Questions and Responses - FRC Window Film.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 84 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Window Security Film Install
- Solicitation number
- WX02854Y2026T
- Issued by
-
Federal Emergency Management Agency
About this file
This is a Questions and Responses document addressing vendor inquiries regarding FEMA Region 1 FRC's Window Security Film Installation project (Solicitation Number WX02854Y2026T).
The project involves installing security film on approximately 230 square feet of designated glazing at 63 Old Marlboro Road, Maynard, MA 01754, with a 90-day performance period from Notice to Proceed. Vendors may use the 230 square feet as the bid quantity with final field verification post-award, provided they account for all materials in their Firm Fixed Price quote. The existing film type, thickness, and attachment system are unknown; however, removal of existing material and frame surface preparation are required per SOW Section 2.2. Film must meet or exceed the performance specifications of either Solar Gard Armorcoat 8 Mil Silver 20 or 3M Scotchshield Ultra S800, including tensile strength of 31,500 psi, break strength of 253 lbs/in, and peel strength exceeding 6 lbs/in. Either a single film meeting both security and reflective/privacy requirements or separate layers are acceptable. For door openings that cannot receive structural bead attachment, vendors should propose mechanical attachment systems (profiles or clips) as the most appropriate alternative within project scope. The existing glazing consists of tempered glass on doors and annealed glass on windows, with Low-E coating status unknown. Vendors may submit subcontractor past-performance examples if clearly identified with required contract information and reachable client points of contact. Quotes were due August 31, 2026, at 3:00 PM ET, submitted to anhur.maklef@fema.dhs.gov and karley.hoyt@fema.dhs.gov.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Additional Pictures.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2.1.1 Attachement 4 - Service Contract Act WD # 2015-4055.pdf | ||
| 2.1.1 Attachement 1 - Security Film SOW.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2.2.1 RFQ_Window Security Film Installation.pdf | ||
| 2.1.1 Attachement 3- Pictures of the Windows and Entrance.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2.1.1 Attachement 2 - Pricing Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question | Response | |
| The SOW states the designated glazing totals approximately 230 square feet. May offerors use 230 SF as the Government bid quantity, with final field verification after award? | Yes. Vendor would need to properly account for everything in their Firm Fixed Price quote prior to award. | |
| If exact opening dimensions are required before quotation, are dimensions available from the Government or from measurements taken during the August 24 site visit? | ||
| The RFQ states the work is to be completed within 60 days of award, while SOW section 4.2 states 90 days. Which period of performance controls? | 90 Days from Notice to Proceed | |
| For an approved-equal system, please confirm whether one film may satisfy both the security and reflective/privacy requirements, or whether a separate reflective/privacy layer is required when necessary to meet all listed performance metrics. | Either is acceptable as long as the technical requirements are met. Each vendor may work with different product lines, both options are technically acceptable to allow for ample competetion as long as the technical proposal meets the technical requirements. | |
| Please confirm any required manufacturer/product standard for the structural wet-glaze perimeter anchoring sealant and whether FEMA requires a specific minimum bite/bead dimension. | Must meet manufacturer requirements. | |
| Please confirm whether the approximately 230 SF includes all designated lobby windows and glazed doors shown in the Government photographs. | Confirmed | |
| Can the Government confirm the type and approximate thickness of the film currently installed on the windows and doors? Specifically, is the existing material standard solar/privacy window film or safety/security film? | The existing film type and thickness is unknown. | |
| If safety/security film is currently installed, please identify the manufacturer/product and thickness, if known. Please also confirm whether the existing film is currently secured to the window frames with structural silicone, a wet-glaze attachment system, or another perimeter anchoring system. | The existing film type and thickness is unknown. It is unknown if it is simple silicon or an actual glaze/anchor. | |
| If structural silicone, wet glazing, or another perimeter attachment system is currently present, is removal of the existing attachment material and preparation of the frame surfaces required as part of the contractor's scope? | Yes. See SOW Section 2.2. | |
| Can the Government provide the approximate dimensions (width x height) and quantity of each window and door glass pane receiving the new security film? The SOW provides an approximate total of 230 square feet; however, individual pane dimensions would assist contractors in accurately determining material quantities and required roll sizes. | See SOW Section 2.2.2. | |
| For Factor 2, may an offeror submit relevant projects performed by its proposed installation subcontractor as part of the offeror’s three past-performance examples, provided the subcontractor is clearly identified and the submitted project references include the required contract/project information and reachable client POCs? | yes. Follow what it stated in Factor 2. | |
| Regarding SOW 1.2 / 2.3 and the numerical Blast/Security Film Minimums:The SOW identifies Solar Gard Armorcoat 8 Mil Silver 20 as the primary film example. Solar Gard’s published technical data for Armorcoat 8 Mil Silver 20 lists nominal physical properties of approximately: | ||
| • | Tensile strength: 30,000 psi | |
| • | Break strength: 240 lbs/in | |
| • | Peel strength: >2,500 g/in (approximately 5.5 lbs/in) |
The SOW’s stated minimums are:
| • | Tensile strength: 31,500 psi | |
| • | Break strength: 253 lbs/in | |
| • | Peel strength: >6 lbs/in | |
| Could FEMA please confirm the controlling compliance basis for product selection: | ||
| 1. | Is Solar Gard Armorcoat 8 Mil Silver 20 deemed technically acceptable as the Government’s named example notwithstanding those published nominal values; or | |
| 2. | Must every proposed product, including a named example, independently meet or exceed each numerical Blast/Security Film Minimum listed in Section 2.3? | |
| If the numerical minimums control, we will structure the quote around a different compliant security-film system rather than rely on the named Solar Gard example. | Specs should meet the example of the Solargard; the specs were pulled from the website. The specs should meet or exceed the Solargard. | |
| The SOW allows 3M Scotchshield Ultra S800 as an alternate security-film system. 3M’s current published technical bulletin for Ultra S800 lists physical properties that closely track the SOW’s tensile/break/elongation values, but its abrasion-resistance line states less than 5% increase in haze after 100 Taber abrader cycles, while the FEMA minimum is stated as less than 3%. | ||
| Could FEMA please confirm whether a named example/alternate product such as 3M Ultra S800 is considered technically acceptable based on the Government’s identified system performance/testing, or whether every published nominal property must independently meet each numerical minimum in Section 2.3? | Specs should meet the example of the 3M Ultra S800; the specs were pulled from the website. The specs should meet or exceed the 3M. | |
| provide photos of the following: 1. Interior side of the door lites with a tape measure in the frame showing the sill reveal — depth in inches, face of glass back to the inside face of the frame. 2. Close-ups of the exterior doorway — frame, jambs, and threshold. | See attachement "Additional Pictures" | |
| If the frames can't receive a structural bead, We'd need the government to confirm which direction they want, since each carries different performance and cost. please confirm preference: 1. Daylight (dry) application — film installed to the daylight opening with no structural attachment. Lowest cost, but a meaningful reduction in retention performance versus an attached system. If the specification calls for structural attachment, this would require an approved deviation 2. Mechanical attachment — a profile or clip system anchored to the frame. Maintains attachment performance where a bead isn't viable, but adds material, labor, and a visible profile. 3. Glazing replacement — a glass company swaps the door lites for laminated or attack-resistant glazing, eliminating the film application at those openings entirely. Highest cost, and it's a separate trade. | Option 2 would be the most appropriate option to stay within the scope of the project. This should be accurately described and layed out in the technical proposal. | |
| The bid also states that removal is required. Do we know if there is currently film on all 230'? | Yes. | |
| Is the existing glass tempered or annealed? | Doors are tempered, windows are annealed | |
| Are there any Low-E coatings on the existing glazing that the contractor should account for? | that is unknown | |
| For doors with removable stops, would an alternative attachment system such as Z Secure or Pentagon Protection be acceptable, or should vendors price only the specified structural/security-grade wet-glaze silicone system? | The vendor should propose what they feel is the best solution and why it is the best solution in the technical proposal to meet the requirements of the project. |
image1.png image2.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .