W912KC-14-R-0003_RFIs_and_Responses_Ver._1.pdf

W912KC-14-R-0003

Project No.: 420051 Project Title: Aircraft Maintenance Instructional Building Date: 14 August 2014

Requests For Information (RFI) Version 1

NOTE: RFI answers are in BOLD type.

RFI 1:

Reference: Section 230900, Paragraph 2.1A

Can you add Distech Controls as an acceptable manufacturer?

Response 1:

Distech Controls, Inc. is an acceptable manufacturer.

RFI 2:

Reference: Section 230900, Paragraph 2.1B-

1. What is the existing system with which full compatibility is required?

2. Does “fully compatible and allow full operability” include:

a. Graphics, alarming, schedules and other “front end” created in the existing facility system, in the Application Software specified in Section 230900, Paragraph 2.2A14, or both?

b. If the new Application Software provided with this project is the stand-alone front-end for the project, what specifically is required to comply with paragraph 2.1B?

c. Must the field controllers be capable of being programmed through the existing facility system, or can a separate software programming tool (either stand-alone or within the Application Software) be included with the project?

Response 2:

1. The existing base-wide system is a Johnson Controls Metasys (MSEA) system.

2. Fully compatible and allow full operability:

a. The question is vague. The building management system shall be capable of both stand-alone operation (during emergency conditions) or through the base-wide system (normal operations).

b. During emergency conditions or for diagnostic purposes, the building management system shall be capable of stand-alone operation using a portable PC-based microcomputer.

Intent is that the building can be fully operated remotely via the existing base-wide system.

RFI 3:

I have contacted the Hobart manufacturer to get a price on the Frequency converter as stated in note #2 on drawing E-111C. He will not provide a price for the Horbart #90SX200, as he says that this a series and not a specified part number. He requires a written specification. Can you provide a written specification for these?

Response 3:

According to the Hobart representative, Hobart is no longer manufacturing a 400Hz converter with dual output as we have indicated in our design. Therefore, we have attached herewith, the product specification sheet by Unitron that we consider to be equal to the original Hobart product. Please note that other manufacturers with equal products are acceptable.

RFI 4:

I have a few questions regarding the loading dock equipment being requested for the Aircraft Maintenance Instructional Building in Annville, PA. The specifications requested a mechanically operated unit with the additional of a safety barrier lip. However, the safety barrier lip option is only available on powered dock leveler units. Would you like for me to quote a powered unit with a safety lip barrier option in addition to a standard mechanical unit without the safety barrier?

Response 4:

Provide mechanically operated dock levelers without the safety barrier lip.

RFI 5:

Please see attached calculations. The first one is calculation using 2% JET-X. The second is the calculation using 2.75% JET-X and the actual UL outputs. As you can see, you can’t do it at 50 psi with 16 generators. The third calculation is an engineering option to use JET-X 27’s at 50 psi. There are 8 helicopters in the hangar and you need 8 generators. Normally with this type of helicopter, one generator above each one is sufficient for the ETL procedure. Also, it would be more economical with the JET-X 27’s as you would drop from 14 generators to 8. With that being said, we recommend that at a minimum you switch to 2% JET-X in order to get down to 14 generators.

Please review and advise.

Response 5:

As stated on Drawing FX102, General Note 3, the contractor may submit an alternate design for the High-Expansion Foam (HEF) System from that shown on the contract documents based on approved manufactures. Alternate design must be presented in conformance with Deviations under Specification Section 013300. When submitting a Contractor Generated Alternate bid item for HEF system design, the contractor must show the proposed system complies with all requirements of UFC 3-600-01 and AF ETL 02-15.

As a contractor generated bid alternate, it will be reviewed and at the Governments discretion, accepted or rejected. Design documents for the alternate HEF system must be prepared under the oversight of the Contractor's Fire Protection Engineer of Record and include plans, details, and engineering calculations needed to show the design will meet all design requirements. Additionally, any costs generated by these changes shall be the contractor’s responsibility and in no way will present additional cost to the Government.

This including but not limited to fire water supply, structure modification due to difference number, size, location, and weight of devices, architectural modification resulting from modified wall and/or roof penetrations, relocation of light fixtures, ensuring the equipment fits in the intended space, and is coordinated with other trades.

RFI 6:

REF: SPECIFICATIONS 143300 and 143400

The monorail specification 143400 specifies patented track. The bridge crane specification 143300 specifies structural steel for the runways.

The design philosophy should be switched; cranes should be designed around patented track, and the straight monorail can be structural steel.

a) Multiple runway crane systems, in this case three runways, will best serve the owner operator when installed using patented track system components. These components include the following:

• Flexible suspension reduces horizontal building loadings and maintains equal hanger loading

• Patented track runway rails and bridge beams. These engineered components provide:

o Lighter strength to weight design ratio o Straight and true rails o Flat and hardened running treads – better tracking, more durable surface, longer lasting components.

• Articulating trolleys on the crane end trucks allow all wheels to be equally loaded and provide better alignment/tracking of the three runway system.

Structural steel profile girders have an allowable amount of sweep in their lengths per ANSI specifications. Three rails running down the length of the building will not be parallel due to ANSI approved mill sweep. When a rigidly constructed three truck crane is introduced to three supposed parallel rails, binding and stresses will occur. The heavier runway rails and crane sections will contribute to higher hanger loadings on the building structure. Additionally, ridged wheels mounted in the crane end trucks will not all maintain equal loading on the structural rail tread line due to allowable un-parallel beam flanges per ANSI specifications.

b) The monorail systems on the project are straight with a single hoist operating on them. A structural member for this application is acceptable. The lighter system loads, combined with the single device tracking along the monorail does not present undue stress on equipment or building members.

c) The value of the patented is fully realized if used in the crane system, and lost (wasted) in the monorail system.

I would respectfully request that the patented track specification be applied to the crane system and removed from the monorail system specifications. Patented track systems are well known in the aerospace industry, and specifically military hangers with a proven track record of success defined by long service life, minimal maintenance and lower operating costs.

An engineered package including system weights, hanger loadings, specifications and dimensional information specific to the project can be provided by supplier/subcontractor.

Please review and respond.

Response 6:

Patented track system and/or structural steel runways are both acceptable systems for the monorails and the overhead cranes as long as they do not require any deviation from the designed building structural system. The design and construction cost of any deviation to the structural system due to the monorail or overhead crane runway system selection shall be included in the General Contractor’s price.

RFI 7:

Drawing E-501, Detail #10 shows Type U-3 and U-4 light fixtures.

Type U-3 and U-4 are not on the Fixture Schedule. Can catalog numbers be provided?

Response 7:

The fixtures in question are all Type “U” fixtures. The “3” and “4” indicate the branch circuit number for the circuits used in the detail.

RFI 8:

Drawing E-501, Detail #10, Note #10 K.H. Industries Catalog number is incorrect.

Can a revised catalog number be provided?

Response 8:

The “J” at the end of the part number should be a “U”. Please see attached cut sheet.

RFI 9:

Keyed Note 5 on sheet TY101A, TY101C & TY102A says not in contract, coordinate bid for these doors with base contracting office. Keyed Note 2 on sheet TY601 also says the same. My question is are we to include the rough-in of these doors in our bid?

Response 9:

Conduit and box shall be included in the price.

RFI 10:

Manufactures require additional information to quote Hobart 400hz Converters and Conductix Cable Reels. Listed below is the response we received:

The 90SX200 is a Family for 400Hz solid state frequency converters that come in many configurations. We would need to know the Exact configuration to quote. The same applies to the Cable Reels. Can additional information be provided?

Response 10:

See RFI 3 response for the 400Hz converter information. For the Conductix/Wampfler Cable Reels, please use the following part number: Cable Reel Series, PLB 400, Product No. SE-101568

Please refer to the attached manufacturers product data sheets and Cable Reel Specification. Please note that other manufacturers with equal products are allowed.

RFI 11:

I would need to know the max amount of weight that will be traveling over the loading dock.

The typical capacities start at 25,000lb on up with heavier equipment companies using 60-80k lb units. Below I have included the full instruction on how to determine your best application.

Calculating Capacity

A simple guideline exists to calculate the safest dock leveler capacity for light to normal usage.

Add the gross weight of the vehicle and the gross weight of the load. Multiply that by 2.0 (ie.

8,000 lbs. forklift gross weight + 4,000 lbs gross load = 12,000 lbs x 2.0 = 24,000 lbs; rounded up to 25,000 lbs).

If the manufacturer does not offer that exact capacity, use the next higher capacity. For normal to heavy usage, a multiplier of 3 to 4 should be applied.

Specifying a capacity higher than the calculated requirements will further extend the life expectancy of the dock leveler. Select the dock leveler to offer a minimum of 10 years of service life.

Dock levelers are designed to withstand dynamic forces generated when the loading vehicle makes contact with the inclined leveler.

The impact force can be many times greater than the actual gross load due to the speed at which it is traveling. Three-wheeled loading vehicles or narrow wheels greatly increase pin-point loading and should be accounted for by further increasing the leveler capacity. When using equipment of this type, a dock leveler with a minimum capacity of 30,000 lbs. is recommended regardless of gross load.

This guideline will work in the majority of applications when the grade is less than 7%, the speed does not exceed 5 mph, and the frequency is not more than 8 trucks per door per day, 20 rollover cycles per vehicle. The rated capacity may be adversely affected by unique loading or operating conditions.

For applications of higher frequency, greater grade, and higher speeds, a multiplier of 4 to 5 times the total gross load should be used. Unusual conditions can lessen the effectiveness of this guideline. When in doubt, always specify a higher capacity.

Hopefully this helps to clarify. Also, have you had a decision on the safety lip feature that is called out in the specifications? This safety feature is only available on hydraulic and air powered units.

Response 11:

Provide 33,000 lbs., mechanically operated dock levelers without the safety barrier lip.