Q&A_Dated_03AUG2019_LOCRF.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RELATED TO:

SOLICITATION W912J6-19-R-5000

Dated 03 Aug 2019

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

Dated 10 Jul 2019 2017

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 ##/##/2018.

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.

Q3. Please help me access the locked documents for solicitation W912J6-19-R-5000.

A3. Reference answers A1 and A2 above. After your firm contact and submits a DD Form 2345 to the Joint Certification Program (JCP) which is administered by the DLA Logistic Information (contact information provided in A1) your firm can send proof of this application and submission via a copy of the email receipt from the JCP or DLA personnel that your certification is in process to manual.llanes.mil@mail.mil.

Pending receipt of the proof that your application is pending certification the Contracting Officer may make the locked files directly available to your frim via AMRDEC SAFE. This access will not be granted if your firm does not apply for certification and follow the above mentioned instructions in A1 and A2.

Q4. We cannot download the specification and drawing documents for the subject bid with MPIN. Is there any way we can get the export controlled documents except applying JCP certification?

A4. See Item A3 Above.

mailto:jcp-admin@.dla.mil mailto:manual.llanes.mil@mail.mil

Dated 23 Jul 2019

Q5. Will there be any allowance for another site visit? Due to the RFP being posted on July 10th and the site visit being held on July 12th we were unable to attend. As a prime contractor who would like to submit a proposal for this project we feel it would be necessary to visit the site prior to submitting a proposal. Please advise if we will be permitted to visit the site prior to the proposal due date and I will immediately send in names of personnel who will attend.

A5. UPDATED 26 JUL 2019***** A SECOND SITE VISIT HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR

WEDNESDAY 31JUL2019 at 0900 HOURS.*********************************************** If your firm wishes to attend you are advised to immediately complete and submit the EXHIBIT D forms to the following email addresses no later than 0900 hours on 29 JUL 2019 if you do not already have access credentials to JBPHH. Submit via email to the following: manuel.llanes.mil@mail.mil, emilio.placencia@us.af.mil, douglas.pagala@us.af.mil and edward.chunfat.ctr@us.af.mil . Those with current access credentials do not need to submit EXHIBIT D, only those without current access credentials. THIS EXHIBIT MUST BE SUBMITTED IN ADVANCE OF 29 JUL 2019 at 0900

HOURS IF YOU DO NOT HAVE CURRENT ACCESS TO JBPHH. FAILURE TO SUBMIT

EXHIBIT D IN ADVANCE OF THE DEADLINE OR LATE MAY RESULT IN DENIAL OF

ACCESS TO JBPHH. You cannot attend the site visit without access credentials. A second site visit will be scheduled. Further details will be posted to www.fbo.gov.

Q6. I wanted to follow up with you on the presentation slides that were shared during the pre-proposal conference. I have not been able to locate them on the FBO site along with the sign in sheet.

Are these something you would be able to email out or upload to FBO?

A6. The presentation slides shared during the pre-proposal conference were posted to www.fbo.gov on 16Jul2019. Please download the pdf document from www.fbo.gov for a copy of the slides.

Q7. Is there any photovoltaic work for this project?

A7. Yes, a roof-mounted photovoltaic system is listed as Bid Option 2 per spec section 012300 – 3.01. The scope of work can be found in the following locations:

Sheet E-106 Keyed Note 1 Sheet E-505 (PV details) Section 481413 – Solar Energy Collectors Section 481916 – Grid-Tie Utility Interactive Inverters.

Dated 26 Jul 2019

Q8. Will the design team (engineer and/or architect) waive the air entrainment requirement?

A8. It is acceptable to wave the air entrainment requirements for this project.

Q9. Reference: Section 316333 – Foundation Piling (Micropiles), Drawings S-001 & S-500

a. Plans indicates three (3) different tests (compression, uplift, and shear), and the specifications indicate two (2) different tests (compression and lateral). Which tests are to be performed? Please note, lateral and shear tests are not a common practice for micropile construction. They can be proven by calculations and are generally not necessary. We recommend compression and tension only.

b. If there will be multiple tests, will there be a separate sacrificial pile installed for each test type?

c. Design loads differ between plans and specifications. Please specify which are correct.

d. Specifications reference three (3) pile types with different load capacities. The plans reference one (1) pile type with differing capacities. Please clarify.

mailto:manuel.llanes.mil@mail.mil mailto:emilio.placencia@us.af.mil mailto:douglas.pagala@us.af.mil mailto:edward.chunfat.ctr@us.af.mil http://www.fbo.gov/ http://www.fbo.gov/

e. Because of all the differing parts of the plans and specifications, would it be acceptable for micropile subcontractor to provide structural design that meets design capacities in lieu of following the micropile details in the plans/specs?

A9. a. General Notes 5.F.2.a and 5.F.2.c of Drawing S-001 indicate required compression testing to 1335 kN (300 kips) and lateral shear testing to 116 kN (26 kips). This is consistent with Micropile Note 4 on Drawing S-500. There is no requirement for an uplift load test. The lateral loading is significant, and the required testing is required to confirm the original assumptions in the design calculations.

To summarize, compression and lateral testing are to be performed to maximum test loads of 300 kips and 26 kips, as indicated on Drawings S-001 and S-500. It should be noted here that the axial compression test will be considered acceptable as long as the ultimate capacity is above 200 kips.

b. A total of one (1) compression and one (1) lateral shear load test is required on the project. As described in Article 3.05.A of Section 316333, the Contractor has the option of installing two (2) test micropiles or a single test micropile. If a single micropile is used for both tests of tests (static axial compression and lateral), the micropile shall be tested under axial compression, then lateral loading. Article 3.05.D states that test micropiles shall not be used for production piling after testing. The dimensions of the test pile shall be consistent with the detail on Drawing S-500.

c. The final micropile loads are summarized in Note 5.F.2 on Drawing S-001.

d. The pile section detail for the project is shown on Drawing S-500. The final micropile loads are summarized in Note 5.F.2 on Drawing S-001.

e. Article 1.05.B.1 of Section 316333 requires that Contractor’s Engineer submit final structural and geotechnical design notes for their proposed micropile foundation system. Article

1.04 provides applicable Design Criteria for the micropiles on the Project. The design submitted by the Contractor’s Engineer should comply with the minimum dimensions shown on Drawing S- 500 and the loading information summarized in Note 5.F.2. on Drawing S-001.

Q10. Section 1.07, Para. C Part 2 (a) states the Wind: 50mph per ASCE 7 acting in any direction or seismic forces, whichever is greater. Please confirm that this is the wind speed the door is expected to be able to operate at. Reference: Section 083022 – Swing and Plenum Type Hangar Doors

A10. Per Specification Section 083022-1.07.C.2 “Doors in Open Position or when Moving”, therefore this includes the wind speed that the door is to operate to.

Q11. Section 2.01, Para. R Part 5 (a)

f. Will a hard rubber tire drive be acceptable in lieu of a rail system? The steel wheels on rail will not have enough weight to hold the door from sliding in a high wind circumstances. The rubber tires will function adequately. Reference: Section 083022

– Swing and Plenum Type Hangar Doors

A11. No, the hard rubber tire drive is not acceptable.

Q12. Will the design team accept C1293 for aggregate ASR qualification in place of C1260 for this project?

A12. ASR testing for airfield pavement Spec Section 321311 - CONCRETE PAVEMENT FOR AIRFIELDS shall remain to meet requirements as detailed in paragraphs 2.03, (A), 2 meeting ASTM C1260.

Q13. Will the designers reclassify the requirements of the concrete aggregates as “Negligible Weather” (1N or 2N) as indicated by the definitions in ASTM C33?

A13. The weather region identified in Section 321311 - CONCRETE PAVEMENT FOR AIRFIELDS Table 2 shall remain as ‘Moderate’. This was specifically selected for the airfield pavement on this project as well as on past projects at Joint-Base Pearl Harbor Hickam to control the amount of deleterious material in the coarse aggregate.

Q14. RFP Section 00110, Para. 2.5.3.4. requires contractors to prepare not more than five (5) but no less than three (3) of Exhibit A, Part 1. Exhibit A, Part 1 instructs to prepare not more than three (3) of these documents. Are we required to submit up to three or up to five Exhibit A projects?

A14. Up to five (5) Exhibit A Projects should be submitted. A Minimum of three (3) Exhibit A projects are required.

Q15. Reference: Section 00110, Para. 2.5.3.4. (page 23 of 94)

Page 28 of 94: Section 00120, Para 2.2.6. Subfactor 4 references Exhibits B and D. RFP uses Exhibit D as a Form - 0-180 Access Request for Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam. Please confirm that Exhibit D is required in response to Subfactor 4.

A15. Exhibit D is NOT required in response to Subfactor 4. Exhibit D is only required for those wishing to obtain access credentials to JBPHH for the site visits.

Q16. Reference: Section 00120, Para. 2.2.6. Subfactor 4 (page 28 of 94)

Section 00110, Para. 2.5.3.11. Reference Package, Exhibit C requires contractors to e-mail Past Performance Reference/Evaluation Questionnaire to the contract references to be completed and returned directly to the Contracting Officer. In an effort to save our clients’ time and eliminate redundancy, are contractors allowed to use the previously completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) in lieu of this requirement?

A16. YES

Q17. Reference: Section 00110, Para. 2.5.3.11. Reference Package, Exhibit C (page 24 of 94) and Reference: Section 00110, Paragraphs 2.5.3.1., 2.5.3.3., and 2.5.3.11. (pages 23 and 24 of 94)

Section 00110, Para. 2.5.3.11. allows contractors to use a “Final” Performance Evaluation (Construction) (also referred to as CCASS Evaluation) in lieu of sending out reference package for the project.

a. Please clarify if a standard CPARS evaluation is admissible for this procurement.

b. And if so, would the latest evaluation available through PPIRS be acceptable for submission, considering the project meets the 70% completion criteria listed in paragraph 2.5.3.1?

A17. YES a standard CPARS evaluation is admissible for this procurement. Yes the latest evaluation available through PPIRS would be acceptable for submission as long as the project meeting the 70% completion criteria listed in paragraph 2.5.3.1.

Dated 01 Aug 2019

Q18. Between the drawings and specifications there is reference to two different project numbers, KNMD189008 & KNMD159060. Please verify that KNMD189008 is correct? Example: cover page of specifications and cover sheet of drawings list KNMD189008. The very next page of the specifications lists KNMD159060 as does the project description in section 011100.

A18. KNMD189008 is the correct project number. Disregard any reference to KNMD159060 this is typographical error. Any reference to KNMD159060 should be replaced with the correct project number

KNMD189008.

Q19. Structural drawings in the pdf on the CD given out at the walk thru are 8.5"x11" and are illegible. Is it possible to get these properly scaled?

A19. Please download the drawings from www.fbo.gov

Q20. Page 81 of the RFP (section 010000) lists normal base hours for construction as 7:00 am to 4:30

pm. Section 011100 p1.10.A.1 lists 0600 to 1600 hours. Please clarify.

A20. Normal Base hours for construction are 0700 to 1630 hours. The government will consider requests to perform work beginning at 0600 hours if the contractor would prefer an earlier start time. This will be handled during the pre-construction phase of the project.

Q21. Section 00120 p2.2.3.4 of the RFP states to "See Division 01 Section 014100 of the specification, paragraph 1.04, for additional minimum qualification requirements for key personnel." Please confirm that this should read "…Section 014000…".

A21. Confirmed.

Q22. On Exhibit A, Page 1, Part 1, the instructions state, "Prepare not more than three (3) of these documents." Yet, the page 23 of 94 of the RFP, Section2.5.3.4. states "Offerors shall discuss their performance using the Performance Relevancy Questionnaire format, Exhibit A, Part 1. Prepare not more than five (5) but no less than three (3) of these documents." Should we follow the instructions per the RFP or Exhibit A regarding the amount of Exhibit A forms to submit?

A22. Reference A14 above. Up to five (5) Exhibit A Projects should be submitted. A Minimum of three (3) Exhibit A projects are required.

Q23. Exhibit A, Page 1, A. requests the offeror to include, "Offeror (Your) Name (Company/Division)." If our company is pursuing this proposal as a joint venture, but the project we would like to highlight was completed under a party of the JV, should we include the Name of the Company/Division for the project or the offeror listed under 14. of the SF 1442 form?

A23. Yes.

Q24. Is this project going for a LEED Certification or is the intent simply to build to LEED standards?

A24. Currently the project will not be seeking LEED Certification, the current intent is to build to the LEED standards as designed.

Q25. Drawing AN101 calls out 48" high 20 ga. Stainless steel corner guards. Please provide a detail and specification.

A25. PENDING

Q26. Reference Sheet CD101. Please confirm that the area of demolition should include the concrete towards the top of the plan where the 8" storm drain line is to be removed.

A26. An addendum will be issued for CD100 and CD101 to match the concrete demolition to the limits shown on the site plans for the area directly south of LO Bay 2.

Q27. Reference Sheet S-610. The column schedule on drawing S-610 does not provide information for the three new columns required under Bid Option 1 and shown on drawing S-101. Please provide column information.

A27. An addendum will be forthcoming.

Q28. Please confirm that detail D5/S-008 correspoinds to Pipe Support 1 and detail B5/S-006 corresponds to Pipe Support 2 as shown on drawing M-300.

A28. PENDING

Q29. Reference Sheet AN612. Details A4, C4 and D4 state that steel channel is per stud manufacturer. Usually steel channels are detailed in the structural drawings. Please clarify.

A29. Design framing at door opening from Cold-Formed Steel according to Specification Section 054000 1.03.B.2.c.

Q30. In Section 2.5.3.3., the RFP states "If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies, joint venture or formal teaming agreement, for the purpose of this RFP, each company shall complete Exhibit As and obtain C references." Section 2.5.3.4 states."Offerors shall discuss their performance using the Performance Relevancy Questionnaire format, Exhibit A, Part 1.

Prepare not more than five (5) but no less than three (3) of these documents." Please clarify if partners of joint ventures have a minimum of three Exhibit As and a maximum of five Exhibit As combined or if each partner of the joint venture must turn in a minimum three and maximum of five Exhibit As.

A30. The total number of Exhibit A documents submitted shall be no less than three (3) total and not more than five (5) total. These can be any combination from the partners of the JV.

Q31. In Section 2.5.3.11., the RFP states that "a 'Final' Performance Evaluation (Construction) (also referred to as CCASS Evaluation) issued for a project may be included in lieu of sending out reference package for the project. Please verify if CPARS evlautations will also be accepted in addition to CCASS evaluations.

A31. Yes. See A17 above.

Q32. In Section 2.5.2.5., the RFP states "(Resumes or experience cut sheets are limited to two (2) pages each and are not part of the page count.)…This subfactor is limited to five "5" pages excluding the table of contents, dividers, tabs, indexes, experience cut-sheets and resumes. Please clarify if the offeror is supposed to prepare separate resumes for the key personnel with LEED projects for this section. Subfactor 1 Experience and Capability already includes resumes for key personnel.

A32. Offerors shall not prepare separate resumes for key personnel for this section. Please ensure that the resumes submitted for Subfactor 1 include easily identifiable LEED designations for personnel and projects so the resumes may be referenced in regard to Subfactor 4.

Q33. Reference Solicitation Page 23 of 94 Section 2.5.2.5. of the RFP requests resumes or experience cut sheets. Please explain what a cut sheet refers to? Are there any requirements for the cut sheets?

A33. There no requirements for cut sheets. It is the experience of the Government that some offerors may utilize resumes while other utilize cut sheets during their proposal preparation. Both are acceptable, hence the utilization of the word “or”. Offerors shall submit resumes or cut sheets in order to provide the information requested in Section 2.5.2.5.

Q34. Section 2.4.5. Binding requests the cover and spine to clearly identify the, "offeror's name, Project number, RFP number, RFP title and copy number." Can you please clarify the correct RFP title? Different titles are included on different documents. For instance, Exhibit A identifies the project as KNMD189008 Construct Add to F-22 LOCRF B3408 W912J6-19-R-5000, whereas the SF1442 names the project as "Purchase Request # F7C31A9094AW01, LOCRF 3RD BAY, F-22 Composite Repair Facility" AND "Project KNMD189008 F-22 Composite Repair Facility for the Haw aii Air National Guard on Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam (JBPHH), Haw aii."

A34. Offerors shall utilize the following RFP title: KNMD189008 Construct Add to F-22 LOCRF B3408 W912J6-19-R-5000.

Q35. Page CS401 calls out on note 5 and 7 to refer to CS502 for information on joint sealants (details A1-3 and B1-3). However, all 6 of those details are not present. Please provide the necessary information for the joint sealants on the concrete joints.

A35. An Addendum will be issued to revise Notes 5 through 7 on CS401, and details on CS500. In addition, Spec Section 321311 will be revised to remove paragraph 2.08.

Q36. This solicitation has included three Q & A responses dated July 10, 2019; July 23, 2019; and July 26, 2019. Are these Q & A responses considered Amendments that need to be included in 19.

Acknowledgement of Amendments of the SF 1442 form or should we just acknowledge all Q & A responses in the cover letter?

A36. Q&A responses are not considered Amendments. Offerors shall simply acknowledge all Q&A responses in the cover letter. It is the sole responsibility of the offerors to ensure they have received and reviewed the latest version of the Q&A document posted to www.fbo.gov prior to the submission of their proposal.

Q37. Reference Sheet AN601. The drawings include Louvers located 7 times around the building.

However, there is no spec for louvers. Please include a specification for louvers.

A37. PENDING

Q38. A bid guarantee (bid bond) is required, but instructions as to where the bid bond should be place are not included in Section 2.5.1 Volume 1, Price/Cost Information and Pro Forma Documents.

Where would you like the bid bond to be placed in Volume 1?

A38. The Bid Bond shall be placed after the cover letter in Volume 1.

Q39. Is a soils report available?

A39. An Amendment will be forthcoming with the Subsurface Information document.

Q40. Reference Sheet E-106 and E-601. Note #10 and Keynote 1 on Sheet E-106 states Photoviltaic (PV) System for Bid Option 2 is 20kW. Drawing E-601 shows 40kW for Bid Option 2. What is the correct size of the PV System and what is the output (AC or DC)?

A40. Provide 20KW PV array per drawing E-106. Output is AC.

Q41. Reference Option 7 FX001. Please verify the scale shown as 3/16" is incorrect and it should be 1"=40'.

A41. FX001 Detail A1 marked as 3/16” = 1’0” should be marked N.T.S.

Q42. Paragraph 1.05 of section 011100 states that the Construction sequence shall be determined by the contractor subject to the fact the Government will need continuous operation of the existing facilities and shutdowns shall be held to a minimum length of time and the Government shall have control over the timing and schedules of such shutdowns. How long in advance do shutdowns need to be scheduled and what is the maximum amount of time a shutdown can occur? Does the facility run 7 days per week all weeks of a month or are there some weekends that could be used for shutdowns?

A42. See Section 01000 Paragraphs 24.1, 24.2 and 24.3 regarding coordination of work with the Government. The maximum amount of time a shutdown can occur is five business days. Some weekends may be utilized for shutdowns if requested far enough in advance with the Government. Further discussion of coordination and requests for any special allowances or considerations may be made during the pre construction phase of the project.

Q43. Sheet AN105 appears to indicate three fall protection rails are required. One continuous rail from nose to tail. Two individual rails, one over each wing. If all three rails are at the same elevation as indicated on elevation detail C2/AN504, the wing rails will need to stop short of the nose/tail rail.

Sheet S-132 shows the wing rail systems are continuous through the nose/tail rail and designed drop support locations are shown. If the wing rails do stop short of the nose/tail rail, the cantilever from the closest drop support to the end of the wing rail closest to the nose/tail rail will exceed the maximum allowed cantilever. Please advise if the structure above will allow for added drop supports to support the wing rail ends close to the nose/tail rail within the allowable maximum rail cantilever?

A43. Wing Rails shall start and stop at Center Rail Per AN105.

Dated 03 Aug 2019

Q44. Section 00110, page 23 of 94, Para. 2.5.2.3.1 – For the required schedule, as it is not subject to the page limits, please advise if provision on 11x17 paper will be acceptable.

A44. Yes 11x17 paper will be acceptable for the schedule.

Q45. Section 00110, page 24 of 94, paragraph 2.5.3.6 – Due to the specialized program type and limited number of similar projects in the region, would the government allow the General Contractor to submit projects that are completed and turned over no longer than seven (7) years preceding the date of this Solicitation?

A45. Yes, however offerors are cautioned that older projects may not be considered as relevant as more recent projects. Projects completed within the past five years may be considered more relevant than older projects.

Q46. Section 00110, page 22 of 94, Para. 2.5.2.2.1, requires offerors to discuss and provide experience of key construction personnel including a Safety Manager. However, Section 0120, page 28 of 94, Para. 2.2.3.4 states the key positions including a Safety Representative. Then Section 010000, page 92 of 94, Para. 34 references the position of “Safety and Health Officer” in the description for the Safety Manager position. Please advise if the safety position titles are all synonymous; or if they represent different positions, duties, and qualifications, please clarify.

A46. Confirmed all the safety position titles are synonymous.

Q47. Section 00110, page 22 of 94, Para. 2.5.2.2.1, requires offerors to discuss and provide experience of key construction personnel including a Quality Control Manager (on site), same as Section 0120, page 28 of 94, Para. 2.2.3.4 and Section 010000, page 92 of 94, Para. 34. However, Section 014000 refers to the position of CQC System Manager. Please advise if the quality control position titles are all synonymous; or if they represent different positions, duties, and qualifications, please clarify.

A47. Confirmed Quality Control Manager (on site) and CQC System Manager are synonymous terms for the purpose of this project and solicitation.

Q48. Section 00110, page 22 of 94, Para. 2.5.2.2.1 – Regarding the page limits for Subfactor 1 of Volume 2, Part 1, understand that key personnel resumes are limited to 2 page each; however, please clarify the following:

a. There is no page limit for the overall subfactor 1 narrative.

b. Exhibit B and the Letter of Intent has no page limit, if an Offeror chooses to utilize/submit such.

A48. Reference Section 00110 Paragraph 2.5.2.2 which states that Subfactor 1Experience and Capability proposal is limited to 10 single pages excluding tabs, resumes and indexes as noted in paragraph 2.5.2.2.1.

The resumes do not count towards the 10 page limit for subfactor 1 Experience and Capability proposal.

Exhibit B or Letter of Intent has no page limit and are also not counted toward the 10 page limit of subfactor 1 Experience and Capability.

Q49. Section 00110, page 20 of 94, Para. 2.1.1 does not state an overall page limit for Subfactor 4 of Volume 2, Part 1. However, under Para. 2.5.2.5 (page 23 of 94), it states “This subfactor is limited to five (5) pages excluding the table of contents, dividers, tabs, indexes, experience cut-sheets and resumes.” Please clarify if there indeed a 5-page limit for Subfactor 4.

A49. Confirmed. Subfactor 4 is limited to a 5-page limit.

Q50. Section 00110, page 22 of 94, Para. 2.5.2.4 – Please confirm that there is no page limit for Subfactor 3 under Volume 2, Part 1.

A50. Confirmed. There is no page limit to Subfactor 3 Quality Control.

Q51. Section 00110, page 23 of 94, Para. 2.5.2.5 – Regarding Subfactor 4 of Volume 2, Part 1, please clarify that Exhibit B and the Letter of Intent has no page limit, if an Offeror chooses to utilize/submit such.

A51. Confirmed.

Q52. Reviewing the specifications, we note the following information noted to be required "at time of Bid". Please confirm if it is indeed the government's intent to have Offerors submit such information at the time of the Bid, as such requirements are not stated under Sections 00100, 00110, and 00120 that provide proposal preparation instructions. If such is indeed required, please consider extending the proposal due date by at least one (1) week.

c. Section 312000 – Site Preparation and Earthwork – Para. 3.02.A.11.b.(1) – page 312000-

10 – Contractor shall designate and obtain the services of a qualified geotechnical engineer/dewatering specialist to provide a dewatering plan as may be necessary to complete the Work. The Contractor shall provide the dewatering plan at the time of Bid submission.

d. Section 316333 - Foundation Piling (Micropiles) –

i. Para. 1.03.E – page 316333-2 – The experience statement of past work and description of equipment and techniques proposed for use shall be submitted at time of Bid and will be considered in the evaluation of bids.

ii. Para. 1.03F – page 316333-3 – All other guidelines for submitting Subcontractor information shall be followed in accordance with that specified in

"INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS."

A52. The above referenced requirements from the specifications ARE NOT to be submitted or required at time of Bid. It is not the government's intent to have Offerors submit such information at the time of the Bid. Disregard these statements from the specifications and follow proposal instructions as outlined in the solicitation section 00100, 00110 and 00120 as well as all subsequent parts of the solicitation document W912J6-19-R-5000.

Q53. Referring to Exhibit A:

e. Please confirm that there is no page limit for Exhibit A, Parts 1 and 2.

f. Under Part 1, Para. D, there is a blank space in the second sentence. Please advise if there is a particular construction method(s) that the government would like offerors to meet.

A53. Confirmed. There is no page limit for Exhibit A Parts 1 and 2. Offerors shall submit no less than three

(3) and no more than five (5) Exhibit A’s. For Exhibit A, Part 1, Paragraph D offerors shall refer to Solicitation Section 00110 Paragraph 2.5.2.2.1 for particular construction methods that the Government wishes offerors to meet. Specifically “previous projects that are similar to this project in terms of scope, size and complexity. Specifically discuss construction of additions to existing structures, Low Observable Composite Repair facilities and Hangar facilities, construction located on active airfield, construction of facilities with special corrosion controlled environments, construction/installation of specialty climate control systems, construction/installation of High Efficiently Foam (HEF) systems, construction that required tie in to existing facilities while maintaining operations in the existing facility, photovoltaic renewable energy system components, and construction performed on an island environment or other remote geographic location which poses significant logistical challenges and concerns for material delivery and limited subcontractor availability.”

Q54. Under Section 00110, pages 22-23 of 94, Para. 2.5.2, Volume 2, Part 1, Subfactor 1 requires offerors to discuss "Experience and Capability", while Subfactor 3 requires addressing "Quality Control". However, referring to Section 00120, Para. 2.2.3 that details the proposal evaluation and basis of award for Volume 2, Part 1, Subfactor 1, Para. 2.2.3.3 (page 28 of 94) addresses quality control, which on a side note such items are not required to be addressed under Subfactor 3 as detailed in Section 00110. Please clarify this discrepancy or confirm that it should be deleted.

A54. Details for proposal evaluation of Technical Subfactor 1 are found in Section 00120 Paragraphs

2.2.3.1 through 2.2.3.4. Details for proposal evaluation of Technical Subfactor 3 are found in Section 00120 Paragraph 2.2.5. The government recognizes that some of the information required by both Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 3 may be redundant. Offerors may chose to specifically direct the Government to each section for any redundant information provided. However the owness is specifically on the offeror to ensure that all proposal requirements of Section 110 and all subfactors are adequately addressed. It will not be deleted.

Q55. Please confirm that the following paragraphs from Section 00110 are indeed missing from the RFP: Paragraphs 2.4.8, 2.4.9, and 2.5.1.7.

A55. Confirmed Paragraphs 2.4.8 and 2.4.9 and 2.5.1.7 are missing and should have been marked as

RESERVED.

Q56. We respectfully request a 2-week extension to the current proposal due date of Friday, August 9th to instead Friday, August 23rd. This project is for a major building addition to an existing occupied hangar, where various components of the work are tied into the existing system.

Accordingly, the assessment of the existing condition, the study on the new work’s impact, and the development of the proper work sequence are critical and takes a lot of time. Also, the 2nd site visit was just conducted this week, Wednesday, July 31st. With those reasons, many subcontractors and suppliers are requesting for more time to prepare their bid proposal and also to reflect the new findings on the 2nd site visit. In turn, the additional time extension will allow for bidders to submit more competitive and better quality bid proposals. Furthermore, with the recent 1 August 2019 Q&A posting, we note that there are many questions pending a response. Therefore, in addition to these submitted questions critical to the technical proposal submission, sufficient time will be needed by bidders to review and properly incorporate the government’s response into their proposals.

Therefore, the at least 2-week extension will allow such.Additionally, the 10am HST due time makes it even more difficult to submit a competitive and quality proposal, as Offerors must now consider delays due to morning traffic as well as the remote bid submittal location. Therefore, we also request your consideration to move the bid submittal time to a later afternoon such as 2pm HST.

A56. Due to the forthcoming Amendment and Addendum the proposal due date shall be extended and the time will be changed to submit proposals to 1400 hours HST.

Q57. Under Section 00120, page 26 of 94, Para. 2.1, stated is “Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each subfactor as it applies to the Plans and Specifications. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section.” If the “Evaluation Approach” refers to Para. 2.1.1, please clarify “Paragraph C” as there is no such paragraph.

A57. Confirmed. Evaluation Approach referes to the entirty of Para 2.1.1. Reference to Paragraph C shall be replaced with the reference to Para 2.1.1.

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