B09_Attachment_13_Q_A_Amendment_002_0003.docx
DOCX document 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- CERC Phase 2 A3 Bldg Stabilization Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 140G0124R0022
About this file
This document is a set of Questions and Answers (Q&A) related to Amendment 002 for Solicitation 140G0124R0022 for the CERC Phase 2 A3 Building Stabilization project.
The key details are:
- Respondents had questions about accounting for additional costs if deeper foundations are required due to weaker soils, where to include unit rates for excavation, the intent of deductive bid items, the scope of work to be priced, and other technical details.
- The government provided responses, including that additional costs for deeper foundations will be addressed in a future amendment, unit rates should be provided separately, deductive bid items allow the government to accept or reject scope reductions, and the full scope in both the drawings and specifications must be included in the bid.
- The document also addresses other technical details such as the thickness of existing concrete and structural slabs, reinforcement in the structural slab, the potential need for a separate line item for supporting a specific column, and utility locating requirements.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 18
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
140G0124R0022 Amendment 002 Q&A
1. Based on the soil conditions in the geotechnical report, we estimate the design capacity can be achieved at about 28 feet deep. However, from experience, some times weaker soils are encountered, requiring us to drive helicals deeper until suitable bearing soils are found. How should we account for additional costs if this is required?
Response to be provided in pending Amendment 003.
2. Section 012200 of the specs mentions unit rates for excavation and hand excavation. Where in the submission documents should this be included?
The Spec 12000 Unit Rates requires a separate cost per unit to be provided in the bid for additional work beyond your bid price, if needed. You can include this information in your own format or manually add unit pricing to bid form in separate field.
3. Can you please clarify the intent of the deductive bid items?
MP-BE 8/20/24 response: Deductive Bid Option 1, spec 01 23 00 – BID OPTIONS, requires alternate deductive pricing to omit the scope of work listed. This provides the Government the option to accept or not accept that reduction.
4. The attached bid schedule available with the bid documents. The schedule shows several divisions that are not included in the specifications. Should we limit our pricing to the items in the project specifications?
MP-BE 8/21/24 response: No, the bids shall include all work included in both the drawings and the Project Manual (specifications). No restrictions or limitations are acceptable. The bidders shall be responsible for the full scope of work in their total n-bid amount, regardless of the bid schedule breakdown provided.
5. What’s the thickness of the existing concrete pavement that is to be removed?
MP-BE 8/20/24 response: Assumed to be 4” to 5” thick.
6. What’s the thickness of the existing structural slab to be removed?
MP-BE 8/20/24 response: Assumed to be 6” to 6 ½ ” thick.
7. Does the use of the phrase “structural slab” mean the portion of slab marked as this on the drawings is reinforced? If so, what is the existing reinforcement?
MP-BE 8/20/24 response: Assumed to be reinforcing bars each direction as is typical for a slab on grade at the existing slab shown to be removed.
8. Can the designer provide the volume of imported fill needed to establish proposed grades? We currently do not have the software for this. We figured we’d ask before purchasing.
If an estimate can be provided by the time Amendment 003 is posted, this will be provided.
9. During my site visit, it appeared (I did not measure with a level) that the 4 inch pipe column that is to be supported by 3 helicals in the basement may be stable, relative to the slab surrounding it. The cost of underpinning this column will be significantly higher due to the limited space available for equipment, materials and activities. Is the government open to separating the work associated with this column into a separate CLIN?
We have no objection if you want a separate line item for this.
10. Can seeds and straw be use instead of sodding?
MP-BE 8/20/24 response: No.
11. Will a stabilized construction entrance be required? If so, where?
Sheet G100, Site Map and Phasing Notes at the upper lefthand corner of that sheet lists the entrances to remain open during each phase of construction. As described, no construction work is to be done at those entrances during each phase to assure easy entrance and egress for all Government staff and visitors at all time.
12. The drawings indicate helical pile underpinning in the southwest (Col. Lines A/5.6 to A/8) and southeast (col. Lines K/5 to K/8) corners of the building. During the site visit, there appeared to be several underground utilities in this vicinity. Can additional civil drawings showing the existing utilities be provided?
MP-BE 8/20/24 response: No. The existing drawings requested are not available from the facility. SECTION 01 10 00 – SUMMARY, 1.14 Ground Penetrating Radar Survey, indicating a survey required at all areas of work prior to starting construction. Refer to Sheet C100, Utility Notes for additional requirements. Refer to Sheet A101, Ground Floor Plan, revised 8/20/24. See the note at the southwest corner to ‘Scan for utilities and hand dig this area’ This note applies to all work in this area. See also keynote 01.00 also requiring ground penetrating radar at all areas of the perimeter of the building.
*Reference Drawing Revision.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .