Q A_Dated_13Aug13_1030_hrs.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RELATED TO:

SOLICITATION W912J6-13-R-0004

Dated 13 Aug 13 1030 hrs Local Hawaiian Standard Time

**IMPORTANT REMINDER THAT ALL QUESTIONS ARE DUE NO LATER

THAN 12 NOON LOCAL HST FIVE (5) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO CLOSING

DATE (Section 00100 Para 3.3)**

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

Dated 16 Jul 13

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 26 Jul 13

Q3. Would the Government consider a micropile foundation solution for this project?

A3. A micorpile foundation solution is currently under consideration. Addendum to be forthcoming.

Dated 31 Jul 13

Q4. Spec section 03 30 04.00 2.1.2 (Aggregates), Spec Spection 32 13 11 2.2.1.1.a (Alkai-Silica Rectivty) & Section 00110 - Technical Proposal Requirements 3.4.2.3.2.

mailto:jcp-admin@.dla.mil

Please reconsider the testing requirement ASTM C1260 and replace with ASTM C1293 “Standard Test Method for Determination of Length Change of Concrete Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction” and ASTM C227 “Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Cement-Aggregate Combinations (Mortar-Bar Method)”. On several recent NavFac projects these alternate tests have been accepted.

A4. No, this replacement is not acceptable. Offeror must provide per the specifications as issued.

Q5. Section 00110 – Technical Proposal Requirements 3.4.2.3.3 – Resume for Safety Manager/Represenative. Please advise if you want a resume for the Site Safety Health Office who will be on-site or the Corporate Safety Manager who will appoint the Site Safety Health Officer.

A5. Provide resume for Safety Officer who will be on the project site.

Q6. Section 00110 – Volume 2 Part 2 Past Performance 3.4.3.10. Due to the larger number of requests that are made for Past Performance Questinnaires can we submit previously completed PPQ’s where the form is the same of similar to Exhibit C?

A6. Yes previously completed PPQ’s may be submitted as long as the PPQ is dated and completed within the previous six (6) months. If providing a previously completed PPQ, include the form directly behind the Exhibit A it applies to. Additionally, “Final” Perfromance Ealuation (Construction) (aslo referred to as CCASS Evaluation) issued for a project may be included in lieu of sending out reference package for the project. If provided include the form directly behind the Exhibit A it applies to.

Dated 01 Aug 13

Q7. According to Section 00110-2.2 it states Contractors will need to execute a disclosure agreement with pertinent language required to be included. Is this a disclosure agreement that is supplied by the Government or should the language be included in the verbiage of the standard proposal? If so where would the Government prefer the language to be seen?

A7. In accordance with Section 00110 Paragraph 2.2, offerors must contact the companies listed in Paragraph 2.1 to effect execution of a disclosure agreement. If your firm has a standard or corporate disclosure agreement that it utilizes your firm may choose to request execution of that document. A sample agreement has been posted with the Q&A document dated 01 Aug 13 for those firms that wish to execute an agreement but do not have a corporate or standard agreement. Copies of the executed agreement should be included as attachments in Volume 1 of your proposal.

Dated 05 Aug 13

Q8. There is a Gravity Oil Water Separator specification (44 42 53) but the device location is not indicated on the drawings. Please clarify.

REVISED A8. The Oil Water Separator has been eliminated. Offerors shall disregard Specification Section 44 42 53 for the Gravity Oil-Water Separator. REVISED 08 Aug 13 0900 hrs. The Oil Water Separator has been eliminated. Offerors shall disregard Specification Section 44 42 53 for the Gravity Oil-Water Separator. See Section 22 99 99.00 50 - CLEAR WATER RINSE SYSTEM - for the Oil/Water Separator requirements associated with Clearwater Rinse System.

Dated 08 Aug 13

Q9. According to drawing P-101, we can not find the spec for the 5,000 gallon capture tank or the pumps. Can you advise us where it is at?

A9. See Specification Section 22 99 99.00 50 - CLEAR WATER RINSE SYSTEM; PART 2 –

PRODUCTS.

Q10. Drawing P-101 which calls for a 2,000 gallon oil-water separator which discharges into a 5,000 gallon Capture Tank and Written specification Section 44 42 53 (dated 07/15/13) for a Gravity Oil- Water Separator for TFI-F-22 Combat Aircraft Parking Apron & TFI-F-22 Combat Apron Addition which calls for an oil-water separator designed for a maximum flow of 325 litter per second (4,300 gpm) to treat oil-in-water mixtures originating from aircraft fueling operations. Can you tell which of these oil-water separators will be required?

A10. An oil-water separator is required as part of the clear water rinse equipment as shown on Drawing Sheet No. P-101; this oil-water separator is addressed under Technical Specification Section 22 99 99.00

50. See also the answer to Q8.

Q11. "Written specification Section 44 42 53 (dated 07/15/13) for a Gravity Oil-Water Separator for the above project for an oil-water separator, designed for a maximum flow of 325 litter per second (or 4,300 gpm) to treat oil-in-water mixtures originating from aircraft fueling operations. But the spec lists a PSC-3000-DW-J which is a 3000 gallon size. But the spec also says to meet the 325 liter per second per, which is a 30,000 gallon size. Is the written spec a typo? And should it be a PSC- 30000-DW-J and not a PSC-3000-DW-J?" And it is a part of this project bidding and NOT the Hush House project?

A11. See the answer for Q8.

Q12. ELEVATION of AGGREGATE LAYER AT LOW WALL STRUCTURE : Attempting to determine the elevation of the 1’-0” thick Aggregate layer depicted in sections 1,2,3 & 4 on drawing S-202 and again in detail 2 on S-203, we learn that the aggregate layer is at 0’-0” T/ Finish Floor and from Note 13 on S-102 that the Finish Floor = 7.44 ‘ MSL, which is consistent with the elevation shown on drawing CG-101. Using the T/WALL elevations called out in details 1 on S-202 we learn that the top of wall at the high walls at the rear of the “tunnel” is at 21’-9 ¼” and based on the T/WALL elevation for the LOW WALLS in detail 2 on S-203 we determine the elevation of the top of the low wall is 9’-1 ¼”. Details 2 on S-202 and 2 on S-203 depict low wall backfill to exceed the low wall height by several feet. The Grading Plans CG-402 and CG-101 both show the final grades at the low wall to be at approximately elevation 5.0 ft. Backfill Notes on detail 2 S-202 say the backfill at the low wall should be 5’-0” typical. Please clarify the requirements for the Final Grades at the LOW WALL section of the HUSH HOUSE Tunnel

A12. For grading, the Civil Drawings take precedent outside the building footprint.

Q13. Section 22 99 99.0 50 (Clear Water Rinse System), Part 1.2A states "The clear water rinse system shall be provided as part of the Base Bid." Is to be part of the Base Bid or is include in Option 1?

A13. The Clear Water Rinse System is to be provided as part of Option 1 and not part of the Base Bid.

Q14. TRENCH OVEREXCAVATION : Please clarify Typical Waterline Trench Detail 4 CU-502 and Concrete Jacket Detail 3 CU-502. Both details call for 18” to 24” of over-excavation below the pipe bedding or duct bank and require a gravel layer wrapped in geo-textile fabric. The soils report states the gravel stabilization layer under the pipe bedding would only be necessary in areas of “soft or loose soils “ ( see 3.8 on page 23).

A14. Install per details 3 and 4 shown on the drawing CU-502.

Q15. IW Piping at HUSH HOUSE : Please clarify the requirements to install the Industrial Waste piping under the Hush House Slab as shown on drawing C1 in Volume 3.

A15. The IW piping under the Hush House is required though the alignment shall be adjusted by Contractor in shop drawings to match the outfall shown in the CU-Series drawings

Q16. SG RECEPTACLES at HUSH HOUSE : Please clarify the requirements to install static ground receptacles . Drawing E-101( Volume 1) is in general accordance with Drawing C-1 ( Volume 3) but C-1 shows an additional receptacle in the PCC next to the Fuel Trailer Pad.

A16. The SG receptacles shown on both drawings mentioned in the question are required.

Q17. DOOR HEATER Rough IN at HUSH HOUSE :Volume Three drawings show a door heater requirement in detail A on C-2. Please clarify if the door heater is required for this contract.

A17. Door heater provisions are not required for this project.

Q18. CU Pipe under HUSH HOUSE SLAB :Volume Three drawings show a copper piping arrangement in detail 4 on drawing C-2. This water piping is not depicted on the Hush House plan C-1 in volume 3 or in the volume 1 drawings. Is this copper water piping ?

A18. Copper piping is required per detail 4 on C-2 (Volume 3). The schematic layout of water lines under the Hush House slab is shown on C-1 (Volume 3). The actual layout shall be adjusted by Contractor in shop drawings to match water supply shown in the CU-Series drawings.

Q19. OPTION 8 GRADING PLAN : If the detention basin option # 8 is accepted , grading plans CG- 101 and CG-102 will be incorrect as they depict the base bid condition without the detention basin.

Drawing CG-403-O and CG-404-O are also incorrect as the detention basin option 8 (see drawing CG-407 ) is not incorporated. According to drawing CG-407 a mound would be built up above the detention basin.

A19. The statements in Q19 are correct and are consistent with notes on Drawing Sheet No. CG-407.

Dated 09 Aug 13

Q20. Understanding the standard construction bid process that causes final bid pricing of a project to be a challenge, for a FY2012 RFP submittal, the USPFO for Hawaii allowed the Volume 1, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Applicable to Large Business) and the Volume 2, Part 1, Subfactor 4 – Small Business Participation Plan or Exhibit G (applicable to all offerors) to be received not later than 24 hours after the date and time set for the receipt of proposals shown in Block 13 of the SF 1442. Revisions to the Small Business submissions received within 24 hours after the date and time set for the receipt of proposals shown in Block 13 of the SF 1442 were also accepted.

To be clear, some subcontractor and supplier quotes are received within the last hour prior to the proposal due time; therefore, additional time will allow Offerors to first focus on their proposed pricing time without worrying about having to also compute the percentages for each SB category required by required small business plans, as applicable. Furthermore, for Large Business Offerors, this will help ensure that the SB Plan and the Exhibit G have the same subcontractor names and associated dollars, since these are two different documents that need to be consistent. Therefore, we would greatly appreciate the Government’s same consideration to allow the plans to be submitted within 24 hours on the subject RFP.

A20. See Amendment 0005.

Q21. Paragraph 3.1 of Section 00100 references Exhibit F, Proposal Inquiry; however, we understand that it should reference Exhibit E instead.

A21. Yes Paragraph 3.1 of Section 00100 should reference Exhibit E.

Q22. Paragraph 3.3 of Section 00120 states that “Offerors shall submit with their Proposal a completed Exhibits H”. However, no mention is made of the Exhibit under Section 00110. Please confirm that Exhibit H shall be submitted with Exhibit F, which is required to be submitted under Volume 1 per Paragraph 3.4.1.5 of Section 00110.

A22. See Amendment 0005. Exhibit F & Exhibit H as amended shall be submitted as part of Volume 1.

Q23. Paragraph 3.1.3 of Section 00110 states that CD/DVD #1 shall contain “Introductory Page, pro forma documents and Small Business Subcontracting Plan if applicable IAW FAR Clause 52.219-9 Alt II and DFARS Clause 52.219-7003”. However, Paragraph 3.1.5 further states that CD/DVD #1 shall be without pricing.

a. As the Small Business Subcontracting Plan includes pricing information, please clarify that this should not be included on the CD/DVD #1.

b. Furthermore, to be clear of what items are included under “pro forma documents” and to be clear what documents should be included overall, please confirm that our understanding as indicated in the table below is correct. If not, please advise.

Volume I Submittal Item Includes Pricing? Include on CD/DVD #1?

Introductory Page No Yes Offer (SF 1442) No Yes Section 00010 Yes No Exhibit F Yes No Exhibit H Yes No Representations and Certifications (Section 00600) No Yes Exhibit D No Yes Non-Disclosure Agreement No Yes

A23. See Amendment 0005 for revision of Section 00110 Paragraph 3.1.

Q24. Paragraph 3.4.2.3.3 of Section 00110 in regards to Volume 1, Part 1, Subfactor 1 states that in the event the intended person is not part of the offeror’s organization at the time the proposal is submitted, then a completed Exhibit B, Subcontractor/Team/Key Personnel Information and Consent Form” or a Letter of Intent is also required or the information will not be considered.”

However, Paragraph 3.4.3.9 of Section 00110 in regards to Volume 2, Part 2 also addresses that “Offerors lacking relevant past/present performance experience may submit information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement if such information is relevant to this acquisition.” Furthermore, Paragraph 3.4.3.9.2 states that an Exhibit B must be completed, as well as Paragraph 3.4.3.12.1 states that “a summary of experience or resume” must be provided.

Therefore:

i. Please confirm that resumes need only be provided in response to Volume 1, Part 1, Subfactor 1.

ii. Should Exhibit B’s and Letter of Intents be provided following the resumes provided in response to Volume 1, Part 1, Subfactor 1? If so, are they also excluded from the page limitation?

A24. Paragraph 3.4.2.3.3. of Section 00110 references Volume 2, Part 1, Subfactor 1. Resumes need only be provided in Volume 2. See Amendment 0005 for submission instructions. Exhibit B’s and Letters of Intent (if applicable) shall be provided in Volume 2. Exhibit B and Letters of Intent are excluded from the page count.

Q25. Recent Request For Proposals (RFP) issued under the Navy and Army have required the completion of the NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) for the evaluation of relevant past performance. A copy of the form is attached for your reference.

Understanding the inconvenience of having a client complete such evaluations multiple times and for various proposals, the form encourages clients to have the completed questionnaire returned to the Contractor (Offeror) for inclusion with their proposal, as well as allowing duplication for future solicitation submissions. As a result, as this form addresses similar performance elements, we ask your consideration to allow the submittal of previous completed Form PPQ-0’s in lieu of the RFP required Exhibit C for the evaluation of Past/Present Performance.

A25. Yes. See A6 above.

Q26. In the event an Offeror is unable to obtain a completed Exhibit C from a client, please advise if provision of their contact information, completing the first page of Exhibit C2, will suffice.

A26. IAW with the Instruction to Offerors on the Exhibit C, offerors shall prepare and submit the Exhibit C to the owners of the projects listed in your Exhibit A’s. Instruction indicate that offerors should follow up and encourage references to get the quesitonnaires to the Contracting Officer in timely manner. References are instructed to send completed Exhibit C’s directly back to the Contracting Officer. Completing the first page of Exhibit C2 is not necessary as this information is duplicated from the completed Exhibit A’s.

Offerors shall complete Exhibit A’s as instructed by the Solicitation Section 00110 and follow instruction of the Exhibit C. Please note that Paragraph 3.4.3.10 of Section 00110 provided instruction on additional performance information that may be provided in lieu of Exhibit C. See also A6 above.

Q27. Based upon the Abatement surveys conducted (part of Addendum No. 2), is the contractor responsible to do a more thorough survey for the asbestos and lead paint prior to demolition? The survey done by Lehua Environmental Consultants, LLC does mention that at the time of demolition, additional analysis will be required to complete the demolition notification requirements for no asbestos. In the survey done by Advanced Compliance Solutions, Inc. they mention that due to scoping limitations, only selected areas of the buildings were properly inspected. Therefore it is recommended that the remaining painted surfaces be tested for lead base paint prior to demolition.

A27. See Amendment 0005 Addendum 0004, which issues revised Table 2 and revised recommendations for Asbestos Report and for Lead Based Paint Report.

Q28. On drawing CU-507, it refers to look at specification section 33 56 10 for a 5,000 gallon tank.

This section is missing.

A28. Specification Section 33 56 10 was issued under Amendment 0004 (Addendum 003).

Q29. In Option 5, construction for Vertical Tank Storage, we need drawings, details and specification for this scope of work?

A29. Parking Lot: As indicated on Sheet CS-103 (Sheet 22 of 88) the typical section for the Parking Lot for Option 5 shall by similar to Detail 4 on Sheet DT-101.

Sidewalk: The typical section for the sidewalk is a 6 foot wide, 4 inch thick concrete sidewalk with W2xW2-6x6 welded wire fabric placed on a 4 inch layer of aggregate base placed on 6 inch compacted subgrade at 95% per ASTM D 1557. The concrete may be either per Section 03 30 04.00 or 03 31 00.00

10. Install tooled or sawed joint at 6 foot intervals (4 foot minimum to 8 foot maximum). Install ½ pre-formed expansion material joints at intervals no greater than 24 feet. Provide a broom finish. Edge sidewalk with ½ radius edging tool and round edges at expansion joint to ½ radius.

Q30. From our site visit, we noticed a lot of excavated surplus material and concrete demolition debris in the area of the future underground detention infiltration basin, will this material be removed by site contractor currently working on that site?

A30. The removal of any excavated surplus material and concrete demolition debris in the area of the future underground detention infiltration basin WILL NOT be removed by site contractor currently working on that site.

Q31. For bidding purposes are we to use the boring logs (certain one’s that pertain to our area), with an inscription in the box indicating that the existing grades have change and is now higher?

A31. See Note 5 on the GR-600 Series. In addition the Geotech and Soil Reports are furnished as part this solitication at the FBO.gov site for this solicitation.

Q32. In the utility trench details (for example 4/CU-502) can we assume that the additional 18” to 24” of granular fill wrapped in a non-woven filter beneath the 6” pipe cushion is only needed when soft or loose soil are encountered and not mandatory as detail initially shows.

A32. See A14.

Q33. In drawing G-005, just to be clear, the terminology (TURFING) it relates to landscaping and irrigation sections (Geogrid Soil Reinforcement spec 31 05 21), Seeding specification section 32 92 19, Sodding specification section 32 92 23 and Sprigging section 32 92 26 correct?

A33. Turfing refers to the establishment of a permenant stand of grass by Seeding, Sprigging or sodding.

See Note 2 on G-005. Geogrid Soil Reinforcement is not a requiring of Turfing.

Q34. On sheet GC – 101, under notes, Item I (Dirt Disposal Area Notes), are we to assume we don’t dispose of any excavated surplus material and stockpile it to location shown on sheet CG-103, as it conflicts with Earthwork Specification section (General Excavation section 31 00 00 paragraph 3.2).

What about clean concrete from the building demolition, can that be disposed of to the stockpile site also?

A34. In Section 31 00 00 , paragraph 3.2, change the sixth sentence to read:“Disposal of surplus satisfactory excavated material and unsatisfactory excavated material shall be provided by the Contractor at the sites shown on the plans.”

In Section 31 00 00, paragraph 3.2, delete the seventh sentence that read: “Disposal areas are not available on Base.”

Yes, clean concrete from the demolition can be disposed of in the stockpile site as long as it meets gradation requirements for general fill material in section 31 00 00.

Q35. In the Clear Water Rinse System can a synopsis be done so I can be clear on my scope of work.

Also in the question and answer documents dated August 5, 2013 (Question 8), it mentions to delete section for Gravity Oil Water Separator (44 42 53). Doesn’t the oil water separator connect to the Clear Water Rinse System?

A35. See Plans and Specification for Scope. For question about Oil/Water Separator, see revised response to A8.

Q36. There is a problem with the chain link specs. See attached paragraph 2.1 ASTM A116 is the wrong spec this is for woven wire field fence not chain link, and ASTM A702 is for wrought iron not galvanized pipe. The material we provide will meet all federal RR-F-191 specs but there may be problems getting it approved since 2.1 states the wrong spec. the correct spec is ASTM A392 for chain link and ASTM F1043 and F1083 for galvanized pipe framing.

Paragraph 2.2 industry standard for galvanized chain link is either 366 gm/m or 610 gm/m. we assume that we have to use the heavier coating. But again since the submittals will be different from the specs the submittals may be rejected.

Please Advise.

A36. Change the second sentence in paragraph 2.1 to read: "Provide fencing materials conforming to the requirements of ASTM A392, ASTM F688, ASTM F1043 AND F1083 ASTM F626, and as specified."

"There should not be any issue with the heavy coating, since it will be greater than the minimum specified."

Dated 13 Aug 13

Q37. We are indeed grateful for the time extension. However with a current bid due date and time of 10am HST, Monday, August 19th for Volume 1 and 9am HST, Tuesday, August 20th for Volume 2, this timeframe makes it quite difficult to finalize and submit a proposal. First off, with the agency office located in Kapolei, please consider that Offerors will encounter morning traffic trying to meet the current morning due times and will need to account for that in preparation/finalization of their bids. Secondly, please understand that some subcontractor and supplier quotes will be received within the last hour prior to the proposal due time, so that must be also factored into the submittal time. Lastly, with Monday being the first day of the work week, this will be a hectic day overall for everyone involved with the bid as well as on the road. Therefore, we would greatly appreciate your consideration to move the due dates back by at least one (1) day (i.e. Volume 1 due Tuesday, August 20th) as well as to move the due times to at least 11am on both days.

A37. No, the current bid due date will not be changed, however Amendment 0006 has changed the due time for both dates to 1100hrs HST. To reiterate, Volume 1 is due 1100hrs HST Monday August 19th and Volume 2 is due 1100hrs HST Tuesday August 20th.

Q38. Amendment No. 0005 provided a table under Paragraph 3.1.5 that states under the “DUE” column “See SF1442 Block 13”. Therefore, will a revised SF1442 be provided to reflect the new due date/time?

A38. No, a revised SF 1442 will not be provided and is not required. The issued Amendment No. 0005 extended the submission due date and time. As previously stated in Amendment No. 0005 Block 11 of the SF 30 indicates that the hour and date specified for the receipt of Offers is extended. Amendment No. 0006 Blcock 11 also indicates the hour and date date specified for the receipt of Offers is extended. See A37.

Q39. The A25 response while allowing the submission of previous past performance questionnaires, references the response to A6, which states “previously completed PPQ’s may be submitted as long as the PPQ is dated and completed within the previous six (6) months.” Again the Form PPQ-0 encourages clients to have the completed questionnaire returned to the Contractor (Offeror) for inclusion with their proposal, as well as allows duplication for future solicitation submissions.

Therefore as the schedules of our clients are hectic and busy, particularly during this fiscal year-end period, many of our clients will be reluctant to complete another questionnaire having already completed one. Overall, please note that once projects are completed, more often than not, Government personnel that were directly involved with the project are no longer readily available due to reassignment or - in some cases - they have since left the agency or retired. Therefore, this makes it quite difficult to obtain completion of such past performance questionnaires due to the unavailability of personnel that were intimately involved with the project. Therefore, we ask your consideration to remove the requirement to only allow PPQ’s completed within the previous six (6) months.

A39. No, Previously completed PPQ or another agency’s PPQ’s are limited to those PPQ’s completed within the previous six (6) months. However, in accordance with the Solicitation Section 00110 Paragraph

3.4.3.10 a “Final” Performance Evaluation (Construction)(also referred to as a CCASS Evaluation) issued for a project may be included in lieu of sending out refence package for the project provided as Exhibit A’s.

Offerors may also provide other agency’s verision of CCASS evaluations. These “Final” Performance Evaluations do not have a limitation to the previous six(6) months, however in accordance with Section 00110 Paragraph 3.4.3.6 the performance must have been completed during the past five (5) years to be considered. The period begins five (5) years prior to the solicitation release date and incudes current performance.

Q40. Our apologies as our Q24 incorrectly referenced Volume 1 instead of Volume 2. Therefore, please find below our corrected and restated question of which we would greatly appreciate a response.

Paragraph 3.4.2.3.3 of Section 00110 in regards to Volume 2, Part 1, Subfactor 1 states that in the event the intended person is not part of the offeror’s organization at the time the proposal is submitted, then a completed Exhibit B, Subcontractor/Team/Key Personnel Information and Consent Form” or a Letter of Intent is also required or the information will not be considered.”

However, Paragraph 3.4.3.9 of Section 00110 in regards to Volume 2, Part 2 also addresses that “Offerors lacking relevant past/present performance experience may submit information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement if such information is relevant to this acquisition.” Furthermore, Paragraph 3.4.3.9.2 states that an Exhibit B must be completed, as well as Paragraph 3.4.3.12.1 states that “a summary of experience or resume” must be provided.

Therefore, is it the intent of the government for Offerors to provide key personnel resumes and Exhibit B’s or Letter of Intents in response to BOTH Volume 2, Part 1, Subfactor 1 and Volume 2, Part 2?

A40. Offerors need only provide key personnel resumes, Exhibit B’s and/or Letters of Intent (if applicable) in response to Volume 2, Part 1, subfactor 1. If Offerors will be utilizing this information in other parts of their proposal, they may simply reference its location in Volume 2 Part 1 Subfactor 1.

Q41. Asphalt Paving Work : Please clarify the requirements of Specification Section 32 12 15.13 Hot Mix Asphalt Airfield Paving. The new Asphalt Concrete pavement work appears to be limited to non aircraft vehicles and the only specification included with the documents is one for paving of airfields. Please advise if a specification more appropriate to the construction of non aircraft vehicles will be provided.

A41. Section 32 12 15.13 shall be used for the construction of roads, parking lots and shoulder asphalt pavements. The Marshall mix design using gradation 2 and 75 blow counts as indicated in the specifications shall be used for all asphalt paving.

Q42. Please confirm that no airfield asphalt pavement is required for this project.

A42. Shoulder pavements are the only airfield pavement specified.

Q43. OPTION #1 CLEAR WATER RINSE : Please clarify the Requirements for a PRE FAB Building / ISO Container on the Clear Water Rinse Equipment Pad as depicted by a dashed outline around the pumps ( see drawing P-501 , sheet 81 of 88) . Please confirm that these are the “Portable skid mounted equipment buildings” found in paragraph 2.1R on page 8 of the specification.

A43. Yes, the “Portable skid mounted equipment buildings” are the ISO Containers.

Q44. Specification 22 99 99.00 50 Clear Water Rinse, states in paragraph 1.2 a “ The Clear Water Rinse System shall be provided as part of the Base Bid “ . Please clarify if this statement is incorrect and the Scope of Work to be constructed with OPTION 1 Clear Water Rinse Equipment and Pad.

A44. See A13.

Q45. Please confirm that an Oil Water Seperator is required at the Clear Water Rinse Area in accordance with specification 22 99 99.00 50 and as Storm Drain Profiles have not been provided for the new culverts show for Option 5 and Option 6. Notes on drawing CG -101-O call for two new culverts, each with 3ea 15” pipes. Please clarify if profiles will be provided for these two culverts.

A45. Yes an Oil Water Seperator is required at the Clear Water Rinse area in accordance with specification 22 99 99.00 50. The intent is to match the existing grade. The approximate inverts for Option 5 are 3.5’ at the east end and 3.4’ at the west end of the 36’ long pipes. The approximate inverts for Option 6 are 3.2’ on the east end and 3.0’ on the west end of the 50’ long pipes.

Storm Drain Profiles for Options 5 and 6 will not be provided.

Q46. Please clarify if the 15” Culvert piping called out with octagonal note 12 on CG – 101-O shall be RCP like Storm Drain 1 and Storm Drain 2 , or some other material.

A46. The 15” Culvert pipes shall be Class III – RCP.

Q47. Plesae clarify if CRM Masonry will be required at the OPTION 5 culvert under the sidewalk – none is called for on drawing CG-101-O.

A47. Yes, CRM Masonry is required.

Q48. Please clarify if Security Grates will be required for the multiple 15” pipe culverts in OPTION 5 ( VERTICAL TANK) & OPTION 6 ( LOKO Drive) culverts – none are called for on Drawing CG- 101-O.

A48. No security grates are required for these pipes.

Q49. Please confirm that Security Grates are not required for the multiple 24” pipe culvert under the HUSH HOUSE TOWWAY.

A49. No security grates are required for these pipes.

Q50. Drawing CU 507 indicates an Above Ground Storage Tank is required to support the Fuel Trailer Pad on the North side of the HUSH HOUSE Foundations. Specifications for the AST were released with Addendum 3 ( See AM 03 Specifications 33 56 10 Factory Fabricated Water/Fuel Storage Tanks and Section 33 58 00 Leak Detection for Fueling Systems . Drawing E-101 does not indicate any power requirements for the panel called for in the tank specification and no power has been provided for the Leak Detection System .

A50. PENDING

Q51. Drawing EO-102 shows the removal of existing light pole FP-10. Drawing EO-102 also shows Existing FP-10 will be re-installed at Hand Hole # 7 . Drawing ED-101 , existing FP # 7 already exists at this location. Please clarify if FP-10 is to be relocated to the hand hole # 7 location. If this is the case will we be required to remove the pole and lights at hand hole # 7 before installing FP-10 ?

A51. PENDING

Q52. Please clarify if existing FP-10 will be used in the OPTION 3 work where the contractor is required to install an existing lights and pole which will be furnished by the Government. The OPTION 3 work depicted on drawing EO-102 shows that an existing FP-9A light pole will be used.

Drawing ES-102 calls the pole at this location “ new Flood Light Pole FP# 9A” .

A52. PENDING

Q53. Electrical one line drawing EO-102 shows the duct bank extension leading to new Hand Hole # 9A to be extended from existing Hand Hole # 8, while plan drawings ED-102 and ES- 102 , shows that new Hand Hole # 9A will be extended from existing Hand Hole # 9, which is not depicted on the one line drawing.

A53. PENDING

Q54. Electrical plan drawing ED-102 shows that a light pole already exists at the location of the new light pole planned for location of new FP# 9A (OPTION 3) and the one line drawing EO-102 also shows FP-9A and describes FP-9A as “Existing Flood Light FP-9A) .

A54. PENDING

Q55. Please confirm that the new foundation for the 85 ft tall light poles shall be 16ft deep as depicted on detail 3 ES-104 . Previous foundations for the light poles at this aron and taxiway have been 9 ft 6 in deep. ( see W9128A-10 –R -0012 and the Apron Paving Contract currently under construction at the site now).

A55. PENDING

Q56. Section 22 99 99.00 50 – 2.1.L, there is wording in this Control Panel specification referring to automatic control of the variable speed pumps. However, there is no reference to variable speed requirement in 2.1.M, Rinse Water Supply Pumps. Based on past projects, the rinse pumps have been specified as variable speed. Please clarify if the Rinse Supply Pumps are to be variable speed.

A56. Yes, the pump shall be variable speed.

Q57. Base Course under HUSH HOUSE Slab on Grade : Drawing S-201 instructs the bidder to provide base course under the slabs on grade with the “ BASE COURSE THICKNESS PER THE GEOTECHNICAL SPECIFICATION” ( see details 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 & 9) . After reviewing the Geotechnical Report included with the project documents, specifically Part 3 Discussion and Recommendations , paragraph 3.2 through 3.4 , we are unable to find the required thickness for the base course under the slab on grade. Please clarify the material requirements and thickness for base course under the Slab on Grade at the HUSH HOUSE.

A57. Provide a minimum of 4” gravel cushion layer below the slabs on grade.

Q58. Please advise us if the two foot thick section of the HUSH HOUSE FLOOR ( see drawing S-103) is to be classified as slab on grade or as an equipment pad. Please advise us as to any special foundation preparations that may be required under this area.

A58. It is a mat slab. Provide 2-feet of engineered fill with geotextile fabric.

Q59. Drawing S-103 does not describe any requirements for Crack Control or Contraction Joints for the slabs on grade, other than the isolation joints at the extreme perimeter of the three main floor slabs. Please advise us as to the Engineers requirements for crack control measures to supplement the use of the isolation and expansion joints shown on the drawings. The varying thickness of the slab on grade at the middle section of the floor will cause a lot of stress to the slab as it dries, cures and shrinks. Specification 03 15 00.00 10 para 3.1 states the joints will be “as indicated”.

Please clarify the requirements for Waterstops ( 03 15 00.00 10 para 3.2 ) in the project . Detail 4 on S-003 shows a flat strap and a bulb type waterstop but none can be found on or called out on the drawings.

A59. 1) In addition to the locations shown in section, provide isolation joints at all changes in slab thickness (use premolded joint filler with jet fuel resistant sealant). Control joints shoud be spaced at 16’ – 0” o.c. max. 2) Unless called out, the waterstop is not required

Q60. Please clarify the responsibilities of the W912J6-13-R-004 Contractor regarding the engineering of the EMBEDDED ANCHORAGES at the HUSH HOUSE Foundations and Slab on Grade. NOTE 8 on drawing S-103 states “All embed plates to be checked for the seismic and wind forces for the building location”.? Please address both the embeds that are related to the erection of the building structure ( Column Base Plates on grids 1& 4 drawing S-103 provided by PRE fABRICATE STEEL MANUFACTURER) and the embeds that are located on the thrust pad area.

Please also address the 20 hold down anchors on drawing S-102 . Note 8 on that drawing states “all embed plates to be checked by contractor for seismic and wind forces for the building location”.

Please clarify if this note means the building contractor or the W912J6-13-R-004 Contractor .

Please define “Vendor” as used in the note pointing to the hold down anchors on S-102 and clarify if the embeds are to be provided under this contract or will be provided to this contractor by “Vendor” or the follow on HUSH HOUSE Erector.

A60. PENDING

Q61. Please confirm the Governments Door Manufacturer will supply the door track shown in drawing detail 1 on drawing S-201

A61. See Volume 3 – AF DWG 8443128, Sheet 1 of 10, Note 7. They will be supplied by Vital Link Incorporated, 914 Bartlett Rd, Sealy, Texas 77474.

Q62. Please clarify Embed # 7 on drawing S-205 ; mark 11 is called for on S-102 on top of the high walls but approximately 50 ft of embed is shown while S 205 shows only 6 ft. Please clarify how much of embed # 7 is to be installed.

A62. Provide embed #7 in 6 foot lengths continuously along the wall.

Q63. Please clarify the installation location for all the embeds on drawing S-204 as well as embed # 11 on drawing S-205 and embed # 16 on drawing S-206.

A63. Provide embed #7 in 6 foot lengths continuously along the wall.

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