QA through 20240116.pdf

RFP IBM 23-01 American Canal Lower Reach CM Services Page 1

Repair of Penstock #5 at Amistad Dam

RFP 191BWC24R0002

Answers to Questions Received

1. Question: Please provide inspection reports from the past 3 years for the penstock and irrigation gates and related controls.

Response 1: We only have 5 year reports (nothing in the last 3 years) and the last 5 year inspection report does not include the penstocks or irrigation valves since we were unable to move the bulkhead gate at that time.

2. On Page 183 of the O&M Manual there is a drawing that reads in spanish "Detalles Del

Obturador". We believe this drawing is describing the valve in the bulkhead gate. If this is the case, the drawing has critical measurements and detailed descriptions that can be useful in quoting the fabrication of the bulkhead. Unfortunately the numbers and measurements on the drawing are not readable. (Document name "SBU_00_31_19_01_1-3-

E_Amistad_Dam_1971_O-M_Manual")

Question: The question is, Is there another set of files/drawings that has this information? or can this drawing be re-scanned with higher resolution?

Response 2: While we can continue to look, at this time the version provided is all that is available. However, in the file "SBU_00_31_19_01_Table_1_Penstock_5_Drawings_HS.pdf" is drawing 18,241 "Penstock Gates, Bulkhead, Details" which appears to show the same information in greater detail.

3. This project describes repairs as "completely rehabilitated" penstock 5, both penstock gate and irrigation gate. We would like to clarify that based on the -Army Corps of Engineers USFGS 09

97 02 - "SECTION 09 97 02 PAINTING: HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES" The steel surfaces are to be sandblasted in accordance with the USFG's specs and recoated with a vinyl system.

This sandblasting process can be expensive especially when performed in a confined space at 180 ft underneath the dam structure.

Question: Is IBWC wanting a quote on sandblasting and painting as per the Army Corp's standards? or is IBWC wanting a quote on a different standard? If so, what standard?

Response 3: (1) The USIBWC wants the gates rehabilitated to meet or exceed their original coating requirements with the caveat that new coatings must meet current environmental standards.

Response 3: (2) The method that the contractor proposes to use to meet or exceed the original coating requirements is up to the contractor since this is a design-build contract. It is highly recommended that the method to be used be identified in the Technical Proposal along with benefits of using that method.

Response 3: (3) The gates can be lifted into the service bay or even to the top of the dam to perform necessary cleaning and coating.

REVISED Response 3: (3) The bulkhead gate (upstream gate) can be lifted out of service bay on to the dam utilizing a mobile crane. The headgate (Center, “Penstock gate”, slide roller gate type) can ONLY be lifted onto concrete pedestal dogging device located in service bay utilizing the existing hoist and cable equipment located on roadway level. The irrigation gate (downstream, hydraulic type) is fixed to the structure and IBWC does not have the capability of lifting the gate

RFP IBM 23-01 American Canal Lower Reach CM Services Page 2 out of slot and onto service bay level. Original design of Penstock 5 downstream irrigation gate was designed as a roller slide type gate similar to headgate (center gate) but was modified to hydraulic type once in construction. The original design hoist and cable equipment serving the downstream irrigation gate slot are installed per the original design even though the gate type changed to hydraulic type. USIBWC believes that the existing hoist and cable system located in fixed hoist room is not functional due to removed components such as limit switch, control panel and other miscellaneous components.

Please note that it is possible to get all three gates onto the dam roadway regardless of how they were designed to operate but that would include removal of existing cable hoistway equipment, electrical connection, etc. to get gates out through crest elevation gate slot opening. This is a means and methods determination to be made by the Contractor; they should determine/propose the route for accomplishing the work.

4. IBWC says its goal is to rehabilitate the penstock gate and the irrigation gate. We would like to clarify this is referring to both gates on penstock 5 only. First one 1) is a hydraulic gate also referred to as downstream or penstock gate. The second 2) is a hoist raised gate referred to as upstream or irrigation gate with rollers. All work is to be done on pentock 5 (with exception of the fabrication of the bulkhead).

Question: Is this correct?

Response 0: All work is to be done on Penstock #5 with the exception of the fabrication of the bulkhead. However, please see drawing 18,143 (detail shown below) which indicates that the irrigation gate is the most downstream gate, the penstock gate is in the middle, and the bulkhead is the most upstream.

RFP IBM 23-01 American Canal Lower Reach CM Services Page 3

5. Regarding Sandblasting. The reports that have been provided show that these structures should not have any lead based paint or other hazardous materials. Thus we see no need to erect a containment and to capture the abrasive used.

Question A: Does IBWC agree with this method of quoting the work?

Response 5.A: Per SOW 02.26.26.01 1.6.A.1. the gates should not have had lead based paint, but the machinery supports, penstock gate hoist operating machinery, interior irrigation gate base framing, irrigation gate hoist operating machinery, bulkhead lifting beams, and the penstock gate hoist machinery base framing and cover plates did have lead based paint. See Response 5.B for details on quoting work.

Question B: Now in the unlikely but possible event that during the first inspections there is lead or other hazardous materials found in the structures then a containment shall be erected at an additional cost. Does IBWC want an option for the cost of the containment quoted separately in the bidding package?

Response 5.B: Per SOW Table 3, lead assessment shall be included in CLIN 001. If lead remediation is found, then all remediation costs, including containment, are to be provided in

CLIN 004. It is recommended that contractors clearly note in their pricing proposal what work they have included as the basis for their pricing.

6. During the site visit It was clarified on what items/equipment warranty apply. Since we are nor providing a new irrigation gate or penstock gate these items are not including under SOW sections 01.78.36.01-Page 8, "REPEATED ISSUES WITH WARRANTED ITEMS" since there is no practical way to replace these items and they are not being actually provided by the contractor.

It was further clarified that all equipment provided by the contractor, like motors for hydraulic power units, hydraulic pumps, lines, valves etc. would be considered under such warranty provision.

Question: Does IBWC agree with this statement?

Response 6: In general yes, USIBWC agrees. Equipment warranties apply only to equipment provided. However for items such as the gates where the contractor will be providing a new coating, the coating will be covered under the warranty period.

7. Clarification on warranty period, SOW sections 01.78.36.01-Page 3 under 1.10.B -

WARRANTY PERIOD states "If items under this Contract are repaired or replaced, the warranty period shall begin anew from that date". During the site visit, for this section was mentioned not to include repairs that have to be done on the penstock gate based on one major reason. 1) The penstock has not been operated in more than 20 years and it is likely that when we repair the hydraulic system other unknown problems are likely to arise that are not covered under this warranty since they are not known at the time of bidding.

Question: Does IBWC agree with this statement?

Response 7: This contract is to provide a fully operational penstock including all gates and equipment. The full extent of repairs required will be determined during the design phase. If the completed system is fully operational and substantial completion is reached, then issues that arise outside of the contractor's purview are not part of the warranty.

8. SOW sections 00.70.13.01-Page 2 states in part "3.1.B. The Design-Builder grants to the

Government, and others acting on its behalf, a paid-up...by or on behalf of the Government." And

RFP IBM 23-01 American Canal Lower Reach CM Services Page 4 uses this statement to say in part that "3.3.B. The Design-Builder shall indemnify the Government

(if its actions result in)... The violation of trade secrets..."

This brings up two concerns. 1)Since the Government is responsible for the implementation of such standards to protect trade secrets it is unclear why it is asking to be indemnified from its own rules and regulations. 2) These provisions will only be applicable for paid up services or services agreed to be paid-up and not proposals.

Question A: Since our bid proposal is being submitted to the government without a commitment from the government for this proposal to be paid-up or awarded, it is still considered confidential and its content a trade secret, and IBWC is not indemnified from sharing this information in bad faith, Is this correct? We ask because we want to be as clear and descriptive as possible in our proposal but we want to also protect our proprietary information.

Response 8.A: Yes, USIBWC is not indemnified from sharing information in bad faith. The

FAR has multiple sections that protect release of trade secrets of which FAR 15.608(b) is the clearest that "The disclosure of such information concerning trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, apparatus, and other matters, except as authorized by law, may result in criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C.1905." Ensure that pages containing trade secrets in the proposal are identified as such per Contract L.02.G.

Question B: Will this section on the contract be open for discussion if an award does happen on the project?

Response 8.B: Yes.

9. Response 3: (3) The gates can be lifted into the service bay or even to the top of the dam to perform necessary cleaning and coating. [please see revised Response 3(3)]

We were under the impression from the site-visit that only the bulkhead could be removed from the penstock 5 service bay. We did see that the penstock gate can be raised to the service bay for service including coating application but not completely removed (this is no issue). However, we left the site-visit with the understanding that the irrigation (hydraulic gate) is fixed to the structure and IBWC currently has no way to lift the irrigation gate into the service bay. -This is why we mentioned the added cost of the confined space work at 180 ft down the 14ftx4ft slot. The risk involved with such work is much higher and the logistics of such work require much more planning, compared to performing the repairs in the service bay.

Question A: Can IBWC clarify if they have lifted or are currently capable of lifting the irrigation gate (hydraulic gate) to the service bay for maintenance?

Response 9.A: USIBWC does not have capability of lifting the irrigation gate (hydraulic gate) to the service bay level.

Question B: If so, is this procedure something that IBWC will perform or will the contractor be responsible for performing it?

Response 9.B: Contractor to perform and determine means and methods.

Question C: If contractor is responsible, can IBWC provide the reference to the O&M procedure? we ask this to gauge the extent of the work involved in lifting the gate for accurate quoting.

Response 9.C: O&M Maintenance Manual does not define procedure to lift existing hydraulic gate out of gate slot. This gate is fixed to the structure and not intended to be taken out of slot for maintenance. Contractor to perform and determine means and methods.