposal narrative, project management narrative, quality control narrative, and island environment experience narrative. Does the page limitation also include the key personnel resumes that are requested in paragraph

3.4.2.3.2?

A39. The page limitation does not include the key personnel resumes that are requested, please see A38. This will be corrected in Amendment #1.

Q40. There are pre-cast wheel blocks shown in the drawing and details, but is not reference in the specifications. Please provide specifications.

A40. Requirements for precast concrete products are contained in section 03 45 33. There are (4) wheelstops in the project.

Q41. Interior – Finishes and Equipment sheet calls out tack boards, marker boards, projector screens, map rail, and benches. However, no specification sections were provided.

Please provide.

A41. Specification will be issued in Addendum 3.

UPDATED 28 Feb 12 Additionally, Benches are captured under Section 10 51 13 Lockers.

Q42. There are Marble Thresholds called out in the specifications, but is not shown in any of the details of location. Please provide.

A42. Marble thresholds are considered to be a „transition strip‟ element required at the condition where tile floors abut carpet or VCT finishes. Detail 1/A602, while drawn for rubber/vinyl transition strips, is similar to the detailing required for marble threshold. As such, they are only required at doors 109, 112, 113, 114, 115, and 116 in building 9015.

Q43. Contract Drawing S-001, CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE note 2.C provides concrete strengths as:

a. Piers & Caps – 5000 psi.

b. Pre-cast Concrete – 5000 psi.

c. Topping On Pre-cast – 4000 psi.

Contract Drawing S-002 then confirms the Pre-cast Concrete to be 5000 psi per the

PRECAST CONCRETE note 3.E.

Specification section 03 31 00.00 10 (Cast-In-Place Structural Concrete) section 1.4.11

(Strength Requirements) states all foundations, beams, slabs and columns to be 4000 psi in the given table but then states concrete slabs on-grade to have a flexural strength of

3000psi.

To eliminate any discrepencies please provide the concrete strengths for footings, slab-on-grades, walls and topping slabs.

A43. Concrete compressive strength for cast in place walls, slabs on grade, topping slabs, and footings is 4000 psi per 03 31 00.00 10 1.11. Note that flexural strength is a different quality than compressive strength.

Q44. Concrete wall finishes A –D are called out for in the specifications; however, the drawing provide little information on which walls receive which concrete finish. Specific areas of concern are the exposed retaining wall in front of the Igloos and the exposed walls in Buildings 9007, 9008 9013, and 9019. Please clarify which wall finish to provide.

A44. Class C finish for exposed side of wing wall and class D for earth side of wing walls are called out on sheet 9000-9003 S-550. This criteria can be extended to the other cast in place walls at 9007, 9008, 9013, and 901. Note all exposed walls receive elastomeric paint finish.

Q45. Structural notes on Drawing S-001 refer to the concrete strength of the piers & caps, precast concrete and topping slabs. Please provide the specified concrete strength for the walls, slab on grade and concrete beams.

A45. Concrete strength for cast in place walls, slabs on grade, and footings is 4000 psi per 03 31

00.00 10 1.11.

Q46. A note on CS101 near the trash pad calls out for 5” AC pavement, but detail 6/C509 calls for 3” pavement. Please clarify.

A46. This note was corrected to indicate 3" pavement in Addendum 1. Please reference the posted Addendum 1.

Q47. The sidewalks shown at Buildings 9007, 9008, 9019 do not terminate at asphalt pavement (per A102, A103, A106). So employees will have to cross dirt. These sidewalks also do not show up on the civil drawings. Please verify their locations and extent are correct.

A47. These sidewalks show up on architectural drawings only because they are within 5‟ of the building. Civil drawings do not typically detail flatwork immediately adjacent to buildings. The reference to the civil sidewalk detail is corrected in response A54 below. Flatwork has been minimized, so the sidewalks do not return to the asphalt. Extents are correct for bidding purposes.

Q48. On Building 9015, doors exiting from Room 119 go out onto dirt (A105), not sidewalks nor AC pavement. Should there be concrete stoops or sidewalks, and if so, what extent?

A48. Flatowrk has been minimized, so there are no sidewalks or stoops at these doors. Extents are correct for bidding purposes.

Q49. Structural drawing S301 and sections on S401 fail to detail the walls and slabs around the entry vestibules of Buildings 9008 and 9007. Please provide details of the concrete work in this area.

A49. The construction of these earth filled reinforced concrete walls is the same as the other earth filled exterior walls of the building – a 5‟ wide section with (2) 12” reinforced concrete walls encasing 3‟ of earth. The extended slab is monolithic with the building foundation and shown this way in plan views of the Mat Foundation. Connection of the double walls to the mat foundation is shown on 9007 S-502. The height of the „L shaped‟ walls is shown on 9007 A-202, 9008 and A-

203, with the slope of the 12” concrete cap shown on 9007 A-302, 9008 A-303, 9007 A-323, and

9008 A-324. These sheets also show the extent of the structural mat slab beneath these elements.

Reinforcement of the concrete cap is not specifically called out and shall be the same as the concrete walls.

Q50. Elevation 8/A415 shows what might be a counter in the Female Dressing room. If this is a counter, please provide a detail reference from A800.

A50. This counter is also shown in plan views in 1/9015 A-105 and 1/9015-A-405. Detail 1/9015

A-800 is appropriate.

Q51. Drawing S501 provides some typical details of slab on grade construction. Detail 1 shows no sub-base under the slab on grade while detail 4 shows sand cushion, BTB and vapor barrier. Is detail 4 typical for all buildings? What about at Buildings 9007 and 9008 where the slab on grade is above the mat foundation? Please clarify which buildings get sand cushion, BTB and vapor barrier under the slab on grade.

A51. This information can be derived from the building sections and from examining all of the detailing in both structural and architectural drawings. Only buildings 9007 and 9008 have a mat slab. Buildings 9000-9003 have a slab on grade, contained within tee section footings and stem walls. Buildings 9013 and 9019 have multiple slabs on grade, separated by interior walls and bordered by exterior walls, and all walls bear on footings. All the 9013 and 9019 slabs bear on footings. Building 9015 is similar to 9013 and 9019, except that its slab areas are larger. Detail

4/S-501 only addresses the typical turned down slab edge condition and does not indicate the footing, the earth fill, nor other reinforcement details which may be required in other detailing.

All buildings (except 9016 open air slab – see 10R) get sand cushion, BTB, and vapor barrier beneath the slab on grade. At buildings 9007 and 9008, the vapor barrier, sand cushion and BTB occur beneath the mat slab, with an additional vapor barrier (plastic sheeting) called out by note on 1 and 2/9008 S-401 for the upper slab.

UPDATED & REVISED RESPONSE 29 Feb 12: Only buildings 9007 and 9008 have a mat slab.

Buildings 9000-9003 have a slab on grade, contained within tee section footings and stem walls.

Buildings 9013 and 9019 have multiple slabs on grade, separated by interior walls and bordered by exterior walls, and all walls bear on footings. All the 9013 and 9019 slabs bear on footings. Building

9015 is similar to 9013 and 9019, except that its slab areas are larger. Detail 1/S-501 only addresses the typical turned down slab edge condition and does not attempt to indicate the footing, the earth fill, nor other reinforcement details as may be required in other detailing. All buildings (except 9016 open air slab – see 10R) get vapor barrier beneath the slab on grade. Detail 4/S-501 will be revised in a future addendum to indicate the 4” no. 67 rock layer located immediately beneath the vapor barrier, with the 4” BTB layer below. The 2” sand cushion will be deleted. At buildings 9007 and 9008, the vapor barrier, rock layer, and BTB layer occur beneath the mat slab, with an additional vapor barrier

(plastic sheeting) called out by note on 1 and 2/9008 S-401 for the upper slab. Also A60 response.

Q52. Drawings S105 and S106 do not appear to show any footing or slab thickening under the CMU walls of Building 9015 between grid lines 4 & 5, A & B. Is anything required?

A52. Believe this question is for sheets 9015 S-106 and 9015 S-107, as 9013 S-105 is for building

9013. Thickened slab is not required for these CMU walls at the electrical and mechanical rooms in building 9015.

Q53. Note 4 on S109 refers to termite soil poisoning at the MAC slab in bid option #2. So there is no basaltic termite barrier at this slab? Also no sand cushion nor vapor barrier?

A53. There is no basaltic termite treatment, vapor barrier, or sand cushion beneath this slab.

There is compacted fill and other subgrade material. This is an open air slab with no other construction. Termites are not a consideration. The wording „termite poison treatment under slab per local code requirements‟ is in case there is a local requirement for an open air slab. The description as „building 9016‟ is incorrect. There is no building.

Q54. Drawings A102, A103 and A105 refer to sidewalk detail 5/C508. C508 has chain link fence details.

A54. Correct reference is detail 5/C-509. There is also an incorrect reference on sheet 9015 A-

105 to 5/C-608.

Q55. Notes on Drawing A103 state that Building 9008 is an Additive Option #7. Is this correct? There is no Option #7 on the bid form.

A55. This note was deleted in Addendum 2. Please see the posted Addendum 2 that was issued with Amendment #1.

Q56. Refer to Specification Section 10 51 13 Lockers. Are the locker bases formed steel or set on concrete pads?

A56. Requirement is for legless lockers on a 4” high closed base. Requirement of paragraph

2.3.11 for base panels is from Federal spec FS AA L 00486, but can be seen as referring to infill panels for lockers with legs. The Basis of Design Lyon Heavy Duty Locker (shown in Finish

Legend) is offered with a 12 gage 4” metal „Z‟ base. A 4” cast-in-place concrete base pad in lieu of manufacturer‟s standard 4” metal base would be acceptable.

Q57. Details on A535 indicate the metal roofing at Building 9015 is mounted over ½” plywood sheathing while the metal roofing at Building 9013 and 9019 is mounted over 5/8”

“sheathing”. Is the 5/8” sheathing a gyp sheathing product per Section 07 22 00? If so, why plywood on one building and gyp sheathing on the other two?

A57. Buildings 9013 and 9019 are considered „protective construction‟ by DDESB due to quantities of munitions present. As such, we used gypsum board as their roof sheathing for its better fire resistance (although the roofs are not rated). We used ½” plywood on building 9015 because it is lighter. Section 07 22 00 covers the glass mat gypsum roof sheathing. Section 06 10

00 covers the plywood. Section 07 41 13 requires an underlayment membrane which requires a smooth surface achieved by either the gypsum or plywood sheathing.

Q58. Please provide details for the connection of the HSS columns to the footings in

Building 9015, i.e. anchor bolts, base plates and grouting.

A58. The columns will be attached to the footings with a 1.5” thick x 20” x 20” base plate, using

(8), 1” dia. anchor bolts per detail 2/S500. This will be confirmed in a future addendum.

Q59. Detail 3/S558 shows a raked concrete beam at the CMU end wall of Building 9019;

however, this concrete beam does not show up on Sections 2/S304, 2/A326. Is it required, and if so, please define the extent.

A59. The raked concrete beam section cut that keys 3/S-558 is shown on 1/9019 S-304. An elevation detail of the typical concrete rake beam is shown in 2/S-511.Neither Structural section

2/S304 nor Architectural section 2/9019 A-326 indicate the concrete rake beam. Not all detailing is shown on both structural and architectural drawings. Details take precedence over larger scale drawings. The concrete rake beam in question is required and extends the length of each side of the CMU raked gable at building 9019. Note there other instances of reinforced concrete infill in or on top of CMU walls. See buildings 9007, 9008, and 9015.

Q60. SOIL PREPARATION AND MICORPILES NOTE, 8, a of sheet S-001 calls out 4”

No 67 gradation gravel layer below slab-on-grade, Page 19 of SOILS REPORT by Geolabs recommends 4” No 67 gradation layer below the slabs, Detail 4/S-501 shows 2” Sand and 4”

BTB below the slab on grade.

2” Sand and 4” BTB is only required for the building 9015 and 4” No 67 rock is for the rest of the new buildings? Please clarify the slab cushion requirement under the new building.

A60. Detail 4/S-501 will be revised in a future addendum to indicate the 4” no. 67 rock layer below the vapor barrier. The 4” BTB layer will be below the no. 67 rock layer. The 2‟ sand cushion will be deleted. All buildings receive this detail below the slabs on grade. Note that 9016 is not a building. See A51 response.

Dated 28 Feb 2012

Q61. Drawing CG104 refers to concrete headwalls A-1 and A-2. So does drawing CU407.

However, drawing CU104 shows the same headwalls and references detail 1/C511 which shows CRM headwalls, not concrete. Please clarify.

A61. References to concrete headwalls pertain to Cement Rubble Masonry (CRM) per 1/C511 and section 04 24 00.

Q62. Drawing C514 shows details of the leach field and notes 6” topsoil and grassing over the top. There is no specification section for landscape and no indication of any other grassing / landscape on the project. Is this grassing required? If so, please provide a specification? And confirm there is no other grassing required for other areas of this project.

A62. Rye grass or approved equal groundcover shall be provided in conformance with State of

Hawaii DOT Spec Section 619 - Planting. Grass seed shall be uniformly applied by mechanical sower at a minimum rate of 5 pounds per 1,000 square feet. Topsoil and grassing is clearly required in all new and distrubed areas of the project. This includes the earth cover against and above buildings 9000, 9001, 9002, 9003, 9007, and 9008. General Note 28 on sheet C-001 requires restoration of all disturbed areas with grass. Section 01 57 20 paragraphs 3.3.2 and 3.16 require restoration of disturbed areas. Grading Note 4 on sheet C-002 requires temporary grassing within one week of utility installation. (This note also refers to Spec Section 'Seeding' which is clarified by these remarks to be Hawaii DOT Spec Section 619 – Planting).

Q63. Reference is made WF4.0 on drawing S-107. Please confirm that there is no WF4.0 at building 9015.

A63. There is no WF4.0 at building 9015. Reference to WF4.0 is from the EOD Range

Foundation Plan shown in 2/9015 A-106.

Q64. Reference is made to RFP Section 00110, 3.4.2.3 - Subfactor 2 Experience and

Capability Proposal: will personnel resumes, organization charts or other figures count toward the proposal's 15 page limit?

A64. Resumes or experience cut sheets, not to exceed two pages each are not included in the page count. All other figures, charts, etc will be included in the page count.

Q65.We request that the bid date for the project be postponed a minimum of two weeks please.

A65. Based on our current schedule and mission requirements we do not anticipate on postponing the proposal due date for this solicitation.

Q66. Section 3. Proposal Content states under 3.1.1 Submit Volume 1, Price proposal, pro forma documents in original and (3) hard copies, section 3.1.2 states to submit Small

Business Subcontracting Plan in one original hard copy and CD/DVD, section 3.4.1.9.1 states to submit subcontracting plan in original and one hard copy. Please clarify how many copies we are to submit for Volume 1 Price Proposal and Subcontracting Plan; which goes under this volume.

A66. The price proposal is in original and 3 hard copies and the Subcontracting Plan is original and one hard copy and CD/DVD.

Q67. Please refer to Sheet CS-102. Plan calls out Road 1 as an existing road, but it marked as a new AC Pavement per keynote legend. Please clarify.

A67. Road “1” is an existing asphalt surfaced road in disrepair, and shall be reconstructed as shown on sheet CS-102. Remove existing A.C. pavement and base course and replace with new.

Q68. Addendum no. 2 and updated Q & A’s have been posted yesterday on the governments website. Many questions have NOT been answered and have “pending” as its response. When will the responses be provided? We will need time to issue these responses to our subcontractors and vendors for accurate pricing. We kindly ask for a RFP due date extension, a minimum of 2 weeks.

A68. Answers to questions will posted NLT two working days prior to closing as detailed in the solicitation at Section 00100 paragraph 3.3. We anticipate most will be posted on/about 29 Feb

2012. An extension will not be granted.

Q69. Per Section 00110, Submission Requirements and Instructions, Para. 3.4.1.9, will a standard form/template be issued for the Subcontracting Plan referenced here?

A69. No standard form will be issued. Please refer to the AFARS Appendix DD - Evaluation

Guide ( web link provided in solicitation) to ensure all requirements are addressed. A copy of the

Appendix will also be posted to FBO.

Q70. Per Section 00110, Submission Requirements and Instructions, Para. 3.1, proposals are to be submitted in two separate packages, Volume 1 and Volume 2. The Small Business

Subcontracting Plan noted in Para. 3.1.2, is also referenced under Para. 3.4.1 Volume 1, but is required in a different number of copies than Volume 1 (ref para. 3.1.1). Does the Small

Business Subcontracting Plan get submitted with Volume 1 or is it an entirely separate package?

A70. In volume one in original and one hard copy and CD/DVD.

Q71. Would the government consider allowing the submission of the Small Business

Subcontracting Plan and Exhibit G Small Business Participation Plan (to be part of Volume

2/Part 1) at a minimum of 24 hours after the submission of sealed offers for this solicitation? This will allow the contractor time to compute the percentages for each SB category and complete our SB Plan. (Some quotes are received within the last hour of the deadline). We want to ensure that Exhibit G and the SB Plan have same subcontractor names and associated dollars, since these are two different documents that need to be consistent.

A71. Unfortunately at this time we are unable to allow this. We are discussing this requirement due to the standard construction bid process that causes this to be a challenge. Earlier sub bid date could alleviate this problem. If we are able to find away to work this, within the rules, we will issue an amendment shortly

Q72. Per Section 00110 Submission Requirements and Instructions, Para. 2.2 a signed agreement with the noted company who serve as advisors to the Source Selection

Evaluation Board is to be submitted with the offer. In which Volume and where within that volume is this agreement to be placed? Do you have a sample of such an agreement?

A72. Submit in Volume one. Normally companies have their own agreement- we will post a sample agreement that may serve your needs.

Dated 29 Feb 12

Q73. Please refer to Sheet A-201 & A-321. Plan details call out sand fill, but Spec section 31 23 00, Excavation and Fill, does not show the material specification of sand fill. Can we utilize S4C for sand fill? Please confirm.

A73. No. S4C is crushed basalt being used as the termite barrier. Sand needs to be Group

SW: Clean well graded sand, fine to coarse sand, with more than 50% retained on No.

200 sieve; greater than 50% of coarse fraction passing No. 4 sieve.

Q74. Please refer to detail 1 of SheetC-506. It shows the top of SPS = 5.00 whereas the keynote legend No 26 of CU-102 or CG-102 shows that top of SPS = 9.00. Please confirm the top of SPS = 9.00.

A74. PENDING

Q75. Please refer to detail 1 of sheet C-506, Vault Box. It calls out 48” ID x 6’ deep box, but the depth of the vault box will be more than 6’ since the invert of 3” pipe =

0.17 and the top of vault box = 9.1 per CG 102. Please clarify.

A75. PENDING

Q76. Please refer to detail 3/ SheetC-515. Inspection riser connection detail calls out

CONCRETE distribution box cover, but project Spec section 33 35 00, Para 1.2, calls out

PLASTIC distribution box. Please confirm the distribution box will be a plastic per spec.

A76.PENDING

Q77. What email address do we use to submit the names of the personal who will be hand delivering our firms bid to the address 91-1179 Enterprise Ave, Kapolei HI 96707-2150?

A77. To obtain entry for the delivery of hand carrier proposals, Offerors should provide first name, last name, firm name, date of birth to manuel.llanes@us.army.mil and copy julianne.cooper.ctr@ang.af.mil by no later than 1200 hrs local time on 02 Mar 2012.

Q78. Paragraph 5.2 of the solicitation indictates to “follow the procedures outlined in paragraph 1.2.2 for entry to deposit proposals.” Please provide this paragraph section for details on how to turn in bid proposals on bid day.

mailto:manuel.llanes@us.army.mil mailto:julianne.cooper.ctr@ang.af.mil

A78. The following paragraph will be added by future Amendment to the Solicitation, Section 100, Paragraph 5.2 “Offerors are cautioned that approval to enter the base must be obtained prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals. Follow the procedures outlined in paragraph 1.2.2 for entry. To obtain entry for the delivery of hand carrier proposals, Offerors should provide first name, last name, firm name, and Drivers License Number to manuel.llanes@us.army.mil and copy julianne.cooper.ctr@ang.af.mil by no later than 1200 hrs local time on 02 Mar 2012. Delays are probable at the entry point and should be accommodated for. Late receipt of proposals due to base entry delays may not be deemed excusable and the

Contracting Officer may declare the proposal late and remove it from consideration.”

Q79. Building 9015 finish schedule on sheet 9015 I-105 wall and corner guard, CG-

1, states corner guard to be stainless steel. Specifications in 10 26 13-2 depict corner guard material to be of aluminum base with plastic cover. Please clarify material type of corner guards.

A79.PENDING

Q80. Where is the lightning protection drawing for Administration Building 9015 ?

A80. PENDING

Q81. According to Amendment #2, the 400 HZ converters are now the responsibility of the contractor (See 9007 E-302 and 9008 E-303); however, there are no specifications for the

400HZ converters. Our suppliers have informed us they will not bid this equipment without specifications. Please provide.

A81. PENDING

Q82. Clarification to Q73- Please refer to the attached S4C gradation data and Project Spec section 31 31 16, Basaltic Termite Barrier, Paragraph 2.1. The response stated that “S4C is crushed basalt being used as the termite barrier”, but S4C does not meet the project spec and S4C meets the sand gradation defined by the response. Can we utilize S4C as a BTB per response? Can we utilize S4C for sand fill since it meets the gradation Attachment-BWS spec for S4C.

A82. PENDING

Q83. Please refer to SEWER NOTES No 10/C-002 and Project Spec section 33 30 00, SANITARY SEWERS, Paragraph 2.1. Notes No 10 calls out sewer pipe shall be pressure rated PVC, C-900 pipe, but project specification calls out PVC, SDR 35 for the gravity pipe and plain end pressure class SDR 17 for pressure pipe. Please confirm we can utilize SDR 35 pipe for the gravity flow per Spec, not C-900 pipe.

A83. PENDING

mailto:manuel.llanes@us.army.mil mailto:julianne.cooper.ctr@ang.af.mil