Q A 24 FEB 2012.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RELATED TO:

W912J6-12-R-0001

As of 24 Feb 2012

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

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.

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 punchlistand 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

http://www.fbo.gov/

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. PENDING

Q32. For estimating purposes, may we please get the CAD files for grading plans, drawings CG-101 through CG-107?

A32. PENDING

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. PENDING

Q34. Please confirm that no offer guarantee is required.

A34. No Bid bond is required, see A30.