140R4021R0009_Clarification_Questions_-_Round__1_28JUL21_0005.docx

140R4021R0009 – Q&A Responses 28 July 2021 140R4021R0009 Clarification Questions (Round #1)

1. Are the solicitation and all its attachments considered Controlled Unclassified Information" (CUI) and subject to the standard CUI regulations?

Reclamation Response: The solicitation and amendments are public information and not classified. Contractor proposals in response to the solicitation are considered CUI. No proposal information will be shared with any other contractor, or personnel without a need to know, and FAR 3.104 (procurement integrity) is strictly followed. Only internal government personnel see this information and the data cannot be shared without permission from the proposing entity.

2. Might the Question Deadline be extended beyond 7/22?

Reclamation Response: Amendment 0004 extended the question deadline to 7/29. Amendment 0005 extends the date to 5 August 2021. No further extensions can be granted past 5 August 2021 due to government time limitations.

3. Spec 33 11 13, 2.02, A, allows for the use of Ductile Iron Fittings, is there a maximum degree bend allowed?

Reclamation Response: If ductile iron piping is proposed, standard bends and pulled joints will be needed to produce a plan and profile alignment very similar to the shown plan and profile. Joints that are shown as restrained joints will also need to be restrained in the ductile iron pipe design. A maximum standard fitting of 45 degrees will be allowed on the Line Pipe.

Note: Please review coating requirements in the contract specifications for ductile iron pipe 09 96 20 Tab 6.

4. Spec 33 11 13, 2.02, A, 4, states “Plan, profile and restraint system shown on drawings require modification if ductile iron fittings are used.” What does this mean, in practical terms, for the contractor? What are the extents of the required modifications?

Reclamation Response: If ductile iron piping is proposed, standard bends and pulled joints will be needed to produce a plan and profile alignment very similar to the shown plan and profile. Joints that are shown as restrained joints will also need to be restrained in the ductile iron pipe design.

Note: Please review coating requirements in the contract specifications for ductile iron pipe 09 96 20 Tab 6.

5. Spec 33 11 13, 2.02, A, allows for the use of Ductile Iron Fittings in lieu of the detailed Miter Bends. If the contractor opts to use Ductile Iron Fittings these would be provided in standard angles of 11-1/4°, 22-1/2°, & 45°. Would the contractor be required to match the number of Miters detailed for the bends? For Example: @ Sta 121021+03, a bend is called out with 76°52’01” deflection, this is called out as having a 5-piece Miter Bend. With Standard fittings this could be done with a 11-1/4°, a 22-1/2°, & a 45° totaling 78°45’0”. Would this be acceptable?

Reclamation Response: The Contractor must propose a new detailed alignment that closely accomplishes the design alignment by using standard fittings and pulling joints to create small bends to get the pipe back on the design centerline. Pipelaying diagrams are a submittal requirement and will detail the bends and deflections as needed to accomplish bend angles as shown on the drawings. Pipelaying diagrams are subject to Reclamation approval and required before installation can begin.

Note: Please review coating requirements in the contract specifications for ductile iron pipe 09 96 20 Tab 6.

6. Spec 33 11 13, 2.02, A, 1, refers to Ductile Iron Fittings per AWWA C110. Would Compact, Short Body Fittings per AWWA C153 (industry standard) be acceptable?

Reclamation Response: No, compact fittings are not considered appropriate for a transmission pipeline due to the short bend radii of the compact fittings.

Note: Please review coating requirements in the contract specifications for ductile iron pipe 09 96 20 Tab 6.

7. Spec 33 11 13, 3.04, A, 1, states “Total departure from established alignment and grade, maximum: 1-inch.” If Ductile Iron Fittings are used could this tolerance be increased to accommodate standard fittings?

Reclamation Response: The Contractor must propose a new detailed alignment that closely accomplishes the design alignment by using standard fittings and pulling joints to create small bends to get the pipe back on the design centerline.

Note: Please review coating requirements in the contract specifications for ductile iron pipe 09 96 20 Tab 6.

8. On the 1442, the Offeror’s pricing is noted as good for 60 days. On page 92 of the RFP, it is noted that pricing is to be held for 120 days. Please clarify which is correct.

Reclamation Response: The 120 days is correct. The 1442 was corrected in RFP amendment 0003.

9. On page 35 of the RFP, Economic Adjustment Clause, it is noted that PVC Pipe will be included for adjustment. On page 46, Alterations to the Contract, PVC Pipe is not noted. Please clarify.

Reclamation Response: Page 46 was updated to include PVC Pipe in RFP amendment 0003.

10. On page 87 of the RFP, the BOR discusses the acceptance of VE proposals, submitted with the Offer. How will the VE proposals be evaluated? If the VE proposal post award is reviewed in detail design and method/performance and the BOR does not accept the VE, has the BOR created an unfair pricing advantage for the awarded KTR?

Reclamation Response: This solicitation is a best value award that requests alternate means and methods prior to award. The proposals will be evaluated as proposed by individual contractors based on how each firm chooses to respond. Reclamation requests that all contractors, See Sections L&M of the solicitation, propose on the base project, and then if it perceives an item to be of value, a firm can choose to propose alternate approaches.

No unfair pricing advantage is created, or perceived to be created, in a best value selection process. Please provide your best and final offer in response to the RFP. If a VE proposal is not accepted, the base proposal is used for evaluation. The government is pursuing the best value, price equal to technical, to meet its requirements. This is not a lowest priced competition and award may be made to other than lowest priced proposal. The government reserves the right to award to the proposal that provides the best value to the government.

See Section M, WBR 1452.215-84 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD – QUALITY AND COST/PRICE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL – BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ALT I MAR 2021:

“The price evaluation will be based on the total evaluated price (TEP), or an alternate TEP if the technical narrative supports it and Reclamation determines it is advantageous to the government.”

And under Master Plan 1 – General Technical Approach:

“if alternate approach is chosen the relevant specification sections affected are listed and includes an explanation of why/what needs to change; team selection is tailored to this requirement; shows submittal process and accounts for appropriate Government review times in schedule; includes manufacturer product names; includes subcontractor names, duties/roles, and percentage of first and second-tier subcontractors; describes permitting/environmental compliance more than superficially; demonstrates understanding of cultural sensitivity for the local land and plan to limit impacts to project schedule should archaeological discoveries be encountered; , understanding of what is required for as-builts and survey data while work is in progress/progress payment requirements; on-site drawing keeping/record-keeping; installation; commissioning; schedule is free of conflict from the proposal and work breakdown structure is logical; includes the base requirement and then proposes alternate methodology; propose means/methods for cost savings opportunities/innovation; demonstrates a commitment to quality control program with a binding promise to follow it; as well as application of industry best standards/reasonable work methodology....Should include alternate approaches if applicable and concise narratives on why an approach is favorable, etc., or unfavorable.”

11. On page 92 of the RFP, the BOR is requesting pricing assumptions and estimating technique narratives. Where will this information be included in the proposal, and does the information count against page limitations? How will the BOR evaluate the information provided?

Reclamation Response: It will be included in Volume III. The title of “Volume III” was added in RFP Amendment 0003. This does count against the page limitations, see page limitations and exclusions within WBR 1452.215-81 Proposal Instructions, (k)(5) & (6) on page 84 of the solicitation. The information will be evaluated as stated in WBR 1452.215-84 Evaluation Factors for Award, Volume III, Pricing Proposal Analysis, (a, b, & c), page 101. See FAR 15.404 as called out in this section for further details, overview is completeness, reasonableness, and total evaluated price as called out in the solicitation.

12. Spec 33 11 10, 1.02, b, 1, b allows Ductile Iron Pipe for the Steep Line. But detail sheet 60176 mentions only Butt-Welded Steel Pipe. When installing DIP at these locations would a restraint gland (i.e. a Megalug) embedded in the concrete collar be acceptable in lieu of the Welded Steel anchor Ring?

Reclamation Response: No, Megalugs and equivalent devices based on bolt/pipe wall engagement are not acceptable for use in a concrete collar. A ductile iron pipe can be ordered (from at least two ductile iron pipe manufacturers) with a steel thrust collar welded to the ductile iron pipe segment. Welding of a thrust ring onto ductile iron pipe is typically performed only in the factory due to the stringent welding requirements for ductile iron.

Note: Please review coating requirements in the contract specifications for ductile iron pipe 09 96 20 Tab 6.

13. In the DWGs there are a few Bends that do not appear in the Miter Bend tables: sta 122111+32, w/ 2" ARV; sta 122239+23, w/ 6" Blowoff; & sta 122241+68. These bends seem to require bends, or are there angles to be attained with pipe, alone?

Reclamation Response:

Horizontal bend angles below 10 degrees and vertical bend angles below 5 degrees are intended to be achieved through pipe deflection, therefore they do not appear in the miter bend tables. The bend mentioned at Sta. 12241+68 is at Sta. 12241+66.48.

14. Section 33 21 95/ 2.01.L.1 - Request that Straub Open-Flex 3.5 split-sleeve coupling be included as an allowed product under this paragraph. The Open-Flex 3.5 product meets or exceeds all of the performance requirements laid forth in the specification, including AWWA C227 compliance, and is comparable to the Victaulic Style 230/232 ordered in a 2-pc configuration (as specified).

Reclamation Response: Product approval that meets or exceeds all performance requirements will be evaluated after award during the submittal process of specific materials.

15. Spec 331113 makes no reference to Polywrap per AWWA C105. Previous NGWSP Reaches have required Polywrap and/or V-Bio polywrap. Please confirm that no Polywrap will be required if Ductile Iron Pipe is used.

Reclamation Response: Ductile Iron Pipe coating is required by Specification Section 09 96 20, paragraph 3.10, Tabulation No. 06. Polywrap and V-Bio polywrap are not specified for this project.

16. Please provide CAD files for this project; specifically, the Existing Ground and assumed rock surface files in DWG or XML formats.

Reclamation Response: CAD files will not be provided during the solicitation period. The files will be provided to the successful awardee if requested during performance of the contract.

17. How much money does the 40% represent?

Reclamation Response: 40% of the final award amount.

18. The RFP says that 40% of the funding is available for 2022, 50% for 2023, and 10% for 2024. It is our understanding the Government's fiscal year starts/end in September. Does this mean that 90% of the funding will be available in September of 2022?

Reclamation Response: The Federal Government fiscal year funds October 1st to September 31st. So yes, it is estimated that 90% of the project will be funded by the end of September 2022. But this is only an estimate and may be adjusted as the project proceeds and will be based on actual burn rates and costs.

19. Will the Government extend the questions deadline? Contractor requests an extension for submitting questions. We have not received all questions from subcontractors and vendors. We suggest August 19th as a deadline for questions.

Reclamation Response: The 19th is not feasible for Reclamation. The deadline is extended to 5 August 2021 in amendment 0005.

20. Is the contractor required to pay both New Mexico gross receipt tax and Navajo Nation tax? If so, what is the current Navajo Nation tax rate?

Reclamation Response: Each contractor must use its internal tax experts to determine what taxes are to be paid at contract formation. Reclamation will not assume the role of tax advisor for contractors. Reclamation will reimburse taxes included in the proposal that were present when the contract was formed. See FAR Clause 52.229-3 – Federal, State, and Local Taxes for further information.

21. 1695-D-60113 - Sheet notes on 1695-D-60113 specify "...see For Information Only drawing 1695-D-310…". No such drawing exists in the released set. Please provide sheet 1695-D-310.

Reclamation Response: See, “Attachment__2_Dwgs_06-16-2021_0001.pdf”, Page 105 of 133 in the released PDF package for drawing 1695-D-310.