Attachment10_QuestionsandAnswers1_3Jul2024_0003.pdf

Solicitation Inquiries

Solicitation: 140L0624R0040 Title: GAOA Nome Creek Road Repair

Inquiry number

Document (Drawing, Spec, Attachment, Solicitation) Page/Sheet/

Section Question Government Response 1 Drawing B-0001 The road typical section in the plans shows common fill on the side slopes, the take off table on sheet B-001 does not show a common fill quantity. Is there an estimate for common fill?

Provide the quantity estimate or cross sections/ Cad Files to calculate it.

The common fill (as shown on dwg C261 detail 2) is shown as a disposal location for excess material. There are no quantities generated for common fill as part of this design. No quantities or CAD files are available to calculate common fill beyond what is currently in the solicitation.

2 Drawing B-0001 Is it possible to get the autocad design files to verify the quantities listed or any additional subsidiary quantities not listed in the table on B-001. Provide the Cad Files or cross sections if CAD is not possible.

The gravel quantities for this job are lump sum and the project will be paid for as lump sum. The estimated quantities are intended to be used as estimated amounts for bidding purposes only. No CAD files nor cross sections will be part of the solicitation.

3 Spec 31 20 00 -1 Page 31 20 00 -1 states: section 1.1 B. “Provide project weighing system for all specified Crushed Aggregate Surface Course and Selected Material Type B as indicated and as specified herein. “ The quantity table is in Cubic Yards for these items, and the bid item is in Lump Sum, is there a scale requirement on this job? A certified scale is an added cost if it is not needed on a L.S. job. However, it does make it so there is no argument about placed quantity. Would be up to BLM intention with the L.S. contract, see 4.

Specification section 31 20 00 - 1.1 B and 1.3 D for scales weighing systems are applicable. The intent is to weigh the crushed surface to verify the entire road (and applicable awarded additives) will receive 4 inches of crushed surface as well as the 10,000cyds of curshed surface material will be used in the reclamation of the gravel pit.

4 Spec/Drawing 31 20 00 -1/B-

If there is a quantity over run or under run from the quantities listed in the plans and specifications, is this the contractors risk? The contract appears to be L.S., not unit price, just want to ask upfront how the owner views the provided quantity table and scale language in the specifications.

The project is lump sum and to be bid as lump sum at the contractor's risk. See Government response #3 for scale clarification.

Title: GAOA Nome Creek Road Repair

Inquiry number

Document (Drawing, Spec, Attachment, Solicitation) Page/Sheet/

Section Question Government Response 5 Spec/Drawing 31 20 00 -4/B-

For the structural fill shown in the typical the specs on 31 20 00 -4 state: “E. Structural Fill: Same as Selected Material Type B.”, then below that it states “F. Selected Material, Type B. Per SSHC, Section 703

2.07, Type B and Section 703

2.09 grading A.” In the state highway spec, these are 2 different materials, the table 703-2.07 is called select material type B, and lists only a #200 requirement. The table on 2.09 is a sub base material and for grading A has a gradation requirement beyond the 200 screen that could require more processing than select type B. Is the correct interpretation that structural fill needs to match both of the listed tables?

Stating that the material needs to meet the sub-base table 703-2.09 makes it clear to all bidders what is required, if the intent is that the structural fill is actually Sub-base grading A as defined by SSHC and not Select material type B.

The specification is correct for structural fill as selected Material Type B. The material is to meet both 703-2.07 and 703-2.09 Grading A.

6 MX01 & MX02 At the site visit, I believe it was mentioned that there would be an addendum to show revised reclamation plans for the material site, to include littoral zones. I did not see this revision and just wanted to check on it. Wanted to make sure all material site reclamation requirements are known at bid time, especially if a contractor bids that was not at the site visit.

See Attachment 1A MX-01 and MX-02 drawings.

7 Solicitation 1. Is it possible to delay the proposal due date to beyond the holiday weekend after the 4th of July, it will be difficult to gather vendor quotes ahead of the due date for culverts etc.

with a lot of them closed for the whole long weekend.

2. Is it possible to extend the question deadline to beyond the deadline of the 21st of June?

An amendment has been previously issued to extend both the question due date and proposal due date.

Title: GAOA Nome Creek Road Repair

Inquiry number

Document (Drawing, Spec, Attachment, Solicitation) Page/Sheet/

Section Question Government Response 8 Solicitation L-9 Volume 3: Factor 2, Past Performance, item (d) states that

“For past performance references of federal projects, the Government will retrieve all completed Contract Performance Assessment Report (CPARS), therefore, past performance submissions by offerors shall not include any contracts for which a CPARS was accomplished.” Will the government please clarify if this statement prohibits offerors from submitting past performance references of federal projects that have a completed CPAR?

Solicitation Sections L & M related to Past Performance have been revised.

9 Solicitation L-9 Volume 3: Factor 2, Past Performance, item (d) states that “For past performance references of federal projects, the Government will retrieve all completed Contract Performance Assessment Report (CPARS), therefore, past performance submissions by offerors shall not include any contracts for which a CPARS was accomplished.” Will the government please clarify if this statement means offerors submitting federal projects that have a completed CPAR do not need to submit a PPQ or CPAR in the proposal?

Solicitation Sections L & M related to Past Performance have been revised.

10 Solicitation L-9 Volume 3: Factor 2, Past Performance, item (d) states that “For past performance references of federal projects, the Government will retrieve all completed Contract Performance Assessment Report (CPARS), therefore, past performance submissions by offerors shall not include any contracts for which a CPARS was accomplished.” Will the government please clarify if this statement means that offerors do not have to request a PPQ for federal projects that have a completed CPAR?

Solicitation Sections L & M related to Past Performance have been revised.

Title: GAOA Nome Creek Road Repair

Inquiry number

Document (Drawing, Spec, Attachment, Solicitation) Page/Sheet/

Section Question Government Response 11 Solicitation Section L-5(b)(1) states, “The government intends to award a single contract to the offeror submitting a proposal under the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process defined in FAR Part 15.” Section M-1 states, “Best value permits a trade-off between technical, past performance and price in reaching the award decision in which competing offerors technical assessment ratings and past performance history, when combined, shall be evaluated approximately equal to price.” Will the Government please clarify if this proposal will be evaluated under the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process or the best value trade-off source selection process?

The Government intends to award a single contract to the offeror submitting a proposal utilizing the best value trade-off source selection process. Solicitation Section L has been amended accordingly.

12 Solicitation Will the Government please clarify if offerors are required to submit evidence of a formal teaming arrangement (i.e., fully executed teaming agreement) for its proposed key subcontractors? If yes, will the Government please specify where offerors are to include this information and exclude it from the page limit?

Evidence of a formal teaming arrangement is not required.

13 Solicitation Will the Government consider extending the proposal due date to July 22 to allow offerors time to review responses to questions and adjust their proposals accordingly?

An amendment has been previously issued to extend the proposal due date.

14 Solicitation Will the Government consider changing the recency definition from five (5) years to seven (7) years? Doing so will provide the Government with a more accurate view of relevant projects, as many projects were delayed or canceled due to the COVID- 19 pandemic.

Solicitation Sections L & M related to Past Performance have been revised. However, recency remains five years.

Title: GAOA Nome Creek Road Repair

Inquiry number

Document (Drawing, Spec, Attachment, Solicitation) Page/Sheet/

Section Question Government Response 15 Specification 312000-3.15-C-1 requires the contractor to correct settling issues, should they occur. Will this work be compensated for as a change?

The drawings show three (3) areas along the Ophir line of soft and settled embankment that are anticipated needing some over excavation and fill replacement. Areas outside those may qualify as change orders. The 700 feet of soft and settled embankment are show at stations 592+00 to 595+00, 629+00 to 630+50, and 508+50 to 521+00. In the event the criteria of subgrade inspection are met according to specification 31 20 00-3.5 and the process of the changes clauses are met, than a change may be approved.

16 Schematic Design Plan sheet A-002 appears to indicate a number of bore holes were investigated along the alignment. Please provide this information.

See Attachment Schematic Design. The bore hole information is part of the preliminary design called the "Schematic Design".

17 Drawing The estimate of quantities shown on sheet B-001 do not appear to have any obvious correlation to the quantities indicated on the “F” sheets. Please provide copies of all available quantity calculations.

The gravel quantities for this job are lump sum and the project will be paid for as lump sum. The estimated quantities are intended to be used as estimated amounts for bidding purposes only. No CAD files nor cross sections will be part of the solicitation.

18 Please provide cross sections of existing conditions and planned improvements.

All available cross sections and existing conditions available for bidding purposes are included in the solicitation.

19 Geotech Report and Schematic Design

Were any gradation analyses performed on the samples recovered from the borrow site exploration? If so, please provide those results.

See Attachments Geotechnical Report and Schematic Design;

for all available geotechnical information that is part of this solicitation.

20 B-001 Does the 31-acre clearing and grubbing acreage indicated on plan sheet B-001 include the borrow areas?

Yes. The Clearing and Grubbing acrage of B-001 includes the borrow area.

21 Please indicate the clearing, and the grubbing limits on the typical sections.

No further delineation for clearing limits are to be shown on the typical sections for this solicitation. The clearing line varies with existing conditions and is often confusing to delineate. The intent was identify the limit lines with a neat line on overhead views as in drawing C-232.

Title: GAOA Nome Creek Road Repair

Inquiry number

Document (Drawing, Spec, Attachment, Solicitation) Page/Sheet/

Section Question Government Response 22 31 10 00 1.3 C Specification 311000 indicates clearing is only required for trees greater than 3” trunk diameter, and foliage 24” above the ground surface. Leaving foliage from 0” to 24” above the ground surface may not present a viable surface to receive embankment and will not facilitate any grubbing of areas to receive embankment. Please clarify if this is the intent or not.

Change Specification section 31 10 00 1.3 C. from "Also includes shrubs braches, limbs, and all foliage 24 inches above the ground surface" to "Also includes removal of shrub branches , limbs, and all foliage 0 inches to 24 inches above the ground surface.

23 Geotech Report Geotechnical Findings Report: Were there any sieve analysis’s and gradations performed on the samples referenced in this report? If so, can these please be provided?

See Attachment Geotechnical Report for all findings of the Pit location. See also Schematic design for Bore holes and sampling near the pit.

24 Solicitation Section M - Evaluation Factors p 39 of 41

Is there an empirical (scoring) process to be used for the evaluation of the proposals? If so, could that scoring process be shared?

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria provided in the solicitation and will conform to the procedures established in the acquisition and source selection plan.

25 We would like to dig some test holes asap in the new borrow sites shown on the drawings for this project. Are there any special considerations or permissions that we need to make that happen?

Test holes may be dug in the new borrow sites shown on the drawings for this project. Contractor to send itinerary of digging to rmoretz@blm.gov in advance. The contractor shall comply with all Clean Water Act and Safety rules and guidelines. The contractor shall clean and restore any area disturbed.

Sheet1