140R4021R0009_Clarification_Questions_-_Round__4_18AUG21_0008.docx

140R4021R0009 Clarification Questions (Round #4)

1. Sheet 1695-D-60197 - Please provide the anticipated settlement magnitude for the dynamic joints outside of the McKinley Surge Tank. Reference General Note 16 Sheet 1695-D-60179.

Reclamation Revised Response:

Revision to Question #4 of Amendment 0006, Round 2.

Anticipated settlement for the McKinley Surge Tank should be close to zero based on the sandstone that is anticipated to be beneath the tank, and the pile foundation that will be designed for the tank foundation. However, the foundation design is the requirement of the tank subcontractor and their professional engineer.

Manufacturer’s settlement requirements for the Dynamic joints have changed. Joints are being replaced with different Victaulic Style Couplings. See revised Drawings and specs for new couplings and pipe length requirements included in Amendment 0008.

2. I recently reviewed the project for the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply, and the vault insulation jackets specified in Section 03 48 10, part 2.06. Is there any more information regarding the quantity and scope for the vault insulation jackets?

Reclamation Response: Scope for the vault insulation jackets is shown on drawings with precast manholes. Also, additional scope was added to Section 03 48 10 2.06 for vault jacket. This revision is included in Amendment 0008.

3. Spec 33 11 10, 2.01, E, 2 refers to “Petroleum Resistant Gaskets… in accordance w/ 33 05 21”, yet 33 05 21 makes no reference to Petroleum Resistant Gaskets. Please clarify where Petroleum Resistant Gaskets will be required, if at all.

Reclamation Response: Petroleum resistant gaskets are not required since reaches do not cross any petroleum pipelines and do not cross petroleum contaminated soils. This reference will be deleted. See revised Specification 33 11 10 included in Amendment 0008.

4. Section 33 05 22/ 2.04.D – Requirement stated for (2) flexible couplings w/ articulating steel pipe at every connection between HDD pipe and (convex up) vertical miter bends. However, Sheet 1695-D-60251, Note 2 allows for fused joints on connecting HDPE line pipe in lieu of thrust block and articulating steel pipes with flexible couplings. Request response to the following:

· Can the (2) flexible couplings and thrust block for the connection between HDD pipe(s) and vertical (convex up) miter bends be omitted if steel pipe is chosen as the HDD pipe material? Note that on Sheet 1695-D-60252, miter bend table, thrust blocks are not required for the HDD option and restrained (fused) joints are mandatory. The steel pipe option would be functionally the same.

· Similarly, as implied with HDPE line pipe material, can the requirement for (2) flexible couplings and thrust block for the connection between line pipe and miter bends (vertical & horizontal) be omitted if steel pipe is chosen as the line pipe material? (Note: the bend @ STA 121021+03.99 would be excluded per Sheet 1695-D-60149, Note 5)

Reclamation Response:

Drawing 1695-D-60251 is specifically for Line Pipe installations, as noted on both Sections w/ leaders calling out “Line pipe”, and not applicable to HDD miter bends.

For HDD miter bends at the connection to Line Pipe, two options are permissible:

1. Bend force resisted by pipe with restrained joints.

2. Bend force resisted by a concrete thrust block.

Refer to revised Section 33 05 22 – Horizontal Direction Drilling included in Amendment 0008 for details.

5. Section 35 21 95/ 2.01.N.1.a - Grooved mechanical couplings are required to meet AWWA C606 standard. Victaulic W77 AGS flexible couplings do not meet the dimensional requirements set forth under AWWA C606, Table 5 for rolled groove ends. Furthermore, there is no 'equal' to the AGS line of products available; the roll groove geometry is proprietary. Please clarify:

· Does conformance to AWWA C606 govern or is it being waived such that Victaulic couplings can be used?

· If conformance to AWWA C606 governs, can a coupling that meets all of the requirements of this section, such as the Gruvlok Fig. 7001-2 flexible coupling manufactured by Anvil International, be considered an 'equal' and thus acceptable for use on this solicitation?

Reclamation Response: The AWWA C606 requirement will be removed from the specifications. Other couplings that meet all the requirements in revised specification Section 35 21 95 2.01 N. 1. may be submitted. The revision is included in Amendment 0008.

6. Geotechnical Report, Please provide minimum embedment for frost protection for the tank footing.

Reclamation Response: Use a frost depth of 3.5 feet.

7. Specification Section 33 42 30 – Corrugated Metal Pipe Culverts, part 2, section 2.01, paragraph B – Sheet Thickness, refers to the drawings and specifies a thickness of 0.064-inches for the pipe. The page number of these drawings are not mentioned in the Specification Section. Can you please state what page the 24” CMP drawing referred to is located on?

Reclamation Response: The 24-inch CMP is found on Drawing 1695-D-60155.

8. Per DWG 1695-D-60258, the temporary construction easement for STA 122217+68.18 to STA 122246+87.46 expires on June 27, 2022. Addendum 03 Section F Part F.2 52.211-10 states that NTP for Reach 12.2 is anticipated for no later than June 3, 2022. Will there be an extension to the permit. Please revise expiration dates in an addendum.

Reclamation Response: This specific area does not have a temporary construction easement expiration date. The date on the plans is an error and has been removed. See the revised drawing in Amendment 0008.

9. Spec 33 11 10, 1.02, b, 1: implies that Line Pipe includes pipe from Reach 12.2 (Start to End) “Except for pipe within McKinley Surge Tank Yard shown as “Steel Manifold Pipe”. Would another Exception include pipe from the Black Hat Tank Yard shown as “Steel Manifold Pipe”?

Reclamation Response: Reach 12.2 Line Pipe begins at the end of the Black Hat Tank Yard with a connection to the steel manifold piping for Black Hat Tank, therefore the Black Hat Tank Yard pipe shown as “Steel Manifold Pipe” is not an exception for Reach 12.2 Line Pipe.

10. Spec 33 11 10, 1.02, b, 1: states that Line Pipe (Item 2-30) includes pipe from Reach 12.2 Black Hat Water Overflow and Drain Line from sta 6+85.89 to 20+73.53. But per spec 33 11 10, 1.01, D & E: Items 2-32 & 2-33, Combined 24-inch and XDR32.5 HDPE DRAIN PIPE seem to incl. (at a minimum) Fittings and Utility Markers for this same pipe. Please Clarify what Bid Item the HDPE Drain Pipe (Including Fittings) is to be paid in.

Reclamation Response: Two new CLINS have been added to the bid schedule. See revised specification 33 11 10 for delineation. The revision is included in Amendment 0008.

11. Plan sheet 60275, Section A calls for 16” DR17 HDPE Drain Pipe, elsewhere this same pipe is called out as SDR 32.5. Please clarify the DR Rating for the 16” Drain at the Baffled Outlet.

Reclamation Response: Drawing 1695-D-60275 has been amended to show a DR Rating of 32.5 at the Baffled Outlet. The revision is included in Amendment 0008.

12. HDD run questions:

· Will steeper entry angles be allowed to accommodate the larger drill rigs required to perform these runs ? 7 degrees is unattainable

Reclamation Response: Yes, steeper entry and exit angles more consistent with typical HDD angles (11 to 18 degrees unless otherwise approved by COR) may be considered as part of the Contractor's HDD design proposal response to section L.15 Master Plan 1 d. Alternate Methodology. Please see the revised requirements for alternate trenchless technology of Section L of the solicitation – WBR 1452.215-81, (K)(m) Volume II, d. labeled alternate methodology for more clarification, which has been revised in Amendment 0008.

· Drill lengths as currently drawn will need to be longer entering and exiting at grade, this will require some of the equipment to sit outside of the current work limits. Will additional temporary easement space be obtained by the owner to make these drill runs constructable?

Reclamation Response: Bore lengths may be adjusted per notes on drawings to meet the required Temporary Easement limits of the project. No additional temporary easements will be offered, unless otherwise approved by the COR. Please see the revised requirements for alternate trenchless technology of Section L of the solicitation – WBR 1452.215-81, (K)(m) Volume II, d. labeled alternate methodology for more clarification, which has been revised in Amendment 0008.

· Several of the drills have bends near the beginning or end of the drill run and the alignment shifts drastically not leaving a long straight piece of right of way to string and weld the HDD pipe in order to do the pullback. Will the owner be securing temporary easements at these locations to string and weld this pipe in a straight line and make the HDD install constructable?

Reclamation Response: Additional temporary easement is not planned for this work. Layout, fusing, and preparation for pullback will need to be accomplished in the existing temporary easements provided, unless otherwise approved by the COR.

· Several of the drills have horizontal PIs in the middle of the drill path, the pipe cannot make the required bend in the horizontal radius and still stay inside the right of way. Drills will also need to be redesigned to eliminate any compound curves that occur when the pipe is bent in the horizontal and vertical direction at the same time. Will the owner take care of this redesign prior to the project bid date or will the selected contractor be responsible for correcting the design once the project is awarded?

Reclamation Response: The Contractor will be responsible for designing and submitting for approval an HDD bore path/profile consistent with their equipment and installation means & methods as part of their proposal response to section L.15 Master Plan 1 d. Alternate Methodology. Please see the revised requirements for alternate trenchless technology of Section L of the solicitation – WBR 1452.215-81, (K)(m) Volume II, d. labeled alternate methodology for more clarification, which has been revised in Amendment 0008. Variations of the bends shown within the HDD segments may be accomplished using radius bends or other methods to meet the required Line Pipe tie-in points (also subject to approved Contractor design).

· Based on preliminary pressure curve calculations is appears the line will need to be deepened to eliminate any inadvertent releases of drill fluid to the surface. Will the owner take care of this redesign prior to the project bid date or will the selected contractor be responsible for correcting the design once the project is awarded?

Reclamation Response: Contractor will be responsible for design of the drill fluid system, as well as the pressures and depths created using their installation means & methods. Increased depth, decreased fluid pressures (as possible), and other means of controlling IFR's along the HDD borepath will be considered as part of the Contractor's proposal response to the HDD design under section L.15 Master Plan 1 d.

· The fiber optic conduit required on the pullback is extremely risky in HDD and may be damaged. Does the owner have an alternate method of install planned for the fiber optic conduit to eliminate this potential issue ?

Reclamation Response: No alternate installation methods of the fiber optic line will be designed by the Owner, but the Contractor may propose an alternate installation method during the Submittal process for consideration by the Government. See Section L of the solicitation – WBR 1452.215-81, (K)(m) Volume II, d. labeled alternate methodology for more clarification.

· Will bentonite be allowed to remain in the annulus for a grouting medium ?

Reclamation Response: Yes, bentonite is allowed to remain in the annulus for use as a grouting medium.

· What are the actual OD and ID of the HDD carrier pipe ?

Reclamation Response: ID and OD of the HDD carrier pipe are subject to the material selection of the pipe by the Contractor and the pipe diameter and the pressure requirements at each HDD location shown on drawings 1695-D-60262 – 1695-D-60270.

· 12” steps are required for reaming, can this be increased by the HDD contractor ?

Reclamation Response: No guarantee is made by the Government that larger HDD reaming passes/steps will be acceptable during the Submittal process, however reaming passes/steps larger than 12" may be considered by the Government if they are shown to offer a value to the project. Please include as an alternate methodology along with reference to other successful larger reaming “steps” from other projects in your proposal response to section L.15 Master Plan 1 d – Alternate Methodology, provided in Amendment 0008.

13. Can other HDD runs be considered for trenchless excavation? The specification only identified the run from station 122217+53 – 122236+87 to be considered for trenchless excavation. (The specification line has a note on the sheet that alternate technology will be considered.)

Reclamation Response: Reclamation will consider alternate trenchless technologies provided that the HDD vertical and horizontal tolerances specified are met. Reclamation encourages innovative technologies during the RFP process to bring value and cost savings to the project. Drawing 1695-D-60268 was revised in Amendment 0006. Please see the revised requirements for alternate trenchless technology of section L.15 Master Plan 1 d. Alternate Methodology, provided in Amendment 0008.

14. Is the 4-lane paved road at station 122207+14 truly open cut, or was this an oversight? Can we contractor use alternate installation methods to avoid traffic disruptions?

Reclamation Response: This was an oversight. Section 33 05 21 – Bored Utility Crossings, Drawing 1695-D-60258 and 1695-D-60159 were revised to include a jack and bore crossing for the 4-lane paved road at Station 122207+14. This revision is included in Amendment 0008.

15. Spec 33 11 10, 1.02, B, 1, b, 1, STEEP LINE PIPE, mentions ONLY Steel and Ductile Iron Pipe. Does this mean that HDPE and PVC are EXCLUDED for the STEEP LINE PIPE sections?

Reclamation Response: Steep Line Pipe shall be metallic pipe per Specification 33 11 10 1.02, B, 1, b, 1).

16. Drawing 1695-D-60123: “Do not drive equipment or vehicles over Kinder Morgan gas lines.”

Where can the contractor locate the Kinder Morgan crossing agreement, referenced on drawing 1695-D-60123, note 2?

Reclamation Response: The agreement with Kinder Morgan has not yet been finalized. However, the stipulations for work in-and-around Kinder Morgan infrastructure are provided as an attachment to these amendment 0008 responses. The Kinder Morgan crossing agreement is based on bore and jack installations as shown in the drawings.

17. Per page 33.11.10, section 3.06A.02: “In certain pipeline reaches, where determined necessary by OGR to prevent the possibility of flotation, do not lay more than 300-LF of pipe ahead of backfilling operations.”

A.) Between what stations in reaches 12.1 and 12.2 will the contractor be allowed to lay more than 300-LF of pipe ahead of backfilling operations?

Reclamation Response: Reclamation will accept proposals/plans for alternative methodologies for allowing more than 300 lf ahead of backfilling operations, providing that no more than 100 lf of trench remains open at the end of the day’s operations. Any approved plan would be subject to ongoing review by the COR during implementation.

B.) Can the HDD cuttings be spread on the right of way to dry and blend in, or will they need to be hauled away to a special facility for disposal?

Reclamation Response: HDD cuttings will be handled as stated in revised Specification 33 05 22 – Horizontal Directional Drilling 3.04 L – Disposal of Fluid and Cuttings.

C.) Will additional compensation be given each time more dust palliative is needed on the right of way after the initial application?

Reclamation Response: Only one application of dust palliative is anticipated for the project. Per Section 31 02 30 – Dust Palliative 1.01 A 1 a., only palliative applied in ROW areas approved by COR will be paid.

D.) It is understood that the easements on reach 12.2 are not secured and will not be secured until approximately June 2022. The contract duration of 812 calendar days starts on the initial on-site work notice to proceed. Based on real-time experience on our current project, the local rock is exceptionally treacherous and time-consuming to excavate, resulting in poor daily production rates. If the estimated date of June 2022 is missed, will the contractor be granted a time extension to compensate for the construction days lost on Reach 12.2? If not, is the contractor allowed to pre-dig the rock before the notice to proceed for site work on Reach 12.2?

Reclamation Response: If the estimated Notice to Proceed date of June 3, 2022 for Reach 12.2 is missed, a time extension would be considered to compensate for potential delay of the Notice to Proceed on Reach 12.2, if requested. However, no pre-work will be allowed on Reach 12.2 before Notice to Proceed for Reach 12.2 has been issued.

18. Reach 12.2, sheet 5 of 7 indicates the temporary easement along the path of the HDD run will expire on 6/27/2022. Addenda 003, page 12 of 18, states NTP for site work for 12.2 could be issued as late as 6/3/2022.

A) Is it intended to only provide the 24-day window for this work, or will these dates be modified in future addenda?

Reclamation Response: This specific area does not have a temporary construction easement expiration date. The date on the plans is an error and will be removed.

B) Reach 12.2 has several temporary easements that expire in September 2022; if the June 3rd NTP date is noted on Addenda three, page 121 of 28 slides, will the September date slide accordingly to allow the contractor adequate time to complete the work?

Reclamation Response: No, the expiration dates of these temporary easements cannot be extended. In the case that work through these easements extends beyond the expiration date, installation of pipe will be restricted to the permanent easement widths. Reclamation is working to secure remaining easements as quickly as possible and plans to issue NTP for Reach 12.2 once those are all secured, possibly earlier but no later than June 3, 2022.

19. According to Specification Section 33 11 18 - HDPE Pressure Pipe, the preferred testing method is the Tensile Impact Method. To our knowledge, this method requires very specialized equipment that may only be available at the McElroy facility. Can an alternative method be used that meets more of the industry standard such as the Bend Method or Standard Tensile Method?

Reclamation Response: Reclamation verified other facilities can perform the Tensile Impact Method. Alternative methods will not be considered.

20. With the strong requirements for testing, referencing the "Zero Leakage" requirement in specification 33 11 10 Part 3.10.8 for 96 hours long, how will factors like generally allowable leakage of slip joint pipe and changes in temperature be addressed during the testing period?

Reclamation Response: See revised Specification 33 11 10 – Pipeline General Requirements, for testing requirements. Per 33 11 10, 3.10, A, 8, a, 1), a) “Test pressure shall not drop by more than 5 psi during test period.” There is no allowable leakage of slip joint pipe.

21. The expected date to receive NTP 3 runs close to the temporary construction easement expiration dates of Reach 12.2; specifically the area defined as STA 122217+68.18 to 122246+87.46. Can the latest date for NTP 3 be moved forward to prevent scheduling conflicts with temporary easement expirations?

Reclamation Response: This specific area does not have a temporary construction easement expiration date. The date on the plans is an error and has been removed as part of the revised drawings included in Amendment 0008.

22. On sheet 1695-D-60149, it is defined that the listed metered bends (except for the one at STA 121021+03.99) may be restrained "or" use a structural thrust block. Does this mean all joints must be restrained between the Station numbers specified in the table and the thrust block can be eliminated? And vis-versa, if no restraint is provided, the thrust block is required?

Reclamation Response: Yes, joint restraints or thrust blocks are required, but not both.

23. Section 33 11 30/ 2.01.B.1.a – requesting buried pipe <=4”Φ may be coated in accordance with Section 09 96 20, Tabulation 05.

Reclamation Response: In revised Section 33 11 30, 2.01, B, 1, a, Pipe 4-inches in diameter and smaller shall be galvanized, unless buried. Buried pipe 4-inches in diameter and smaller shall be coated in accordance with Section 09 96 20. Section 33 11 30 has been revised and is included in Amendment 0008.

24. Section 35 21 95/ 2.01.C.1.a – requesting buried pipe <=4”Φ may be coated in accordance with Section 09 96 20, Tabulation 05.

Reclamation Response: In Section 35 21 95, 2.01, C, 1, a, Pipe 4-inches in diameter and smaller shall be galvanized, unless buried. Buried pipe 4-inches in diameter and smaller shall be coated in accordance with Section 09 96 20. Section 35 21 95 has been Amended.

25. Section 35 21 95/ 2.01.D – requesting steel pipe fabricated in accordance with AWWA C200, and meeting all of the requirements of Section 33 11 12, is acceptable for use as a steel pipe manifold material. C200 meets & exceeds all requirements of ASTM A139.

Reclamation Response: No, Steel Manifold Piping needs to meet the requirements of Section 35 21 95 – Steel Manifold Piping.

26. Section 35 21 95/ 2.01.L – requesting steel miter bends & fittings fabricated in accordance with AWWA C208 & M11 are acceptable for use as a steel pipe manifold materials.

Reclamation Response: Miter bend and fittings fabricated in accordance with AWWA C208 and M11 meeting all the requirements of Section 35 21 95 and as shown on drawings is acceptable. Revised Section 35 21 95 – Steel Manifold Piping has been amended to incorporate AWWA C208 and M11.

27. Sheet 1695-D-60117 - reference the HGL elevation given @ STA 121217+80 – 7181.40 FT. The HGL elevation downstream @ STA 121250+00 = 7191.93 FT. As there is no pumping facility between these two stations, there should be no rise in system head. Please verify the HGL elevation @ STA 121217+80 Sheet 1695-D-60120 - reference the HGL elevation given @ STA 121364+50 - 7167.28 FT.

Reclamation Response: HGLs at Stations 121217+80 and 12364+50 were out of date and have been removed from the revised drawings (1695-D-60117 and 1695-D-60120).

28. The HGL elevation downstream @ STA 121400+00 = 7175.06 FT. As there is no pumping facility between these two stations, there should be no rise in system head... please verify the HGL elevation @ STA 121364+50 (perhaps a typo.. should read 7176.28?)

Reclamation Response: HGL at Station 12364+50 was out of date and has been removed from the revised drawing (1695-D-60120).

29. Drawing 1695-D-60251 Note 2. Reads “HDPE line pipe with fused joints may be installed without thrust blocks if restrained (W) is provided.”

Would this same note apply to a steel line pipe option if the steel pipe is restrained by welding and the length (W) is provided for the steel line pipe?

Reclamation Response: Yes, this applies to steel line pipe as well. Drawing 1695-D-60252 has been revised to clearly define the restraint methods for miter bends.

30. Does the 15' minimum distance between the water main and 2" FO HDPE have to be maintained through bored and HDD sections? If not, what are the requirements?

Reclamation Response: Through the HDD sections, the 2-inch HDPE conduit for fiber optic cable is to be pulled following the HDD installation; the 15-foot and 20-foot minimum distances are not required in the HDD sections. Upon exit of the HDD sections, the 2-inch HDPE conduit for fiber optic is to go back to the 15-foot or 20-foot minimum distance.

31. On sheet 60138 there is a detail plan in the Black Hat Tank Yard and references sheet 60179 which shows a completely different piping lay out coming out of the storage tank. Can you specify which layout is correct?

Reclamation Response: The manifold piping layout that is shown on 1695-D-60179 is correct. Drawing 1695-D-60138 has been revised to show the correct manifold piping layout.

32. In the coating specification section 09 96 20-22, Tabulation No. 06 specifies that cast iron vault lids must be coated with NSF 61. Can this coating requirement be waived? (BS)

Reclamation Response: Cast iron vault lids have been replaced with steel manhole cover, and Section 09 96 20 – Coatings have been updated to allow a non-NSF-61 coating where applicable.

33. Spec 09 96 20, Tabulation #6 requires NSF 61 Certified Coating on “all associated fasteners to include nuts, bolts, washers, and anchors”. Will ALL buried Fasteners (Nuts, Bolts, and Washers) require this coating?

Reclamation Response: No, refer to revised Section 09 96 20 Note 1 in Tabulation #6 which requires materials in contact with potable water be NSF 61 Certified. Also refer to Tabulation #5 for exterior nuts, bolts and washers.

34. Spec 09 96 20, Tabulation #6 requires NSF 61 Certified Coating on “Interior and exterior of cast iron vault lids or covers”. These Lids/Covers will be cast into concrete Lids. Will this coating only be required on exposed surfaces, or will they need to be coated prior to casting into the precast concrete lids.

Reclamation Response: Surfaces embedded in concrete need not be coated.

35. 26 42 10 - There is conflict on the distance from bottom of anode to bottom of the Black Hat Tank on the drawings and within the spec section. Should 20' anodes be 9'-9" from bottom of tank and 3' anodes be 7'-6" from bottom of tank?

Reclamation Response: Reclamation doesn’t believe there is a conflict between the specs and drawings. For the Black Hat Tank, the 20' anodes shall be 9'-9" from bottom of tank and the 3' anodes shall be 7'-6" from bottom of tank.

36. From the Wash Crossing at STA 122260+13 to the End of Reach 12.2, there is no access from public ROW to the required construction area. Has access at this point in the project already been determined or with this be a requirement of the Contractor?

Reclamation Response: Reclamation is currently working on access to the ROW. Access for the contractor will be provided by the NTP date for 12.2.

37. Spec Section 31 23 70 (CLSM) says that soil for CLSM has to have a PI less than 10, and a maximum LL of 30. The bore logs and geotechnical information provided shows very little onsite soil that meets these requirements. Would the Owner consider allowing soils with a higher PI and LL to accommodate using onsite material for CLSM?

Reclamation Response: Reclamation will consider alternate CLSM design mixes, including those produced with native soil, provided the requirements of Section 31 23 70 – Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM), subsection 2.07 – Mix can be met. Reclamation encourages innovative technologies and methodologies during the RFP process to bring value and cost savings to the project. Please provide the details for an alternative CLSM methodology that will meet the above subsection 2.07 – Mix requirement as part of the proposal response to section L.15 Master Plan 1 d. Alternate Methodology. In the case of the question above, the proposal should clearly show as possible by referencing other projects where the contractor was able to meet min and max 7-day compressive strength and slump requirements of this contract with native soils with properties similar to the ones on this project.

38. Q&A Round 3, Question #9 didn't answer our question. We probably should have worded it slightly differently. Our request was to determine if CLSM over the top of pipe is allowable everywhere possible in trench backfill and if there is a maximum height over the top of pipe CLSM can be. Additionally we are confused by the response that was given to Question #9 which states "CLSM is not specified for backfill material in the pipe trench, except for 1-inch of CLSM above pipe OD under Road Crossings..." This contradicts our understanding of Trench Material Type 1, 2 and 3 details shown on sheet 1695-D-60127.

Reclamation Response: This clarifies Reclamation’s response to Question #9, Round 3 in Amendment 0007. CLSM is not required for backfill material in the pipe trench, except for 1-foot of CLSM above the pipe OD under Road Crossings as shown on Drawing 1695-D-60154. CLSM is required as the “Bedding” material on all Trench Material Type 1, 2, and 3 trenches shown on Drawing 1695-D-60127, and is an option for “Embedment” material on Type 2 and 3 trenches. If the Contractor desires to also use CLSM as a backfill material up to the bottom of the “Topsoil Zone” outside roadways or to the bottom of gravel surfacing or pavement under roadways that could be a consideration, but should be included as proposed alternate methodology or contractor methodology under Section L.15 Master Plan 1 d or e. Please be clear in your proposal for deviation from the specifications and identify how excavated native material would be disposed of in this case.

39. Our major concerns regarding the HDDs has been narrowed down to the Banana Wash HDD Wash Crossing Near Station 121198+77. This area is exceptionally difficult with the 30" steel required pipe in such a short distance combined with the S curved ROW. Our subject matter experts are advising us that per the design criteria from table 33 05 22A, a 30” steel HDD will require a minimum bending radius of 3000 feet. Given the horizontal bends in the ROW and HDD they would feel much more confident in closer to a 4000' radius.

a. In any of the scenarios (as planned, 3000' radii, or 4000' radii) there doesn't appear to be any temporary construction easement for pullback? Was this considered?

b. Some different ideas we have been kicking around in our office and with our HDD experts is the following;

c. Any possibility of Open Cut at this location?

d. Would the ROW be able to be expanded either above ground or below ground? Our understanding is that the answer is no for the above ground modifications to the ROW. Would there be any way to go outside of the ROW or expand the below ground portion? For example, cut the corners underground which would straighten out the HDD and place the HDD line outside of the ROW without above ground disturbance.

e. If an augor bored method was proposed and selected would the hydraulics of the waterline allow for four (4) each fittings, either 45 degree or 90 degree elbows in the pipe?

f. Could Minor explosives be considered if augor bore shafts hit bedrock before getting to excavation depths? On the western portion of Banana Wash there is rock shown close by with little geotechnical information further east.

Reclamation Response:

Concerns surrounding the Banana Wash HDD preliminary design and its constructability within ROW limits have been reviewed by Reclamation. It is agreed that the current HDD design will require modification in order to construct within the ROW. Reclamation will provide revisions to drawings 1695-D-60116, 1695-D-60117, 1695-D-60262 and any other information related to this crossing. The HDD design will be removed and replaced with an alternative trenchless technology such as a jack and bore/auger bore design feasible for construction within the current ROW limits. These revisions will be provided in Amendment 0009, to be released on September 1st.