Questions and Answers.docx

· Will Build America, Buy America requirements be in effect? It is unlikely that aluminum structural plate structures can meet these requirements as they are generally not mined domestically and don’t qualify as “manufactured product” for a number of reasons.

· The Build America, Buy America requirements will not be in effect for this contract.

· The 25’ Span x 8’-5” Rise Aluminum Structural Plate arch is not a standard size. The size listed on the plans, is actually closer to an aluminum box culvert shape, but still not a standard size. Perhaps you could clarify a minimum amount of hydraulic end area, before the structure is filled in with the stream rock, etc?

· The 25’ Span x 8’-5” Rise Aluminum Structural Plate arch shown in the design drawings is an estimated size, so alternate sizes are acceptable. An aluminum box culvert or an aluminum structural plate arch are acceptable structures for this contract. If the proposed structure requires spread footings, the design of the footings will be the contractor’s responsibility. The pay items listed for the project will not be adjusted for additionally incurred design costs, labor, material expenses, etc. associated with a concrete footing and these costs should be included in the contractor’s Schedule of Items under the Structural Plate Arch line item. The approximate waterway area within the structure will be 180 sq ft before any stream simulation material is added within the structure area.

· The Braun Intertec 12/5/2011 Geotech Report is referenced but doesn’t appear to be included in the bid documents on SAM.gov. Can you please include in the bid documents? Also….does this geotechnical report include subgrade bearing capacity recommendations for the aluminum structural plate bedding design?

· The December 5, 2011, Braun Intertec geotechnical evaluation report is now available on SAM.gov. A bearing capacity is listed in the report.

· The project specifications require the contractor to provide load ratings for the newly constructed structure. Would “design” (pre-construction) load ratings be acceptable as a substitute? These are commonly provided on similar MNDNR and MNDOT projects.

· The load rating to be supplied for the contract is a calculated load rating based on the design of the structure similar to MNDNR and MNDOT load ratings. A physical load rating after construction is not required.

· The project specifications reference that the aluminum structural plate structure must be designed for a maximum standard permit vehicle equivalent of 250 kips. Can you please provide the axle spacing and axle load distribution for this vehicle?

· The statement regarding the 250-kip load shall be disregarded in the design requirements of the structure. The structure shall be designed for HL93 vehicles and all Minnesota standard permit vehicles. The design load shall accommodate Minnesota Statute 169.826 Gross Weight Seasonal Increases and 169.8261 Forest Products Special Permit.

No. 1 – Bid Guarantee Requirement

Line 13(b) on page 1 of the Solicitation indicates that an *offer guarantee is required*. However, the Solicitation does not specify:

*the required amount of the bid guarantee (e.g., a percentage of the bid price with a maximum dollar cap, or a fixed amount), nor does the applicable FAR clause included by reference in the solicitation governing the bid guarantee requirement (e.g., FAR 52.228-1 *Bid Guarantee* or FAR 52.228-17 *Individual Surety—Pledge of Assets*).

Question:

Can the Contracting Officer please confirm if there are any Liquidated Damage assessments specific to this project?

---No

No. 2 – Geotechnical Information / Subsurface Conditions

The contract documents do not appear to include any geotechnical report, subsurface investigation, or soil boring data for the streambed or excavation areas associated with the structural plate arch, headwalls, or wingwalls.

Questions:

1. Has the Government conducted any geotechnical investigations, test pits, or soil borings at or near the culvert and headwall footing locations that would indicate whether:

* excavation to the required footing depths can be performed as common excavation, or

* subsurface conditions such as rock, unsuitable material, or excessive groundwater should reasonably be anticipated?

· The December 5, 2011, Braun Intertec geotechnical evaluation report is now available on SAM.gov

2. If such information exists, will it be made available to offerors?

· See the response to question 2-1.

3. If not, can the Government confirm that no subsurface investigation data is available beyond what is shown in the plans?

· A site geotechnical report is available. See the response to question 2-1.

No. 3 – Availability of Government Pit Materials (Osprey Pit / Thompson Lake Pit)

The Plans and Supplemental Specifications reference the Osprey Pit and Thompson Lake Pit as potential material sources, but note that material suitability is not guaranteed.

Questions:

With respect to either or both pits, can the Government please clarify:

1. Whether there are any estimated quantities of material that are currently earmarked, reserved, or reasonably anticipated to be available for this project, and

- The Osprey and Thompson Lake Pits are available for contractor use for this project, but the contractor is responsible for finding and obtaining the appropriate material. No material source has been earmarked, reserved or specifically identified for this project.

2. Whether materials from these pits are considered suitable—based on prior inspection or historical use—for any of the following pay items:

* Sandbag fill

* Placed Riprap, Method A, Class 1

* Placed Riprap, Method A, Class 3

* Aggregate Surface Course

If no quantities are reserved or guaranteed, please confirm that offerors should assume no minimum availability from these pits when preparing their bids.

· No testing has been done on the material in the Osprey and Thompson Lake Pits to determine whether they are suitable for this project. Availability of material from the government owned pits for this project is not guaranteed.

No. 4 - Manufacturer Equivalency Are alternate manufacturers for the corrugated aluminum structural plate arch acceptable, provided they meet FP-14 and contract requirements, or is a specific manufacturer implicitly assumed?

· No manufacturer is specified for the project. An aluminum box culvert or an aluminum structural plate arch are acceptable structures for this contract. If the proposed structure requires spread footings, the design of the footings will be the contractor’s responsibility. The pay items listed for the project will not be adjusted for additionally incurred design costs, labor, material expenses, etc. associated with a concrete footing and these costs should be included in the contractor’s Schedule of Items under the Structural Plate Arch line item. The approximate waterway area within the structure will be 180 sq ft before any stream simulation material is added within the structure area.

No. 5 - Progress Payment Basis Will progress payments for major items (e.g., structural plate arch, concrete) be based on percent complete, or only upon full installation?

· Progress payments will be considered based on percentage of completion. Payment for materials can be made once onsite.

Additional Clarifying Questions (Estimate-Related)

To further ensure consistent bid assumptions among offerors, we respectfully request clarification on the following:

1. Subsurface Assumptions:

Can the Government confirm whether the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) assumed common excavation for headwall and wingwall footing construction, or whether any allowance was/will be included for rock excavation, unsuitable material, or dewatering beyond normal groundwater control?

· The structure excavation pay item shall account for all excavation encountered during construction and related dewatering. The structure excavation pay item was developed using the information provided in the solicitation, e.g. geotechnical report, design drawings, FP-14 and supplemental specifications. There is also a pay item to account for temporary diversion of the creek during construction.

2. Material Source Assumptions:

Did the IGCE assume the use of Government pits (Osprey Pit and/or Thompson Lake Pit) for riprap, aggregate, or other materials, or was the estimate developed assuming contractor-provided commercial sources?

· The IGCE used pricing from completed project historical data for projects in the region to develop a cost/unit. Specific government pits or commercial material sources were not used for the IGCE for this project.

3. Quantity Sensitivity:

In the event that subsurface conditions or material availability differ from those implicitly assumed in the estimate, does the Government anticipate addressing such conditions through contract modifications and equitable adjustments in accordance with the contract terms?

· This contract is a fixed-price construction contract. An equitable adjustment may be made to the contract if the estimated quantity is 15% above or below the actual quantity according to FAR 52.211-18 Variation in Estimated Quantity.

If unexpected subsurface conditions are encountered, e.g. ledge rock, the contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer of the unexpected conditions, and the Contracting Officer will consider modifying the contract.