MODIFICATION
49 -- AERIAL WORK PLATFORMS (AWP) - Amendment 1 - Initial Site Visit Questions/Answers
- Notice Date
- 12/30/2014
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- NAICS
- 333923
— Overhead Traveling Crane, Hoist, and Monorail System Manufacturing
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, PK/PZ Tinker AFB, 3001 Staff Drive, Ste 1AG76A, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, 73145-3015, United States
- ZIP Code
- 73145-3015
- Solicitation Number
- FA8126-15-Q-0001
- Response Due
- 12/8/2014 3:00:00 PM
- Point of Contact
- Darrell L. Hafer, Phone: 4057395819, Kelley Keppinger, Phone: 4057399119
- E-Mail Address
-
darrell.hafer@us.af.mil, Kelley.Keppinger@us.af.mil
(darrell.hafer@us.af.mil, Kelley.Keppinger@us.af.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- Questions and Answers from initial Site Visit for Aerial Work Platforms Solicitation Amendment #1 Added 30-Dec-2014 Solicitation has been extended to close on 23-Jan-15 at 1500 CST. Additional Site Visit will be held at Tinker AFB, Bldg 2280 on 9-Jan-15 from 1430-1530 CST. Those wishing to attend will need to send the list of attendees to darrell.hafer@us.af.mil NLT 1500 7-Jan-15. Questions/Answers from Initial Site Visit: 1. Is it the government's intent for the work to be completed in full and accepted prior to any payment on this contract? What is the intended use of our proprietary AutoCad drawings? A) Yes, it is the government's intent for the work to be completed in full and accepted prior to the contractor receiving payment. The AutoCAD drawings shall allow the government to modify the AWP as required to meet the mission. Federal Codes, regulations, and policy's may change which require the AWP to be modified in order to comply...i.e. Safety, Fall Protection, outdated electrical systems, etc. 2. How much notice will field crews be given prior to re mobilizing after a delay in scheduling? What is the time frame we should utilize for delays during the installation schedule? A) The contractor will be provided a notice within 72 hours after a delay in scheduling for re-mobilizing. The aircraft schedule is fluid and delays shall be expected in order to accomplish the government's mission. Delays could vary up to a month. 3. Is it the intent of the government for installation crews to remain on standby during the installation phase in order to accommodate government schedule and 24 hour work schedule? A) The government expects the contractor to be available during the installation phase of the system. The government expects the contractor to use the timeframes allotted to accomplish the task. 4. 1.2.1 - Is the intent to conform with the original design loads indicated in the SOW (Appendix B) or was it the government's intention to have the existing building structure and its components surveyed and a full building analysis done as part of this contract? Is it the governments intent to indicate a contingency value for additional structure should it be required based on the survey and analysis? A) The contractor is expected to field verify through structural analysis if their proposed design could be safely installed within the facility. Any additional structure required based on the contractors design will be the responsibility of the contractor. This is a full turn-key project. 5. 1.3.3 - Is it the intent of the government to have all utilities including those not impacted by the contract (those in the floor) surveyed and documented? A) The utilities that are impacted by the installation of the new system shall be surveyed and documented. 6. 1.3.4 - Is the government indicating that all of the existing utilities and equipment are adequate to extend and service the new AWP's or is additional or new equipment required? Is it the intent of this contract for the entire hangar (floor to ceiling) to be rated as Class 1, Div. 1, group D? A) The government does not indicate that all existing utilities and equipment are adequate to extend and service the contractors design. The contractor may require additional utilities and equipment to accommodate their design. It is the contractor's responsibility to make their system complete and usable within the facility. It is the intent that the equipment installed for the AWP shall be rated Class I, Division I, Group D. 7. 1.3.4g - As OSHA/ANSI does not endorse or approve specific systems; therefore, is the assembly of rated components acceptable if reviewed by an Oklahoma licensed engineer? A) A Professional Engineer shall design, stamp and approve the fall protection system design. The design shall comply with OSHA/ANSI regulations. The design will be reviewed by local Tinker Safety offices to ensure that it also meets local Safety requirements. 8. 1.3.4n - We are not aware of a product that can be dropped 75' without damage. Can the government indicate what it had in mind for this requirement? A) The intent is to ensure that the remote control systems that are used will not be easily damaged if they were to fall from the AWP onto the floor. 9. 1.3.4q - Can the government please provide the required distance between AWP's it is looking for under this requirement? A) The AWP shall be able to allow the personnel to work on the forward and trailing edge of the same aircraft wings. The distance shall be 20 feet apart. 10. 1.3.4r - Is it the governments intent for this requirement to apply to the tail section platform also? The existing tail platform is not utilized, why? How can we avoid making the same mistakes? A) Yes. The existing tail platform requires the aircraft to be re-positioned to access the tail section of the aircraft. The contractor shall design a system that will allow the tail platform to access the tail of the aircraft. The tail platform shall operate on a remote control unit that can lower the platform to the floor for access. Oftentimes, personnel must walk across the ceiling to access the tail platform when the remote control operations are not functioning properly. 11. In the South bay dock it was determined that the AWP's were coated with lead based paint generating disposal issues. Are there any other know hazardous materials in the North Dock or Is it the contractor's responsibility to determine if any additional hazardous materials exist. A) It should be assumed that the lead paint used on the South Dock AWP would be the same in the North Dock. The use of strontium chromate primers during aircraft painting operations is also hazardous. These platforms have been installed within the facility since 1979, there could potentially be other hazardous materials used during this timeframe that the equipment has been exposed to and the equipment shall be considered hazardous as identified in 1.3.2.3. 12. In the south bay the fuselage fall protection equipment was supported by the runway beams specified to be removed. Is it the intent of this contract to replace all of the fall protection in the North dock, including those over the wings? If so are those runways beams to be removed also? A) As indicated in 1.3.2.2 and 1.3.4g., Any existing fall protection systems located within the facility that are damaged, or required to be removed, determined to be unusable, during the demolition/installation of the contractors design for the AWP, shall be the contractors responsibility for replacement of the fall protection systems in accordance with current OSHA fall protection requirements and provide the proper certifications to the Government.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/OCALCCC/FA8126-15-Q-0001/listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Address: Bldg #2280, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, 73145, United States
- Zip Code: 73145
- Zip Code: 73145
- Record
- SN03606276-W 20150101/141230234118-540fd496e2e6ab416d4d299dee6e77be (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |