Amendment_No._5_-_Responses_to_Questions_Received.pdf

140P2018R0001

Amendment No. 0005

Responses to Questions Received, and additional information provided for, Timpanogos Cave

May 16, 2018

Question (1): This is a corrected answer to a previously answered question.

I have attached a few items, typical drawings, design loads, and the cut sheet for the Maccaferri 500 kJ rockfall barrier. Maccaferri is the only competition to GeoBurgg in the United States, and our rockfall systems are tested and certified in the European sector by ETAG 027 the same as the GeoBrugg systems. We would like clarification that the Maccaferri RMC 500 kJ system is approved ‘as equal’ for the purpose of bidding the rockfall barrier portion of the Replace/Relocate Timpanogos Cave Visitor Center that bids on May 16th.

Answer: The Maccaferri system is not accepted as it does not meet the design requirements as specified.

Question (2): This is a corrected answer to a previously answered question.

Is there a written specification available for the fabric on the Courtyard Shade Structure and the Safety Ranger Station Structure? The only reference found is on A9.7 "PVC-Coated Polyester Fabric Light Gray".

Answer: Provide PVC Coated Polyester Fabric - Basis of design TMI, LLC PVC Coated Polyester Fabric - 22 oz. Minimum performance clasificaiton; Minimum Tensile Strength: Warp - 625 lbs/sq.in, Weft - 575 lbs/sq.in. Minimum Tear Strength: Warp - 100 lbs, Weft - 80 lbs. Fabric Weight: Minimum 6.0 oz/sq. yd. Yarn (Denier): 1300x1300D. Thickness: 0.22" min. Color: Grey or Tan as selected by Contracting Officer from manufactuter's full color selection.

Question (3): Are the rock nails, soil nails, nuts and plates required to be epoxy coated or have any other type of corrosion protection? If so please specify corrosion protection required.

Answer: The ground environment has been considered non-aggressive and sacrificial steel has been allowed as a precaution in the nail design. The nail head components will be embedded in a finished concrete wall and have not been considered at risk.

Question (4) – Who is responsible for face stability while excavating the slope?

Answer: Face stability during wall excavation is the contractor’s responsibility as noted in the Soil Nail Wall Construction section of the specifications, subsection Preparation of the Terrain/Construction Stability. This item is further addressed in the Soil Nail Wall Notes on Sheet C5.4.

Question (5) - Shotcrete overbreak could be a significant quantity. Is the contractor responsible for all over break or will the owner pay for overbreak above specified quantity?

Answer: This is the contractor’s responsibility.

Question (6) - Can the C.I.P. Concrete Facing be substituted with a float finish or stamped finished shotcrete facing.

Answer: This proposal will not provide the intended finish desired to match the other sitework and architectural concrete finish. True board form concrete finishes techniques are desired.

Question (7) - Specification 32 06 31, Subsection 1.2, states that the contractors bidding should review geotechnical reports dated August 5, 2016 & June 17,2016. Where can these reports be found?.

Answer: In Specification 32 06 31, Subsection 1.2, delete the incorrect reference "along with the Geotechnical Design Report dated June 17, 2016." See all of the correct Geotechnical Reports from the Specifications 01 11 00 Summary of Work Subsection 1.10 attached to this amendment for reference.

Question (8) - 2 curb inlets are shown on plan C3.1, however no pipe connection is shown on one to east. Please clarify.

Answer: Correct, the eastern curb inlet shown on plan sheet C3.1 is a sump (no pipe connection for this structure). On plan sheet C3.1 this east curb inlet includes a call-out that reads “Curb inlet, precast sump structure, see detail sheet C9.22.” Sheet C9.22 provides greater detail as to what this sump structure looks like.

Question (9) - Quantities on drawing C5.2 and C5.3 do not match the unit of measurements found in 2.4.a and 2.4.b on the CLIN schedule. Please clarify the basis of measurement for soil nails found on the CLIN schedule if it is not quantity x depth.

Answer: After reviewing our quantity take-off calculations it appears the Soil Nail Placement line item is missing another zero. Use a quantity of 3,200 LF for the Soil Nail Placement line item.

Please refer to the nail schedules on plan sheets C5.2 and C5.3 for nail layout and length information.

Question (10) - There is no CLIN for the shotcrete wall or the retaining wall attached to the anchors.

Under which CLIN item should these be included?

Answer: This work should be included in Contract Line Item No.2 which is to include all work outside the boundary of Contract Line Item 1 including road relocation, soil nail and rock nail retaining walls and parking development.

Question (11) - When will answers be posted? We would ask the government extend the bid date 1 week after questions are answered to accommodate any changes that may need to be incorporated into the bid.

Answer: The due date for receipt of proposals has been extended to May 23, 2018 at 2:00 PM MDT.

Question (12) - Can the environmental manager have other responsibilities?

Answer: Per Specification Section 01 26 01, the Environmental Manager may be a shared responsibility with Quality Control and/or Safety Officer. This person must meet the requirements set forth in Specification Section 01 31 00 - 1.8.

Question (13) - Can key subcontractor projects be used in the technical proposal to show competency and experience in place of one of the General Contractor’s projects?

Answer: No.

Question (14) - Will we need park passes? Likewise, will subcontractors need park passes?

Answer: There will be no fee required at the information station and we can issue passes as necessary for construction equipment and personnel.

Question (15) - What happens to the schedule if the contract is not awarded on time (Aug)? The asphalt plants will more than likely be closing before paving could be finished if the project is not awarded on time.

Answer: If the asphalt road cannot be completed before the asphalt plants close for the season, the work may be sequenced for the spring OR a UDOT approved temporary paved road will need to be provided until conditions are appropriate to pour the final asphalt as follows:

1. 12’ wide paved temporary lanes, no shoulders would be required

2. 7” thick asphalt (this could be decreased on a case-by-case basis; however, the UDOT standard is 7”)

3. No millings or a different type of temporary surfacing would be acceptable.

4. Contractor will be responsible for the asphalt condition through the winter shut-down (i.e. if a pothole develops, the contractor must fix it)

5. Temporary traffic control must be maintained throughout the winter period

6. If there is an obstruction within the clear-zone there must be barriers around the object.

Question (16) - Please confirm that small businesses will not require a contracting plan.

Answer: Small business firms are not required to submit a subcontracting plan.

Question (17) - Because this is a federally procured project, will background checks or E- Verifications be required for subcontractors?

Answer: There are no secure areas in this project that will require this effort.

Question (18) - Will the government be responsible for snow plowing in the winter?

Answer: SR-92 is plowed by the state typically within a day of a storm. Park will plow its own parking lots and spaces and Contractor is expected to plow within the indicated limits of work.

Question (19) - It was mentioned during the site visit that Past Performance Questionnaires, NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaires (Form PPQ-0), already received would be allowed for Factor 2 – Past Performance of the Technical Proposal. Can the government confirm this is allowed and that they are acceptable to use in lieu of the “Past Performance Questionnaire” provided in Amendment 01.

Answer: This is acceptable provided the questionnaire is submitted by the client/evaluator reference directly to the Contracting Officer as stated in Section L, Factor 2 – Past Performance. Also consider currency and relevance.

The following attachments are provided with this amendment:

1) Terracon Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report, dated August 5, 2016.

2) Terracon Geotechnical Design Report Rockfall Mitigation and Relocate UT-92, dated February

26, 2016.

3) Kleinfelder Geotechnical Investigation, dated January 10, 2011.

4) Rockfall Mitigation Measures, Geotechnical Design Report #UT-PX-TICA-13-01, dated July

2013.