Amendment 3 Q and A 11192020_0003.docx

REHABILITATE MORAN WATER TRANSMISSION LINES & REPLACE MORAN WELLS

Amendment 3 140P1420R0006

PMIS 198970 & 249646

11/19/2020

1. QUESTION: Please reference drawing nos. C1.8, C1.9 and the conceptual drawing dated 10/14/2020. These three (3) drawings indicate 4” fire and 1” domestic water service lines to the Snake River Land Company. In actuality, these lines have been revised to a 6” combined domestic / fire service line via ASI no. 06 (see attached C300 drawing). RJS has provided a 6” pipe (C900) extending approximately 2-3’ outside the foundation wall.

ANSWER: The tree referenced in this question will be removed prior to the start of this project. A revised C1.8 will be issued with a detail for connecting to the SRLC.

2. QUESTION: for scheduling purposes is the governments thirty (30) day submittal review period accurate and what could be expected?

ANSWER: 30 days is the maximum time the government will take to review a submittal. It would be prudent to plan for at least 30 days, and giving extra time is also a good idea in the case that a submittal is rejected and has to be resubmitted.

3. QUESTION: we note that the project superintendent and the QCM can be the same person. Provided the project superintendent is considered a competent person, may he also serve in the role of the SSHO? What is considered acceptable as credentials for the competent person?

ANSWER: Acceptable credentials for a competent person for are determined by OSHA. Here is something from their website:

“An OSHA "competent person" is defined as "one who is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the surroundings or working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees, and who has authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them" [29 CFR 1926.32(f)]. By way of training and/or experience, a competent person is knowledgeable of applicable standards, is capable of identifying workplace hazards relating to the specific operation and has the authority to correct them. Some standards add additional specific requirements which must be met by the competent person.”

(https://www.osha.gov/competent-person#:~:text=An%20OSHA%20%22competent%20person%22%20is,CFR%201926.32(f)%5D.)

The contractor’s superintendent may also serve as the designated safety officer or as the competent person or, assuming they meet the applicable OSHA requirements.

Note: the question was answered with the assumption that “QCM” referred to quality control supervisor and “SSHO” referred to contractor’s designated safety officer.

4. QUESTION: is it the intent of the government to develop and provide a submittal register for this project?

ANSWER: No, the contractor shall provide and maintain a submittal register per 013323.2.3.A.

5. QUESTION: is there a proposed source of water for any hydrostatic testing that is to be performed?

ANSWER: Potable water is available onsite per 015000.3.2.C. For use of the water system during construction, contractor shall establish a temporary connection (max 50 gpm to prevent back siphonage in the water system) at the hydrant or other location with an approved backflow preventer.

6. QUESTION: there seems to be a discrepancy in manhole designations in CLIN 10 (item J of spec section 012700 – definition of contract line items). Please review and advise.

ANSWER: That is correct, 012700.3.3.J-K should read (changes in red):

7. QUESTION: is trenchless installation of conduit to be included under CLIN 07 or CLIN 09? It appears to be included under both CLINs.

ANSWER: Trenchless installation of conduit should only be included in CLIN #7. Section 012700.3.2.I. should read (changes in red):

8. QUESTION: Can the project superintendent serve in the role of the erosion control supervisor?

ANSWER: Yes.

9. QUESTION: please clarify the requirement for ‘a person trained, qualified, and licensed to perform repairs to the existing asbestos cement waterline…………………………………’

ANSWER: If asbestos waterline is encountered, a person who is trained, qualified, and licensed to perform work on it will be required. The as-builts do not indicate the material of the water mains (4” and 6”), but we believe it is ductile iron. Prior to work on any existing lines, the contractor is required to field verify the size, material, location, elevation, etc.

10. QUESTION: reference spec section 017340 – EXECUTION, para 1.2, C&D. Is this survey the responsibility of the general (prime) contractor?

ANSWER: Yes, the contractor shall perform stakeout and as-built survey or engage a qualified professional to complete the work.

11. QUESTION: has a staging / storage area been established for log bumpers, tent pads with timber edges, bear boxes, picnic tables, fire rings, wood posts with site numbers, log steps, wood stairs, log fence, etc. which are to be removed and re-installed?

ANSWER: It sounds like you are referring to 0124119.3.6.I. –note that most of site features are indicated on the construction drawings, assuming they were in place when the survey took place. There aren’t any tent pads, bear boxes, wood posts with site numbers, or wood steps in Moran. In the case of fences that will need to be removed in re-installed to make way for a water or sewer line; it may make more sense to stage them to the side of the trench rather than transport them to the staging area, but that will be left up to the contractor.

The staging area is indicated on L1.1.

12. QUESTION: spec section 312318 – ROCK REMOVAL indicates rock removal will be addressed through a modification process. No provision has been made for it in the Price Schedule but does the government want a unit price for any such removals?

ANSWER: Yes we will add an option item.

13. QUESTION: can required mockups be incorporated into the eventual finished product?

ANSWER: Yes, mockups for concrete paving and steel siding can be incorporated into the eventual finished product assuming they are approved. If they are not approved, they need to be replaced at the contractor’s expense.

14. QUESTION: has Lower Valley Energy (LVE) been made aware of this project or will they be hearing about it for the first time when the contractors call them?

ANSWER: Yes, LVE has been made aware.

15. QUESTION: General Note #1 on sheet G1.3 describes an existing Well No. 3 that is south of existing Well No. 1. Note states well is “currently the only supply for Moran.” Could we be provided a drawing showing location of existing Well No. 3?

ANSWER: Detail 2.G1.2 should be titled “existing well #3.” Well no.1 was located in the well house and has been abandoned. The top of the casing will need to be removed when the well house is demolished but it has already had the pump removed and been filled. Well no.3 is the well that is currently in use, supplying Moran with water. It will need to be demolished. There is a well at the Snake River Land Company that does not have a number assigned to it that is currently supplying that building with water while is under construction. No work associated with that well is included in this project.

To provide additional info on this question here is an excerpt from a report that is on file (Hydrogeology and Water Supply Wells Grand Teton National Park, Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRTR—2008/091). It contains some other information that might be helpful to well drillers so it is all included below:

16. QUESTION: is there any work required with Well No. 3? Will it remain in service or is it to be abandoned?

ANSWER: This has now been addressed in #15.

17. QUESTION: what work is required for existing Well No. 1 shown SE of the existing chlorination building on sheet G1.2? It appears this well currently supplies water to the storage tank. Will it remain in service or be abandoned?

ANSWER: This has now been addressed in #15.

18. QUESTION: Note 5 on sheet C1.0 says “utilities which will be abandoned …are indicated in profile with red X’s. No X’s are found on the water line profiles. Please clarify which existing water lines are to be abandoned.

ANSWER: If a service line to building is going to be replaced with the project, it can be abandoned in place. Existing water mains will all be abandoned in place.

19. QUESTION: sheets C1.5 and C1.10 appear to indicate new curb stops at existing water service lines south of QTR’s 1429 – 1435. Is this correct? Please explain further on the intended work in regards to taking these existing water lines out of service since new service lines are shown coming in from the North.

ANSWER: That is not correct, there will be new service lines and new curb stops at QTR’s 1429-1435. The new service lines come from the North and the existing service lines, which will be abandoned, come from the south.

20. QUESTION: sheet C1.10 shows new water meters at the QTRs. Pipe size servicing these buildings call out to be 1”. Detail 1/C3.1 is not for meters/lines smaller than 2”. Please include meter vault detail for meters on a 1” line.

ANSWER: The only buildings that get meters are the TCSD residence (1” shown on C1.5), the fire station (2”, shown on C1.5), the post office (1”, shown on C1.10), and the school (4”, shown on C1.10). The other residences do not get water meters. A meter vault detail has been added to C3.0.

21. QUESTION: There is not a clear instrument list, here is what I came up with: some of the TAG numbers I MADE UP!!!

a. T-610 Elect room temp

b. T-620 chemical room temp

c. LT-800N North tank level

d. LT-800S South tank level

e. PIT 630 with gauge incoming well pressure to well house

f. PIT 640 “

g. LSH 605 Water on floor

h. LT 200 Well aquifer level for well 200

i. LT 300 Well aquifer level for well 300

j. FIT 200 for incoming flow to well house

k. FIT 300 for incoming flow to well house

l. Unknown Chlorine alarm, see 7 above

m. Unknown (2) Cl2 levels…..what are these? See number 8 above.

ANSWER: Looks good and thank you. Our lead operator looked them over and says this will work for him. Please use this tag scheme.

22. QUESTION: please reference sheet L1.1 – Sitework & Grading Layout. Existing contours are unlabeled making it difficult to calculate the cuts / fills required to achieve required grades. Can this information be provided, or should the subcontractor assume a simple regrading and paving is sufficient?

ANSWER: Existing contours should have been labeled on L1.1, sorry for this oversight, however they are labeled on the C sheets and you may use the CAD files as well (XC_SURVEY_MORAN2018.dwg, XL_GRADING_IML.dwg).

23. QUESTION: Please confirm what bid line item should include the catch basin shown on sheet L1.0

ANSWER: CLI #13: SITE IMPROVEMENTS.

24. QUESTION: Existing - Conflict with existing waterline – This line may be in our way. I did read that we are to stay five feet away from it, but from what I can tell we have to cross it.

ANSWER: See note 3 on C1.0. Crossing of the existing water line will be permitted when 5 feet of horizontal separation cannot be maintained.

25. QUESTION: Pipe size - We need to confirm that the 4” carrier pipe will fit inside DR13.5 6” with spacers and likewise for the 8” carrier in DR13.5 10”. We normally put 4” inside 8” and 8” inside 12”. Also, the notes on the drawings on page C1.7 talk about 4” and 6” carrier pipes while drawing show 4” and 8”.

ANSWER: You are correct, note B.1. on C1.7 should read “for multiple bores casing pipe shall be min. 6-inch for 4-inch carrier pipes and 12-inch for 8-inch carrier pipe or the in. diameter required to accommodate center restraining spacers, whichever is greater.”

26. Drilling fluids – the last waterline project we worked on in the park, we ‘farmed’ our drilling fluids into spoils that I believe were backfilled into the trench. Our drilling fluids are water and WY native Bentonite – nothing else, except cuttings from the ground we bore through. Will this be acceptable. If not, can we vacuum drilling fluids and release somewhere into spoils somewhere nearby in park? If not, we can hire Badger to come from Pinedale once every day or two and haul off, but that will not be insignificant.

ANSWER: Per 330523.3.11.B., “Remove drilling fluid and dispose of appropriately outside the park.”

27. Area of disturbance - We would do multiple bores – not one – need to make sure areas of disturbance are adequate for setup and equipment. Without stakes it is hard to tell, but I could definitely tell the drawings are not very precise and the angles may be slightly off when we go to bore, which may change the setup area required. Especially if we move the drill rig over 5 feet for each additional bore. Also, in this is bore realignment. If we hit one of the sizeable boulders I know are in this area, the best route is to attempt another bore path to avoid that boulder, we will need some room to adjust. Also related to Area of Disturbance is that we need will need a “tailditch” at one end of the bore so that when we pull pipe into the bore, it comes in somewhat flat and straight – if the bore is ending at a turn and the area of disturbance goes with the turn, it may not be adequate.

ANSWER: The contractor may propose changes in the limits of disturbance for consideration by the government during the submittal phase and would need to include a justification for the change.

28. Boulders - If we do hit a boulder and have to pullback and realign, can we charge for the time spent? It is not our fault the boulder is there and there is no way to know without trying to bore. We had this allowance this year on a Teton County project to charge a fee for hours spent on a bore blocked by a boulder. We did not use this or charge anything – but it is logical.

ANSWER: It is assumed that you are talking about hitting a boulder during boring activities, in locations where excavation equipment cannot reach the boulder and where [rock removal spec number] is not applicable. If soil conditions are encountered that vary from what is currently known about soil conditions (for example; soil reports provided with bid documents) and the variation in condition results in cost or time impacts to the contractor, the clause 52.236-2 DIFFERING SITE CONDITIONS or similar would be applicable. See 312318 – ROCK REMOVAL for additional information.

29. Power - I don’t see anything about the bore for power – do we know what size conduit this needs to be?

ANSWER: The power bores will follow the water line and the three 2-inch conduits should be installed in one bore, separate from water lines. They can only be in one encasement pipe without ampacity deration if each conduit only has 3 current carrying conductors installed in each pipe for 9 conductors total between all three conduit.

A 6-inch encasement pipe (if PE is used – 5.58” ID for casing, 2.39” OD for conduit) will be required. Spacers are not required for power.

30. QUESTION: With 40’ screen set at 70’ and grout required to 30’ the grout is going to affect the screen. Please advise

ANSWER: Leave an adequate gap between the grout and the screen so that the grout does not affect the screen.

31. QUESTION: The pump spec’d will supply 34 GPM with 225’ of head, not 40 GPM. Please advise.

ANSWER: The Gould’s technical brochure (B5-85GSX R4) was used for selecting the pump. Additional explanation would be needed to understand how you arrived at 34 GPM, however we anticipate that the 45GS30CBM will be adequate.

32. please reference Section L – Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors, Factor 1: Experience & Past Performance. Are the project experience and past performance narratives limited to the prime contractor? There are scopes of work that will, by necessity, be managed by the prime contractor but performed by entities other than them. Would the submitted experience and past performance of these team members (in addition to our own) comply with the requirements of this Factor?

ANSWER: Experience of proposed subcontractors relative to this work is acceptable. If an offeror is using a sub’s qualifications and/or experience to demonstrate technical capability for this solicitation, the sub must be utilized during performance if the offeror receives the prime contract.

33. please reference Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors, Factor 2: Technical Approach & Schedule. As we develop our technical approach appropriately addressing the means and methods to complete all technical aspects of required work, we are finding that the two (2) page limit is limiting a proper narrative. Can this page limit be increased by the government?

ANSWER: Please consider this limit Increased to five (5) pages. On page 136 of 150 of the original solicitation, the following is revised: “Part A - TECHNICAL APPROACH: Technical approach is your means and methods to complete all technical aspects of required work in this solicitation. Submit a written narrative limited to 2 pages 5 pages (not including schedule) describing your technical approach to the overall scope, as well as the specific identification of critical milestones, activities, and risks associated with the work.

ADDITIONAL ITEMS:

1. An option item for removing trees with root wads intact (for a future stream restoration project) and cutting and liming of trees (poles) has been added. A revised 012700 (list of contract line items) will be issued with the next amendment, including the new option items and corrections mentioned in this amendment.

2. Please note that large scale tree removal (more than five trees in one week) should take place before May 1st or after August 1st. The procedure for flagging and removing trees is in 311000.3.1.B and will always apply. May 1st to August 1st is migratory bird nesting season and during that time park biologists will need to survey the trees before they can be cut. If migratory birds are discovered, the area will need to be protected and schedule impacts could result.

3. Please install electromechanical hour meters on the well pump panels (one per panel, two total) so that run time is displayed in the well house.

image5.emf image1.emf image2.emf image3.png image4.emf