Questions and Answers Received Against Solicitation 191BWC21R0004.pdf

Design-Build Edinburg Pump Station Levee Rehabilitation - 191BWC21R0004

Questions and Answers

Q1: SECTION 00.24.00.01. PROCUREMENT SCOPE.

The levee sections are a total of approximately 800 linear feet in length for both the east and west side of the Edinburg Pump Station.

1. West Levee: Approximately 370 linear feet from tie-in at Edinburg Pump Station to tie-in location at existing border fence wall.

2. East Levee: Approximately 430 linear feet from tie-in at Edinburg Pump Station to tie-in location at existing border fence wall

Per SECTION DC.0.00 GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA (LEVEES). 1.8 LEVEE

REQUIREMENTS. K.1.

The Design-Builder shall determine the appropriate lengths of floodwalls required for their design. A minimum of eighty (80) feet of concrete floodwall shall be provided on each side of the pump house.

Please confirm that these two, 80-foot sections of floodwall are the only required section of floodwall; and, likewise the only location where the DHS bollard wall is required.

A1: A minimum of eighty (80) feet of concrete floodwall shall be provided on each side of the pump house but more is required if the Design-Builder determines so during their design. These 80-foot sections and all additional sections of floodwalls designed require the DHS bollard wall per

DB SOW DC.0.00 1.8 K.3. Any proposed floating bollard fence shown in the URS drawings along the earthen levee is shown for reference only and is future work to be built by DHS.

The Design Builder has the option to utilize the URS design and placement of the Floodwall/

DHS bollard wall, so long as the Design-Builder takes ownership of the designs via Professional

Engineer Stamp or the Design-Builder can choose to design the floodwall and bollard fence within the parameters stated in the SOW.

Q2: SOW SECTION 00.24.00.01 PROCUREMENT SCOPE 1.7 B.1.c. states that “if the Design-

Builder requires additional information to complete their design, geotechnical testing, etc. shall be performed at no additional cost to the Government”. This is in contradiction with SOW

SECTION 00.31.32.01 GEOTECHNICAL DATA PART – 3 EXECUTION 3.1

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING and SOW SECTION 01.22.00.01 MEASUREMENT AND

PAYMENT 1.7 C. Table 8. Can the USIBWC clarify that the Geotechnical Investigation is part of this SOW and payable under CLIN 001?

A2: There is no contradiction. There is Geotechnical testing data available that may suffice for the

Design-Builder to complete their design analysis. If it does not suffice, the Design-Builder is responsible for any additional testing required to complete their design. All available

Geotechnical testing data has been provided in the Solicitation attachments for Offeror's review to determine what they will require for their design work. The Offeror may include geotechnical testing as part of their design and include this in their proposal under CLIN 01 however no separate payment will be made for geotechnical testing at any point in this Contract and no modifications will be considered to add additional testing once awarded.

Q3: SOW SECTION 00.73.83.01 DISPUTE RESOLUTION 1.3 GENERAL mentions a procedure for conflict resolution. Can the USIBWC confirm that this procedure is a Design-Builder’s internal governance document and will not be submitted to Government?

A3: The procedure for conflict resolution between the design entity and construction entity described in DB SOW 00.73.83.01 1.3A. should be part of the QC/QA program. As such, this procedure would be described in the Design-Builder's QA Plan required in DB SOW Section 01.40.00.01.

In addition, when a dispute arises and is resolved, a report of the procedure will be submitted as to USIBWC as part of the project records. DB SOW 00.73.83.01 1.3C. states, “A written report describing the dispute, all subsequent actions, and final disposition of the dispute should be submitted to the project records.” See additional revisions to DB SOW Sections 00.73.83.01 and

01.40.00.01 for clarification.

Q4: SOW SECTION DC.0.00 GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA (LEVEES) 3.1 DESIGN

DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTS – can the USIBWC clarify if this is the same as the

Conceptual Layout referred to in SOW SECTION 00.31.13.01 PROJECT TIME

CONSTRAINTS & MILESTONES 1.3 DESIGN MILESTONES?

A4: Yes.

Q5: Per SECTION DC.0.00 GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA (LEVEES). 1.8 LEVEE

REQUIREMENTS. K

HCID1 has completed construction of thirty (30) foot floodwalls on either side of the Edinburg

Pump Station. See HCID1 Pump Station construction drawings for reference of proposed connection to existing floodwalls. Concrete floodwalls shall be provided on each side of the

Pump house and designed to include the appropriate tie-in to the existing floodwalls while accounting for the sensitivity of working adjacent to the pump house. The existing and proposed floodwalls shall form an impenetrable barrier up to the pump house to provide full flood protection. Does USIBWC and HCID 1 have an agreement in place regarding the connection of the two structures. If so, can the agreement be provided so that the Design-Builder may understand the constraints/requirements by each entity?

A5: USIBWC and HCID1 have an active MOA describing the current project and responsibilities of both parties. The original MOA has been added to the attachments with the current Solicitation

Amendment. An addendum to the original MOA is in process and will be provided to the Design-

Builder once it is finalized.

Q6a: IBWC/HCID 1 access ramps.

HCID 1 indicated that the grade on the access ramps need to accommodate their equipment. Is the following grade applicable or does USIBWC have a design grade for the access ramps or a

HCID 1 list of proposed equipment?

Per SECTION DC.0.00 GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA (LEVEES), 3.6 MINIMUM

REQUIREMENTS FOR WORK ON LEVEES. E. Maintenance ramps shall be reconstructed at existing locations or as directed by the USIBWC. Maintenance ramps shall not be steeper than a

10H:1V profile slope and shall be twenty (20) foot wide. Ramps shall be constructed in the same manner as the levee. Layout of ramps in relation to the levee shall be in accordance with

USIBWC Standard Drawing SD 25084 whenever possible.

A6a: The DB SOW Section DC.0.00 3.6 E. in addition to DC.0.00 1.8 J. will be used for ramp design of any ramps required other than the ones to be located on the west and east side of the pump house. Reference SOW DC.0.00 1.8 J.5. The ramps previously approved by HCID1 shown in the

IBM14T0012 URS drawings should be used unless deviations from that design are approved by

HCID1.

Q6b: If the length of the ramps requires them to be outside to limits of the USIBWC easement, will

USIBWC be responsible for acquiring the easement? If this causes a delay, will this time be added to the project schedule and modify the date at which the liquidated damages start.

A6b: Any proposed designs shall be within the project limits of the USIBWC ROW and the easements already acquired by USIBWC for the ramps designed by URS (reference Solicitation attachment

Easement Metes and Bounds Drawings 20160330 and IBM14T0012 URS Drawings R-100 through R-102). Additional easements will not be acquired for ramps.

Q6c: If the extent of the ramps is problematic, would the USIBWC be open to lower the height of the levee and install stop logs or similar structures.

A6c: No.

Q7: Are there any groundwater monitoring wells around the pump stations? If so, is the historical information available for review and use.

A7: USIBWC does not have this data. Historical information should be coordinated with HCID1 or other entities that have the wells.

Q8: Does USIBWC or HCID have historical records of the flood water surface elevations at the pump station? If so, can the information be provided. Likewise, during these events were there any slope failures or seepage observations on the Landside or Riverside of the levee that have been documented?

A8: USIBWC does not have this data. USGS should have historical data for the gages along the Rio

Grande.

Q9: SOLICITATION PARAGRAPH L.01.C and L.02.B – Will IBWC consider removing the requirement for three hard copies of the Phase I proposal and allow the Phase I submittals to be electronic?

A9: No.

Q10: SOLICITATION PARAGRAPH L.02.D.a.1(c) – Will IBWC confirm the Qualifications Page limit does not include the SF330s required for Contractor, Designer, and any other major subcontractor?

A10: SF-330s are considered resumes/references and will not be counted against the maximum pages allowed.

Q11: SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01.40.00.01 PARAGRAPH 1.10.B – Will IBWC remove the requirement for the Design QC Manager to be licensed by the State of Texas, and instead allow licensing in any State?

A11: Design QC Manager must be a PE in the State of Texas. The Design QC Manager shall be reviewing designs which is the practice of engineering. The Texas Engineering and Land

Surveying Practice Acts and Rules Concerning Practice and Licensure requires engineers working within Texas to be PEs. Texas PE requirements can be reviewed at https://pels.texas.gov/.

Q12: SOLICITATION PARAGRAPH L.02.D.d.5 – Will IBWC further specify what design build training or certifications the Government is looking for?

A12: No, there are no specifics. Provide any relevant trainings or certifications that support the

Offeror’s design team’s capability to perform design requirements of the SOW.

Q13: SOLICITATION PARAGRAPH L.02.D.f.3 – Will IBWC provide a minimum insurance limit required for this contract and rephrase this requirement to provide proof these minimums are met?

We consider the professional liability insurance limit we carry to be confidential information.

A13: No. Please review Solicitation L.01 H. and properly mark the pages and sections that contain confidential information.

Q14: SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 02.22.13.01 PARAGRAPH 1.6.C – Will IBWC allow for a vibration specialist who is a registered professional engineer in a State other than Texas?

A14: No. Please review Texas professional engineer and professional geoscientist requirements at https://pels.texas.gov/ and https://tbpg.state.tx.us/.

Q15: From L.06 - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS. f. Schedule (c) For purposes of preparing the schedule, Offerors shall assume a design notice to proceed date of May 1, 2021.

The Offeror shall specify their own construction notice to proceed date based upon their schedule and assumptions. Does the IBWC to keep this date for the Project Schedule or adjust to a future date?

A15: The date has been changed to October 15, 2021. The date provided is for a general schedule only for review of the Phase Two Schedule factor. This date does not represent the actual date.

Q16: Section DC.G.10, Part 1.12.D of the Design-Build Scope of Work establishes the requirement for vehicular gates to be installed on both the east and west side of the pump house.

Section DC.0.00, Part 1.15 GATES AND ROAD CROSSINGS of the Design-Build Scope of

Work states “…New gates shall be built per USIBWC Drawing SD-26424.” However, SD-26424 appears to be for signage and provides no details related to construction of vehicular gates.

https://pels.texas.gov/ https://pels.texas.gov/ https://tbpg.state.tx.us/

Section 00.31.00.01, Part 1.4.21 of the Design-Build Scope of Work refers to USIBWC Drawing

26422 entitled Heavy Duty Vehicular Gate. This appears to be the correct reference for the required vehicular gates.

Please confirm that the two (2) vehicular gates required for this project shall be built per

SD26422-1 & 26422-2. Please also confirm the above stated reference to SD-26424 was made in error and that SD-26424 is not applicable to this project.

A16: SOW Section DC.G.10 is related only to HCID1 pump house site improvements. The vehicular gates discussed in SOW DC.G.10 1.12 D., D.2, and D.3. are referring to the chain link fence vehicle gates required for the HCID1 pump house access and security fencing.

The vehicular gates in Section DC.0.00 are referring to gates for USIBWC access and control.

These new vehicular gates shall be built per SD-26422. SD-26424 was made in error for SD-

26422. SD-26424 is not used on this project. New vehicular gates may not currently exist but two (2) new gates are required at the levees. Locations of USIBWC vehicular gates shall be coordination during design.

Q17: SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01.40.00.01 Part 1.10.C.2. Please confirm that the CQCSM my be an employee of a subcontractor or subconsultant as long this individual is subordinate to the

Construction Contractor, works directly for the Construction Contractor, and directly represents the Construction Contractor as a member of its staff.

A17: The CQCSM may be a subcontractor as long as he/she is subordinate to and subcontracted by the

Construction Contractor and has full authority to stop work and direct Construction Contractor employees.

Q18: Can we dual-hat the Construction QC Manager and the Design-Build QSM positions?

A18: No.

Q19: SCOPE OF WORK SECTION 01.40.00.01 Part 1.10.C.3. Please confirm that an alternate for the

CQC System Manager can dual hat and continue to carry out his/her normal functions while serving as the alternate in the event of the CQC System Manager’s absence.

A19: Yes, but only for the alternate CQCSM. However, when they step into the CQCSM functions then they cannot dual hat and must have no other duties than QC.

Q20: If the Design‐Builder elects not to propose a change of the levee alignment as depicted in the

URS design, please confirm the Design‐Builder will not be required to provide any verification of the hydraulic models accepted by IBWC under the URS approved design construction plans and that the 100-year WSEL shown on the drawings of elevation 133.8 will be accepted by IBWC. In a previous solicitation, when asked the same question, the USIBWC confirmed that “If there is no change to the current URS designed levee alignment, then no hydraulic modeling to verify the

100-year WSEL is required.”

A20: That is correct.

Q21: Per Section 00.24.00.01, Part 1.5.B of the Design‐Build Scope of Work, it is the Design‐Builder’s responsibility to identify all existing utilities within the project limits as well as coordinating any work associated with these utilities with the utility company. If any utilities are encountered that are not reasonably anticipated based on the pre‐bid documents provided by USIBWC and the site visit performed on July 09, 2020, will this be considered a Differing Site Condition as defined in

FAR 52.236‐2, or should the contractor assume in its pricing the risk of encountering unforeseen utilities that may or may not be encountered and that may have an appreciable effect on the time and cost necessary to design and construct this project? In a previous solicitation, when asked the same question, the USIBWC confirmed that “If the utility met the conditions of FAR 52.236‐

2(a)(1) or (2) it would be a differing site condition.”

A21: SOW 02.01.00.01 1.10 applies before any differing site conditions are considered.

Q22: Per Section 00.24.00.01 Part 3.4E. The definition of “periods of known heavy rains or flooding” is subjective. Please confirm that, in this area, it is typically known as hurricane season (June 1 –

November 30). Please also confirm that cutting of the levee is permitted during hurricane season with the USIBWC’s approval so long as there are no impending storms and that the Contractor provides reasonable assurances the levee can be adequately backfilled in the event of impending heavy rains or flooding.

A22: Please refer to the National Weather Service for typical periods of heavy rains or flooding. In this area, it is typically known as the hurricane season. Review SOW 02.01.00.01 1.14. As long as this requirement is met, USIBWC has no limitations on the time of year that the levee is cut.

Q23: In a previous solicitation, the USIBWC confirmed there are no known defects, undesirable features, or specific components of the URS design that USIBWC desires to have modified or improved. Please confirm. Otherwise, please define them individually.

A23: No known defects, undesirable features, or specific components of the URS Design.

Q24: Page 66 of 85 states the Qualifications Proposal shall not exceed 10 double-sided 8.5 inch x 11 inch pages in length (20 single-sided), excluding cover page, table of contents, resumes, and references. Please itemize the list of items included in the Qualifications Proposal 20 single sided limit.

A24: Qualifications Proposals shall include all items under Solicitation L.02 D. except for cover page, table of contents, resumes (SF-330), and references (SF-330).

Q25a: Page 67 of 85 states, “Identify the primary members of the team including Design Contractor, Construction Contractor, major subcontractors with over 10 percent of the project value, all consultants, professional services, and all testing firms/laboratories.”

Does the offeror need to identify consultants and professional services if they will not receive over 10% of the project value?

A25a: Yes. Solicitation L.02 D.c.2. (pg 67/85) requires Offeror to identify the primary members of the team including (1) Design Contractor, (2) Construction Contractor, (3) major subcontractors with over 10 percent of the project value, (4) all consultants, (5) professional services, and (6) all testing firms/laboratories.

Q25b: Page 69 of 85 states that the Offeror must provide a separate form SF 330 for each member of the offeror’s team. If the answer to a is Yes, does each consultant and professional services firm need to provide an SF 330?

A25b: Yes. If they are included as part of your team (whether required to be listed or not), provide an

SF-330. The answers to be provided under Factor e. Past Experience, subfactor 2. Answers are independent of the SF-330s required.

Q26: Please 68 of 85 states, “The design team shall have personnel with experience and expertise in all phases of commercial office building and LEED design and as required for this project.” Please confirm these are the types of expertise you require of the design team for this project.

A26: This was an error, see revised Solicitation page 68. The current project scope does not include commercial building and as such will not need LEED expertise. Please provide personnel with experience and expertise in all phases of levee design and as required for this project.

Q27: Does the shipping box for the hardcopy proposals require any specific identifying information on the outside of the package?

A27: The exterior of each shipping container shall be marked with the Solicitation number, the time and date for receipt of proposals, and the name and address of the Offeror in order to prevent mishandling. See revised Solicitation page 65.

Q28: Page 69 of 85 states that the SF330 shall not be modified or expanded. Can we provide two page resumes and projects in order to cover all of the information necessary to demonstrate relevant project experience of similar scope and magnitude?

A28: No. Any additional information not covered in the SF330 should be provided within the proposal narrative under the applicable factor/subfactor.

Q29: Please clarify what the IBWC requires regarding the key team member resumes per d. Capability to Perform, 68 of 85, which states, “Provide resumes for all key members,” yet (c) SF-330

Section E resumes shall include resumes for all key personnel, on page 69 of 85, states, “Do not provide a duplicate resume in addition to the SF-330 Section E. under Phase One”. Would the

IBWC prefer we only show SF-330 Section E key personnel resumes and not include resumes under Capability to Perform?

A29: The resumes referenced as needed for all key members under Factor d. Capability to Perform are referring to the resumes required under the Factor e. Past Experience, SF-330 Section E. If the

SF-330 resumes are provided under one section, they shall not be duplicated under the other section.

Q30: Is appears this project is fully designed? Is it the intent to have a designer review the prior design and thoroughly evaluate the design, check all calculations, and over-stamp and sign all design documents, drawings, and specifications?

A30: The Design by URS is an option for the Design-Builder; it is not a requirement to use the provided Design work. If that design is used, the items detailed in this question are required as per DB SOW 00.24.00.01 1.6D.

Q31: Is it the intent to have the designer perform construction administration procedures?

A31: The Design-Builder is required to perform construction administration.

Q32: Is this project listed as a Design-Build but is considered more along the lines of a Design-Bid-

Build with no design required?

A32: The awarded Design-Builder is required to provide a signed and stamped design prior to construction. The Design by URS is an option for the Design-Builder; it is not a requirement to use the provided Design work. If the URS design is used, the Design-Builder shall thoroughly evaluate the design, check all calculations, and over-stamp and sign all design documents, drawings, and specifications.

Q33: L.02 - PHASE ONE PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS paragraphs C, D, and E seem to contain numerous redundant information requirements. The SF330, which is required from both the GC and design firms meets many if not all of the requirements of paragraphs C and D. Was the intent to use SF330 to answer the requirements of the preceding paragraphs or is the IBWC requesting both? If both, would you please consider removing the redundant aspects from paragraphs C and

D that are also part of the SF330 to simplify the proposal and evaluation process?

A33: The SF-330 is very limited in the information provided. All items within Solicitation L.02 are required. How this data is presented is up to the Offeror. If the information required is covered in the SF-330 do not duplicate it within the narrative and simply reference the applicable section of the SF-330 within the narrative.

Q34: Will you please confirm that only Phase One proposals are due on May 24 and that the

Government will evaluate those, then down select up to 3 offerors and then provide a due date for

Phase Two proposals?

A34: Yes, only provide Phase One proposals on the due date indicated in the Solicitation SF-1442 Item

13. Phase Two proposal due date will be provided after firm selection has taken place. Phase Two proposals including Volumes I, II, and III shall be submitted by the due date provided directly from the Contracting Officer in the invitation letters for Phase Two.

Q35: Will you please confirm that no pricing information is to be included in Phase One?

A35: Pricing is a part of Phase Two and shall not be included in Phase One.

Q36: How does the IBWC intend to exercise the HUBZone pricing preference FAR clause cited in the

RFP? For example, if a HUBZone firm is presenting a Phase One proposal with no pricing included and gets down-selected for Phase 2, will the IBWC be applying the pricing preference in evaluation of both Phase One and Phase Two proposals? The next question expands on this.

A36: HUBZone will be incorporated into Phase Two.

Q37: Will the source selection team be basing the final award upon the Phase Two proposals alone, or will there be a cumulative approach wherein the rating from Phase One will be considered during evaluation of Phase Two and used in the award decision?

A37: Ratings for Phase Two are independent from the ratings in Phase One. Review Solicitation

Sections L.02 F., L.03 A., L.08, M.02 Basis for Award, and M.03 Phase Two Evaluation Factors for Award.

Q38: Will the IBWC please consider waiving the requirement for original and hard copies? Due to

COVID-19, numerous Governmental agencies have switched to electronic-only proposals and most administrative and business development staff working from home now this greatly limits our ability to print and assemble large proposal packages in three-ring binders, group check them for compliance and then ship them (which also adds risk that a delivery may be delayed due to no fault of the offeror). It isn’t feasible for most Small Businesses to submit proposals in this manner and many have adopted environmentally friendly best-practices including limiting or eliminating the use of paper and printer ink/toner.

A38: Hardcopies will be required as stated in proposal documentation. All Offerors should plan accordingly to print and check their copies before shipping and ensure they are delivered on time.

Q39: The RFP provides L.08 Phase Two Source Evaluation and Selection Procedures, however there is no equivalent section for Phase One. What are the evaluation criteria and selection procedures for

Phase One?

A39: Refer to Solicitation Section M.01 for Phase One Evaluation Criteria and the revised Section

M.04 for clarification.

Q40: Does the Phase One submittal require pricing to be included? Section L.07 does not specifically ask for pricing, but it was mentioned in the pre-bid meeting.

A40: Pricing is a part of Phase Two. Phase One shall not contain any pricing data.

Q41: Are construction documents available for the existing USIBWC floodwall/levee? Such as:

a. Review/Approvals of sheetpile below floodwall (by agencies)

b. Photographs of construction

c. Sheetpile installation logs – any installation issues

d. Was interlock sealant used in the sheetpile interlocks

e. Vibration reports during installation

f. Drilled Shaft Logs

g. Location and test results of contractor borrow source for embankment

A41: No information will be provided for a borrow site. The items listed in the question have been requested from HCID1 for the construction of their portion of the floodwall, but the release of this information is at HCID1's sole discretion. The items listed may or may not be available. Any items provided by HCID1 will be provided in a future amendment.

Q42: Is the proposal for the project due on the June 24th together with bid package or due before?

A42: The proposal is the "bid package" and the Phase One proposal was initially due on May 24, 2021.

See Item 13 on Solicitation SF-1442 for revised due date for Phase One proposal/bid package.

See answer A34 regarding the Phase Two proposal due date.

Q43: For the design of the border fencing, will the DHS Tactical Infrastructure Design Standards/Specs be provided?

A43: No. The prior URS drawings provide the approved design of the DHS bollards to be incorporated into the floodwall. If the Design-Builder utilizes the prior design of the bollard wall then no additional DHS approvals should be required. However, if the Design-Builder's floodwall design changes the installation of the bollard wall, then DHS review and approval shall be required.

Refer to DB SOW Sections DC.0.00 1.8 K.3. and 01.64.00.01 3.3 revised for clarification.

Q44: Do the bollard fence panels furnished by IBWC meet the current DHS standards or will they require modifications by the offerors?

A44: The provided GFM align with the existing bollard fence. The GFM requirements are outlined in

SOW Section 01.64.00.01 Government Furnished Materials.

Q45: Does the Government have the ROW or easement to extend offsite electrical poles/wires to the automated vehicular gates?

A45: There are no automated vehicular gates required under this SOW. The URS drawings depict twenty (20) ft openings for gates on both the west and east levees, but the addition of sliding gates on the bollard fence is within a future DHS gate project not within this project scope. Also reference the answer 1 for clarification of the only required bollard walls under this project scope.

Q46: Please confirm the required gates are sliding mesh gate based on TI standard Rev. 5 August 2020 drawing sheets G15 to G22 (20 ft clear opening wide and 18 ft clear height).

A46: See answer A45. No sliding gates are included in this project.

Q47: Please confirm the number of required slide gates is two, one at west site which is indicated in drawing sheet C-504 and C-501 URS drawing from STA 3+40.55 to STA 3+61.45 and the second gate at East side which is indicated in drawing sheet C-505 and C-502 URS drawing from approx. STA 7+47.47 to STA 7+72.10.

A47: See answer A45. No sliding gates are included in this project. Also reference General Note 2 of the URS drawings listed in the question.

Q48: Referring to URS drawing sheets C-500 to C-505, floating bollard fence is shown on both sides of pump station to connect floodwall to existing wall, (from STA 2+35.33 to STA 3+82.40 & from STA 7+05.24 up to STA 10+36.43). Please confirm if these floating bollard fences are part of the project.

A48: The floating bollard fences are not part of the scope of this project. This work planned to be completed by DHS at a later time. Also reference General Note 2 of the URS drawings listed in the question.

Q49: Referring to URS drawing sheets C-403, C-500, C-503, Please confirm the connection locations between the new floating bollard wall and existing wall at STA 10+36.43 and STA 2+35.33 are accurate at both east and west site of Pump station.

A49: See answers A1, A45, and A48 for clarification of the only required bollard walls under this project scope. No wall connections are required to the existing DHS bollard walls.

Q50: Please confirm that the new bollard fence will be built same as the existing adjacent bollard fence at this site and not based on the latest TI standard.

A50: The new bollard fence on the floodwalls will be built similar to the existing bollard fence on the existing floodwalls built by HCID1 adjacent to the pump house. See answer A49 regarding the floating bollard walls.

Q51: Refer to Prebid Conference/Site Visit held on May 2, 2021. Statements were made that the gas line location is much closer to the future floating wall compared to the location shown in the URS drawings (C-401, C-402, C-403). Please provide more information about this and if it is possible, please clarify the location.

A51: The gas line was mentioned for awareness as it is within relatively close proximity to the proposed project site. DB SOW Sections 00.31.19.01 1.6 and 02.01.00.01 1.10 and 1.11 shall be followed.

Q52: We assume the CAD files of URS drawings (attachment No. 08) and as built LLOYD drawings

(attachment No. 13) will be available to the awarding contractor for use after bid stage. Please confirm.

A52: Yes, CAD files for the URS drawings and the HCID1 as-built drawings (Lloyd drawings, Solicitation Attachment #13) will be available for use after award to the Design-Builder.

Q53: Referring to item K / part 1.8 / section DC.0.00 - General Design Criteria (Levees), please clarify if the total length of requested flood wall is 80 feet minimum or if an additional length of 80 feet minimum flood wall is required.

A53: See answer A1.

Q54: Drawings C300 and C301 show an excavation plan that does not reflect existing conditions with respect to a 30-foot-wide floodwall that has already been constructed on both sides of the pump station. Please confirm if a sloped excavation can be done next to existing floodwalls at the East and West sides of the pump station.

A54: The URS drawings were completed prior to construction of the HCID1 30 foot floodwalls on each side of the pump station. The Design-Builder is responsible for determining what construction can be completed onsite. Reference DB SOW Sections 00.24.00.01 3.4 C. and

02.22.13.01 1.5B. for work around HCID1's structures and pump station.

Q55: Refer to Prebid Conference/Site Visit handouts from May 2, 2021. Item 16 states that: Testing

Laboratories shall be unaffiliated with the Design Builder and Construction Contractor and with any part of the design of this project. SOW Section 01.43.26.01 1.14. Typically, on past jobs the designer of record has a qualified in-house laboratory deployed to the construction site which operates independently. Could the requirement to have an unaffiliated laboratory be waived?

A55: No, the Testing Laboratories must be unaffiliated with the Design Builder, Designer, and

Construction Contractor.

Q56: A slurry wall is included under the west floodwall in URS drawing sheet C-501 from STA

2+92.52 to STA 4+62.40, but it is not indicated at the east floodwall. There is the sandy and gravelly zone shown in Boring 102 between elevation 118.3 to 98.3 feet. Is the purpose of the slurry wall to prevent under seepage through this zone?

A56: Reference Solicitation Attachments 01_Edinburg PS Design Report 20151118 woA.pdf and 10_

IBM14T0012 URS Structural Calculations.pdf for information about the URS design of the floodwalls. Whether the Design-Builder chooses to use this prior design or not is up to them.

See also answer A32.

Q57: Per the Proposal Requirements there are 2 Proposal Phases. What is the time frame for evaluation of each of the phases and what Is the time allotted for preparation of Phase 2 proposals?

A57: No specific timeframe has been established for evaluation of each phase. USIBWC will proceed with evaluation of each phase as soon as they can. There will be a minimum of 30 calendar days allotted for preparation of Phase 2 proposals.

Q58: On Page 45 of 85, Paragraph 52.245.-2 Government Property Installation Operation Services

(April 2012) Section (e) Government property provided under this clause: 160 bollards, 20 feet long to install along top of floodwall.

Is the government going to be installing the above-mentioned equipment, or is the awarded contractor expected to install that equipment?

A58: The bollard panels are to be installed by the awarded Design-Builder, as noted under the Project

Goals of DB SOW Section 00.24.00.01 1.5 and identified in the SOW Section 01.64.00.01

Government Furnished Materials. See the Solicitation Clause 52.245-2 for a correction of the furnished materials.

Q59: Could you provide us the sign-in sheet for the scheduled site visit?

A59: The Pre-Bid Sign In sheet will be included in Amendment 00001.

Q60: Are there any special requirements to provide a proposal on this project (pre-qualifications, pre-approved bidders list etc.)

A60: Requirements for the various project proposals are stated in the Solicitation Section L. No prequalification or preapproval is required.

Q61: Page 68 of 85 of the RFP, d. Capability to Perform, requests resumes for all key members, identified below. Subsequently, on page 69 of 85, “4. QC Testing Laboratory” is listed. Is it a requirement of this RFP to have identified and committed to a QC Testing Laboratory as a key team member prior to the submission of the Phase 1 Proposal? To ensure the Design Build team has adequate time to identify, evaluate and select an accredited and qualified QC Testing

Laboratories, and that they too have time to properly complete the SF330 and provide other necessary information, we recommend that this requirement be left for Phase 2.

A61: QC Testing Laboratory must be identified for Phase 1. An extension to the Phase 1 proposal due date has been provided.

Q62: This project has work that needs to comply with other agencies; not just IBWC. We need additional time to allow proper review of HCID and DHS requirements. Will the Government please extend phase one proposal due date by at least two weeks?

A62: Please see Amendment 00001 and revised Solicitation for extended due date.

Q63: Will the IBWC please consider extending Phase One proposal due date by one week? Especially so if the requirement for hard copies remains in place.

A63: Please see Amendment 00001 and revised Solicitation for extended date.

Q64: We would like to ask for a minimum of one-week postponement to assess the project documents to give you our best proposal.

A64: Please see Amendment 00001 and revised Solicitation for extended date.

Q65: Will IBWC consider an extension on the bid date?

A65: Please see Amendment 00001 and revised Solicitation for extended required date.

Q66a: Throughout the RFP package, there are multiple occasions that dates are outdated i.e.:

o Design report page 3 refers to project deliverables dated back to 2015

A66a: The Design Reports are referring to the completion date of the Design Report. The URS design report was completed under a separate design contract. This past design information has been provided for reference on this project as indicated throughout the DB SOW.

Q66b: Bid Package dated May 9th says bid open date is June 19th, 2018

A66b: Assuming this is referring to the HCID1 pump station bid package (Solicitation Attachment 12), that was the bid date for that separate construction project issued and managed by HCID1. That project is now completed, and the information has been provided for reference.