Amend_0003_-_Attach_1_-_answers_to_questions_140FC323B0002_0003.docx

Amendment 0003 Solicitation No. 140FC323B0002 Title: Construct Phase III Sucker Fish Ponds at Klamath Falls NFH, Klamath County, OR

(List is an updated consolidated list of answers to all questions received to date)

Answers to questions on amendment 0003 are as follows:

Question 1: As a pond netting specialist. I have a few questions about the netting system design. Would an alternate design be acceptable? I have designed and installed ponds all over the US including fish hatcheries. Michigan State Fish Hatchery has 6" square steel posts with 3/8" wire(no counterweights) and 4" netting as an example. It is in the Upper Peninsula with a heavy snow load potential. I believe a similar system would work great for Klamath Falls. Going to a 3/8" cable offers 2 benefits as it is cheaper, lighter and allows for stainless steel hog rings to secure the netting. This system can have the netting as up at 7-10ft in the air. (depending on post depth, soil conditions and Concrete.) We can also install elevated Netting at 15-20 ft high with telephone poles.

Response to Question 1: The USFWS encourages innovation in the execution of construction projects, alternative designs for bird netting system can be proposed after contract award. An alternative design would need to address all design constraints, including but not limited to the following:

· Appropriate for the loads and site conditions.

· Suitable for the soil characterization provided by the Geotechnical Engineers.

· Limited space from the top of the pond dike to the road, in some locations.

· Proximity of posts to the top of the dike.

· Ability to support snow and ice loading.

However, contractor shall bid the solicitation as currently designed.

Question 2: Is the demolition of existing ponds and piping for the base bid plus bid options to be included in the base bid line item on the bid schedule, or is the demolition to be separated per base bid and into their respective bid option line items?

Response to Question #2: Demolition is to be separated out by the base bid and respective bid options.

Question 3: On the above project, we greatly appreciate if you could consider naming EDGENG as an approved Manufacturer in the specification OR approve us Equal Status on this Project, in order for us to forward our proposal for the FRP scope of work, which has developed cost-effective and durable alternatives for Stainless Steel Products.

Response to Question 3: Once the contract is awarded, the contractor awarded the contract can utilize a product substitution process.

Question 4: At the site visit it was mentioned that this project will not kick off until phase 1 and phase 2 contracts have been completed, which is estimated to be in 1 year. Please confirm this statement.

Response to Question 4: At the site visit phasing of the work associated with this contract was discussed. Aspects of the phase 3 construction cannot begin until certain aspects of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction, currently under contract are completed and those contractors can consolidate their operations outside the phase 3 work area. Phase 3 construction is expected to run concurrently with some aspects of the current phase 1 and phase 2 construction projects as well as future phases of construction that have yet to be awarded such as the new well that will be drilled at the lease site.

The current ¼ acre ponds in the Phase 3 area must remain operational until fish can be relocated to the completed Phase 1 ponds, currently estimated to be completed in the late summer/Fall of 2023. Phase 1 includes a retaining wall that serves as the NE border of the Phase 3 construction area and needs to be completed to avoid conflicts between the phase 1 and phase 3 contractors.

For the Phase 3 soliciation, contract award is estimated to be in Jun 2023. Pre-Construction meeting and NTP will follow in early July. Materials submittals are estimated to take 45 -90 days which would have the phase 3 contractor placing material orders in Aug/Sep. Typically weather prohibits earthwork at the site from late Oct to Mar/Apr annually. If the contractor places materials orders Aug/Sep, with current supply chain issues, they could begin to arrive in Feb/Mar 2024 for installation. This would have the phase 3 construction contractor mobilizing when weather allows in early 2024. This would be the period where the contractor would have full access to the site. If there was work that could be completed without disrupting existing contractors in the fall of 2023, this would be allowed by the USFWS through the contractor coordination process. This process involved the USFWS and all affected contractors meeting and reviewing schedules to provide access in a way that does not impact each other or incur additional costs to the government.

Question 5: With this project potentially not starting for 1 year, how long are offerors expected to hold their pricing?

Response to Question 5: Please see response to question 4, solicitation is a firm fixed contract at time of award.

Question 6: When does the government plan on issuing the Notice To Proceed? Will this be following award or after Phase 1 and Phase 2 have been completed?

Response to Question 6: NTP is estimated to be issued in Jul after pre-construction meeting. Within 2-3 weeks of contract award currently estimate for Jun 2023.

Question 7: Given the current market, subcontractors will only hold their pricing for a short period of time, especially for commodities such as steel, electrical equipment, etc. With this project having a three-year period of performance that may not kick off for another year, how is the government planning to manage material price escalation? Will this be handled after award are should offerors include 3-4 years of price escalation in their current bid?

Response to Question 7: The USFWS does not dictate means and methods for construction contracts. The PoP is provided to allow contractors maximum flexibility in scheduling their work. The USFWS allows contractors to complete work prior to the contract PoP. If a contractor completes the required work in Phase 3 prior to the contract’s PoP, they can request final payment and close out of the contract.

Question 8: Will the project shut down over winter months, November to April?

Response to Question 8: For this solicitation, USFWS is not dictating that the project shut down over winter months. The site must remain accessible for USFWS staff conducting hatchery operations in the phase 1 and 2 areas at all times. However, site and soil conditions dictate what work can be completed during the winter months. The diverse and dynamic soil across the side presents significant challenges during the snow and wet times of the year for certain aspects of the phase 3 work. Contractors will be allowed to work through winter months if they do not disrupt hatchery operations or other contractors at the project site and can provide a realistic work plan that demonstrates they can make project progress during the winter months.

Question 9: Will soil spoils remain on site after this phase is complete or will the spoils need to be hauled offsite?

Response to Question 9: Spoils will need to be hauled offsite.

Question 10: Based on the details given (detail B on sheet 21 and sheet 48) the netting posts/foundation start within the subgrade and rise above the surface; I don’t see it sitting on the liner. There will need to be an attachment. If the intent is for post to sit on the liner, they will need to confirm. Can you please submit the following questions to the contact?

1. Can you confirm liner will be placed on top of ramp within each pond? (i.e. there will be no use of batten around the access ramps)

2. Per detail B on sheet 21 and detail B on sheet 48, netting posts will be placed within ponds subgrade and rise above the surface, interacting with the liner. What is the desired method of attachment of the liner onto the netting post column (i.e pipe boot, batten bar, etc)?

3. Per detail A on sheet 48, a pulley counter weight will be placed at top of slope perimeter. Can you please confirm this foundation will not interfere with the liner anchor trench? To avoid any protentional failure in the liner system, it would be recommended that the counter weight is placed beyond the anchor trench so it does not perforate the liner.

Response to Question 10:

1. Ramps are earthen with liner placed on top of ramp. No use of batten in this area.

2. Attachment to the liner could be accomplished via pipe boot or batten bar connection as shown on C2.10.

3. The foundation for the pulley system does interfere with the anchor trench. There is not adequate space to place the foundation outside of the anchor trench. Pond liner to be attached to foundations for pulley system.

Question 11: A question on the GS piping. Addendum #5 in Phase 1 and Phase 2 allowed 304 and 316 stainless steel along with other material for the geothermal line in division 33, but the specification for this phase of the project is only TP410 and TP 430 stainless steel. Would 304 or 316 SS be allowed in this phase as it was for the others?

Response to Question 11: ASTM TP 304 and 316 SS Schedule 10, seamless or welded stainless steel pipe is allowed in this phase of the project. Updated specification section 31 00 00 removes TP410 and TP430 and includes 304 and 316 stainless steel.

Question 12: Sheet E0.1, page 49, details A, B, and C reference 1” fiber stubs to each pond. On sheet E1.1, page 51, there does not appear to be fiber stubs going to any of the ponds.

Response to Question 12: E1.1 shows fiber conduit runs originating out from the Hatchery Building towards the ponds. E0.1 details how those homerun conduits branch out from the handhole location to each pond.

Question 13: What type of grounding electrode system is intended for transformer XKP2 and panel KP2, referencing detail A of sheet E0.1, page 49.

Response to Question 13: Provide 3/4" x 8'-0" copper-clad steel ground rods and #8 Cu grounding electrode conductors.

Question 14: Detail A of sheet E0.1, page 49, shows a 2” fiber stub conduit. This does not translate to the conduit schedule for the handhole on sheet E1.1, page 51.

Response to Question 14: Correction needed here: “ 2”conduit stub” should be revised to correspond to 1” fiber conduits noted on E1.1 site plan.

Question 15: It appears there is 480-volt rated wire from panel “DP1” and low voltage communication wire sharing the handhole vault between ponds D4 and D5 on sheet E1.1, page 51. Is this the intent, or should there be system separation?

Response to Question 15: Fiber can share handhole with 600V-rated wiring.

Question 16: On detail 2 of sheet E1.1, page 51, there is a new 3” and 2” conduit chases shown leaving the handhole. These two conduits are not shown elsewhere in the plans, where do they go?

Response to Question 16: Pathway was moved to Phase 2 scope and needs to be deleted here.