Amendment 0003.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO.

IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

CONSTRUCT FAMILY HOUSING AT NEMETZ PARK SITE AT USCG BASE KODIAK, KODIAK, AK Task Order Announcement 70Z05022RNEMETZ, Amendment 0003: See Continuation Pages and attachments.

USCG FDCC DET SEATTLE

915 SECOND AVE, RM 2664

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98174-1011

70Z05022RNEMETZ

1 15

12/22/2021

10/29/2021

SOLICITATION NO. 70Z05022RNEMETZ IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

TASK ORDER ANNOUNCEMENT

Revised Task Order Announcement, p. 5 revising proposal submission deadlines.

Revised Task Order Announcement, p. 14 removing 52.223-99 Ensuring Adequate COVID-19 Safety

Protocols for Federal Contractors (OCT 2021) (DEVIATION).

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ARE ISSUED WITH AMENDMENT 03

The site visit sign-in sheet.

CD-100s - Demolition Plan_KodiakNemetz Housing

CS-100s - Site Plan_KodiakNemetz Housing

CU-100s - Utility Plan_KodiakNemetz Housing

G-001 - Cover Page_KodiakNemetz Housing

V-100s - Existing Conditions Plan_KodiakNemetz Housing

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS/PRE-PROPOSAL INQIRUIRIES WERE RECEIVED IN

RESPONSE TO THE SOLICITATION:

12. Question: Does the entire project and all supporting offices need to meet the vaccination requirement by December 8th?

Answer: Due to the issuance of a nationwide injunction, the Government will not be enforcing

Executive Order 14042 (vaccine mandate for covered federal contractors) until further notice.

Contractors are advised to periodically check https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/contractors/ for any updates.

13. Does compliance mean that the last vaccination shot has to have been received 2 weeks prior to Dec

8th?

Answer: Due to the issuance of a nationwide injunction, the Government will not be enforcing

Executive Order 14042 (vaccine mandate for covered federal contractors) until further notice.

Contractors are advised to periodically check https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/contractors/ for any updates.

Amendment 0003 2

14. Please provide a copy of the site visit sign-in sheet.

Answer: Issued with Amendment 03.

15. This TOA specifically includes 52.223-99 Ensuring Adequate COVID-19 Safety Protocols for

Federal Contractors.(OCT 2021) (DEVIATION), which requires the Contractor to comply with all guidance, including guidance conveyed through Frequently Asked Questions, as amended during the performance of this contract, for contractor workplace locations published by the Safer Federal

Workforce Task Force (Task Force Guidance) at https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/contractors/.

As of 11/10/2021, the Federal Workforce Task Force publication requires COVID-19 vaccination of covered contractor employees, except in limited circumstances, among other requirements. However, this order also sets out a process for OMB and the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force to "update the

Guidance for covered contractors, which the Task Force will consider doing based on future changes to

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) COVID-19 guidance and as warranted by the circumstances of the pandemic and public health conditions." As this FAR Clause obligates the contractor to comply with future changes to the guidance, please confirm that changes to the guidance for covered contractors issued after the solicitation due date will eligible as a changed condition.

Answer: Due to a nationwide injunction, the Government will not be enforcing EO 14042 until futher notice. As a result, the Coast Guard has removed 52.223-99 from this Task Order Announcement per this amendment. Contractors should frequently check the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force website for the most recent guidance as it is anticipated that the required protocols will continue to be revised.

The Government cannot provide categorical guidance regarding whether or not further revisions to the

COVID guidance after receipt of proposals and/or after contract award will constitute a changed condition. Each change is evaluated on a case by case basis and it is incumbent upon a contractor to demonstrate impact and show entitlement for either a schedule extension or increased price.

16. The price proposal acceptance period is 90 days. Can the USCG provide a potential contract award date? This will provide bidders critical information to develop a more reliable initial proposal schedule.

Answer: Contract award is anticipated in early May of 2022.

17. RFP Appendix I provides Acceptable Foundation Approaches. The approaches shown in the appendix show a standard continuous footing with foundation wall. Confirm that the use of a downturned slab is an acceptable approach.

Answer: RFP Appendix I illustrates two acceptable foundation concepts, utilizing either a slab-on-grade or crawl space approach. For both approaches, insulated concrete forms are used to provide the insulation values required for walls.

Amendment 0003 3

18. In Section 01800, 1.6 Landscape Design, it says “The Contractor shall obtain and use the services of a qualified State certified landscape architect.” Please confirm that the landscape architect must be licensed in Alaska or if a professional license in any state is acceptable.

Answer: Reference RFP Section 01802, Para 1.3 for Qualifications of Designer.

19. Please confirm installation size and quantity of trees expected.

Answer: Project intent is to preserve as many existing trees within Nemetz Park as practical. Reference

RFP Appendix A - Demolition and Site Plans for preservation of trees to remain.

20. Please confirm installation size and quantity of shrubs and groundcovers expected.

Answer: Reference RFP Section 01800, Para 1.4.2 for Site Planning and Design Criteria, including development of Site Plans and locating buffer areas and landscape features.

21. Please confirm length of the plant establishment period.

Answer: Reference RFP Section 01800, Para 1.6.2.4 for warranty period for furnished plant material.

22. Guide Specification Section: 01800 – 1.16 “Telecommunication. Please provide the telephone utility service point of connection for the site.

Answer: Telephone Utilities will coordinate with KEA for a joint utility trench to provide service to the site. The Contractor shall coordinate with the telephone utilities for service locations to each living unit from the site distribution.

23. Discussing the LCCA for HVAC, section 1.12.1.2 of the RFP states: “As a minimum geo-thermal systems shall be compared for the heating equipment.” Section 1.12.1.4 further discusses geothermal vertical wells with closed loops. One would believe a central plant with one geothermal system serving all the duplexes would be more cost effective than separate geothermal loops per each duplex. This does not appear to be suggested in the RFP. Is there a reason why or why not a central heating plant can/cannot be explored for this project?

Answer: It is intended that each duplex system be "stand-alone" with its mechanical system. If a central plant geothermal loop system is life cycle effective, it will be considered by the USCG.

24. Section 1.12.1.8 states: “Insulated crawlspaces shall be mechanically ventilated.” Being a conditioned space and given proper access, can mechanical equipment be located in crawlspaces?

Amendment 0003 4

Answer: Mechanical equipment shall be located within Mechanical Room, as identified in RFP

Appendix B, Individual Space Criteria Sheets.

25. Are the two housing units that share a duplex building to have isolated mechanical systems? Can the radiant heating systems share heat pumps, pumps, tanks etc.?

Answer: Decision to provide isolated or shared mechanical systems for two housing units of a single duplex structure is up to the DOR.

26. Are the two housing units that share a duplex building to have isolated plumbing systems? Can they share water heaters, hot/cold water distribution systems, recirculation pumps, etc.?

Answer: Decision to provide isolated or shared plumbing systems for two housing units of a single duplex structure is up to the DOR.

27. Traffic Control - 21. Section 01500, Subsection 1.9 (Interruption of Vehicular Traffic) – outlines the requirements for traffic control. Please clarify if specific locations within the project site will need to be maintained for USCG or the public access during construction.

Answer: Traffic along Old Tom Stiles Road is required to be maintained for USCG and public access during construction.

28. RFP Vol 3 – Geotech Report, Section 3.6 “Asphalt Pavement” recommends a minimum 2” of HMA over 4” Aggregate Base Course, Grading D-1 and 16” of non-frost susceptible Type IIA subbase.”

Section 1800, 1.4.9.1 of the RFP requires a minimum 3” HMA and 6” Aggregate Base Course. Please clarify the minimum pavement section requirements

Answer: Geotechnical recommendation is to use the 3" HMA specified in the RFP, 6" Base-Course as specified in the RFP, and a minimum 16" of non-frost susceptible engineered (or structural) fill.

29. RFP Vol 3 – Geotech Report, Section 4.2 “Engineered Fill”, suggests the “the upper 4 to 5 feet of gravel soils identified across the site are suitable for re-use as engineered fill.” Please confirm it’s appropriate to assume this material is suitable for re-use in the subbase layers.

Answer: The top 4-5 feet of gravel soils (not including the topsoil) are suitable for re-use as engineered fill below building foundations. If testing of the soils determines non-frost susceptibility (less than 3% passing the 0.02mm) then that can be used as the 16" of subbase.

30. SECTION 01800 DESIGN-BUILD CRITERIA PARAGRAPHS1.7 ARCHITECTURAL,

subsection 1.7.2.4.7 “Gutters, Conductor Heads, Scuppers and Downspouts” states: “The roof drainage

Amendment 0003 5 system including downspouts shall be designed for the calculated quantity of water as required by code.

Downspouts shall not terminate above sidewalks, stairs or decks. Route downspouts under sidewalks or decks to grade or route to storm water collection system.” Please confirm this language pertains to the sidewalks directly adjacent to the housing units, and not the sidewalks that parallel the roadways. The latter requirement is contrary standard practice and would require additional complexity and cost.

Answer: Requirement to route downspouts under sidewalks or decks to grade pertains to sidewalks directly adjacent to the housing units.

31. Section 01800 - 1.4.7.2 requires “a water model analysis and results as supporting calculations of any new water mains to ensure all proposed fire hydrants, fire suppression system, and domestic service lines will provide adequate pressures and flows as required by the International Fire Code”. Is there an existing pressure/flow model the Design-Builder can use as a basis for this requirement or will the

Design-Builder be required to develop a stand-alone model of the existing and proposed water distribution system? What are the Design-Builder’s responsibilities, if this analysis suggests the existing system is not capable of meeting the demand for subdivision expansion?

Answer: There is a hydraulic model of the existing USCG Base Kodiak water system available for use.

Contractor will not need to develop a stand-alone model. The specified distribution system shown on the

Utility Plans was modeled prior to release of the RFP and was shown to be adequate for the development in scope.

32. Section 1.4.8 requires all new sewer main be single wall 8” HDPE. The existing sanitary sewer “lift station” and force main are to remain and appear to be required to connect to the proposed sanitary sewer system. Based on the drawings provided, the proposed design will be required to connect to the existing 8” Asbestos Concrete pipe force main. Does the government have any data on pressure/flow rate for this system? Is it the intent of the Government to connect to the existing AC Pipe? This approach carries constructability and environmental risks depending on the condition of the existing pipe. What are the Design-Builder’s responsibilities if this approach is found to be not viable during construction?

Answer: The goal is not to connect directly to the force main pipe nor extend the length. We understand that the force main discharges into a manhole approximately 40' downstream of the lift station. The goal is to replace the manhole and all downstream piping to the limit of work as shown on the Utility Plan. Per the information provided by USCG Facilities Engineering, there are two pumps, 500 gpm at 26' of head, 5 hp. Per the SS Condition Assessment report, when a pump is running, it does surcharge the manhole to provide enough head to drain downstream. Please see the Condition

Assessment report provided in Volume 3 attachments for information on downstream piping.

33. Will the sidewalk thickness increase at driveways?

Answer: No.

Amendment 0003 6

34. Is there as-built information of the original Nemetz housing area?

Answer: All available documents of the original Nemetz Housing Area have been provided in the RFP.

35. The Geotech report recommends removal of any soft or unstable soils discovered after proof rolling, does the USCG have an estimate of quantities?

Answer: Soft and unsuitable (organic) soils were encountered in Boring B-2 to 7 feet. Soft soils are present in borings B-1 and B-3 up to 10 feet. Horizontal extents of the soft and unsuitable soils are unknown.

36. In General, the soil bore logs show the existing soils to have more than 6% finer than the #200 sieve, making this material susceptible to frost movement. The geotech report recommends that the upper 4 to 5' of gravel on site is suitable for re-use as engineered fill. Will frost susceptible soils be allowed for use under building structural elements and pavements?

Answer: Non-frost susceptible soils contain less than 3% passing the 0.02mm as determined by ASTM

D422. The soils in question may be re-used as engineered fill beneath building foundations provided compaction to a minimum 95% modified Proctor (ASTM D1557). There should be a minimum of 16" of non-frost susceptible fill below the base course of the roads. The on-site soils may be used beneath that, also compacted to a minimum 95% modified Proctor.

37. RFP Calls for the water system to use HDPE pipe. Are flanged DI Fittings allowable between runs of the HDPE water pipes?

Answer: No. With the exception of valves and hydrants, joints shall be butt heat fusion fittings as stated in the specifications.

38. In accordance with NFPA 13D, no backflow preventer is required on the fire sprinkler system. Per the RFP section 1.11.2.3, reduced pressure backflow preventers shall also be installed on make-up water lines for hydronic systems and on any other water lines feeding potentially harmful items/systems.

Please confirm if a backflow preventer is required on the fire water sprinkler piping within the mechanical/electrical room of each duplex building.

Answer: Backflow preventers are not required on the fire sprinkler system unless required by the local

AHJ.

Amendment 0003 7

39. Per the RFP 'Individual Space Criteria Sheets', the mechanical room and utility chase shall have a "2 hour fire wall". Per IBC, only a 30 minute fire partition is required for separation of R-3 occupancy duplex dwelling units, not a fire wall. Please note that the terms Fire Wall, Fire Barrier and Fire Partition all have strict requirements in the IBC. Is the intent of the RFP to provide a true fire wall designed and installed in accordance with IBC Section 706 which will create complete separation between each side of the duplex building (this includes requiring structural independence, such that the wall is freestanding from either side)? If not, please confirm if it is the intent of the RFP to provide separation between the dwelling units by a 30 minute fire partition in accordance with IBC Section 708.3 or a 2 hour fire barrier designed in accordance with IBC Section 707?

Answer: "Reference RFP Section 01800, Para 1.1.3 (uu) for compliance with requirements of SILC-

CSTO-36-11 53 11-01/20160525, Family Housing Design Guide, which includes the following provisions: “Common 2 hour rated fire wall or fire resistive partition for duplexes shall be continuous from the foundation to the underside of the roof deck and shall extend the full length of the common wall."

40. RFP section 01800_1.11.1.2 states: “As a minimum, solar, fuel oil and electric energy sources shall be compared for the domestic water heating equipment. LCCA of each system compared shall incorporate systems utilizing renewable energy resources.” Applicable energy sources are limited in

Kodiak, due to regional characteristics. Solar energy is proven to be non-effective due to limited daylighting. Natural gas is not available in Kodiak. Fuel Oil has been previously rejected as an acceptable energy source by the USCG Base Kodiak. Wind energy subsidized by this project would be cost-prohibitive and beyond the apparent scope of the RFP. Please advise what possible and feasible renewable energy options should be considered as part of the LCCA for plumbing system design.

Answer: It is a requirement to do LCCA of different systems and/or energy sources. It is not a requirement for the systems to be life cycle cost effective for the area.

41. RFP section 01800_1.12.1.2 states: “LCCA of each system compared shall incorporate systems utilizing renewable energy resources.” Applicable energy sources are limited in Kodiak, due to regional characteristics. Solar energy is proven to be non-effective due to limited daylighting. Natural gas is not available in Kodiak. Wind energy subsidized by this project would be cost-prohibitive and beyond the apparent scope of the RFP. Please advise what possible and feasible renewable energy options should be considered as part of the LCCA for HVAC system design.

Answer: It is a requirement to do LCCA of different systems and/or energy sources. It is not a requirement for the systems to be life cycle cost effective for the area.

42. RFP does not state any restrictions for using glycol in HVAC hydronic system. Please confirm glycol can be used.

Answer: Glycol may be used.

Amendment 0003 8

43. Section 01800_1.12 of the RFP does not specify HVAC piping material. Please comment if PEX tubing or copper piping is the preferred HVAC piping material.

Answer: Either material is acceptable. PEX used for hydronic systems must have an oxygen barrier per manufacturer’s recommendations.

44. Per NFPA 13D Section 8.3.4, fire sprinklers are not required in garages unless specifically required by the AHJ. The RFP does not mention a requirement for sprinkler protection in the garages. Please confirm that sprinklers shall not be provided in the attached garage of each dwelling unit.?

Answer: Correct, fire sprinklers are not required in the garages per NFPA 13D.

45. Is there additional soil boring information available from a more recent site investigation? The site visit seemed to insinuate that some additional soil borings were performed recently.

Answer: The soil boring logs have not been completed yet. They will be provided in a forthcoming amendment.

46. The geotechnical report does not mention frost protected shallow foundations (FPSF) per ASCE 32.

Will the contract permit alternate shallow foundations, such as FPSF per ASCE 32, in lieu of conventional spread/strip footings?

Answer: Frost protected shallow foundations are acceptable.

47. Please confirm if windows must be double-hung. Most suppliers are only able to provide single-hung.

Answer: Double-hung windows are preferred. Single-hung windows are acceptable if Contractor can provide documentation indicating non-availability of double-hung window products.

48. Please clarify location and criteria for “Children’s play area”.

Answer: Children's Play Area references location of the relocated canopy structure as indicated by Site

Key Note 6 on Sheet CS-101 included as RFP Appendix A.

49. Please clarify the required minimum quantity of trees, shrubs and ground cover plants for each building type.

Amendment 0003 9

Answer: Project intent is to preserve as many existing trees within Nemetz Park as practical. Reference

RFP Appendix A Demolition and Site Plans for preservation of trees to remain.

50. Please provide remaining CAD files for utilities, demolition and site plans.

Answer: CAD files provided with Amendment 03.

51. Please confirm that no utility connections (water, electric, dump station/sewer) for RVs are required under the scope of this project

Answer: That is correct. No Utility connections for RVs are under this project scope.

52. The existing site conditions include utility hookups for RVs in what would become options 2 and 3;

if options 2 and 3 are not included in the award will the functionality of the area and these existing utilities need to be maintained?

Answer: The development of housing at Nemetz will remove the existing RV utility hookups and they will not be reinstalled at this site.

53. The existing site conditions include a potable water source and dump station for RVs. This does not appear to be included in the base or bid options of this project. Will a dump station and potable water supply be required? If so which option should it be included in?

Answer: No dump station, potable water supply, or utility connections for RVs are required.

54. Note 2 on CD-101 and CD-102 and Specification Section 01800 paragraph 1.9.2.4 indicate that all existing utilities, foundations, and paving on the site not being utilized as part of the final project are to be demolished, paragraph 1.9.2.2 indicates only pertinent items need to be demolished, removed, and disposed; please confirm the requirement and/or provide clarity in the intention of the terms “pertinent” in 1.9.2.3 and “as required” in 1.9.2.4

Answer: Refer to 1.9.2.4. Remove all utilities not used.

55. The proposed utility plan CU102 shows the final buildout of the site which has tie in locations beyond the base and option areas, is it expected that these lines be extended to the locations shown regardless of which bid options are awarded, or should they be adjusted to tie in within the limits of the exercised options if possible?

Answer: It depends on the utility.

Amendment 0003 10

SD: the line through the future development coming from the intersection of Barometer Ave. and Tom

Stiles must be installed regardless of which options are awarded. The line in S. Alyeska Ave. draining two inlets near the limit of work shall only be installed if options are awarded that extend the street to the inlets.

SS: The line through the future development that drains the homes on Barometer Ave. must be installed regardless of which options are awarded. Assuming not all options are awarded, the line running down

S. Alyeska can transition back to the existing system at a logical location southwest of the end of the roadway extension.

S. Alyeska can transition back to the existing system at a logical location southwest of the end of the roadway extension.

W: The extent of the distribution system shown must be completely installed regardless of which options are awarded.

E/comm: Extend the infrastructure only as far as needed to construct the options awarded.

56. The Guide Specifications indicate that building roof and foundation drains should connect directly into underground piping that terminates to a storm drain facility, the preliminary design does not show the systems extending to each housing unit, is it the design intent to extend the system to all housing units?

Answer: Yes.

57. Is it a design requirement to utilize a curb and gutter system along the roadway or is a roadside swale system an option?

Answer: Given this is a dense residential neighborhood with little space for roadside swales/ditches, this is not a desirable system and therefore not an option for this project.

58. The Specification Section 01800 paragraph 1.4.3 requires the contractor to comply with EISA

Section 438 and to include BMP’s that utilize LID (Low Impact Development) criteria, the proposed design shows the direct conveyance to and utilization of existing outfalls. Is it the intent that the design attenuates flow rates and volumes within the system? For the purpose of determining the amount of attenuation required please clarify what are the predevelopment conditions that should be used; are they the site prior to any development, the site during the previous housing development, or the site as it stands now. If required can the project limits of work be expanded to accommodate BMPs?

Answer: It is the intent to follow EISA Section 438 by attenuating flow and volume to the maximum extent technically feasible. Use the previous housing development impervious area as the benchmark.

BMPs can extend into the common area south of Barometer Ave. and north of future housing.

Amendment 0003 11

59. During the pre-site walk call it was mentioned that there is going to be “Updates to the Pump

Station”. Specification Section 01800 paragraph 1.4.8 states the lift station and force main are to remain, but makes no reference to any upgrades. Are there any modifications or upgrades to the lift station anticipated to be made during this project?

Answer: There will be updates made to the lift (pump) station, but will be part of a separate project not related to this project. There will be no lift (pump) station work as part of this project.

60. The Sanitary Sewer Pipe Condition Summary indicates that the pipes to remain leading into and out of the pump station have debris/FOG buildup within them as well as within the pump station. Will the contractor be responsible for cleaning these as part of the project?

Answer: With the exception of the force main, all SS pipes are to be replaced. Therefore, cleaning will not be necessary. Cleaning out the wet well is not within the scope of this project.

61. CD-101 shows a force main leaving the proposed tie in manhole for the new system not marked for removal and CU-101 also shows this sanitary pipe remaining as well. Is this pipe a force main and is it the intent for the pipe to remain?

Answer: The Coast Guard team understands that the force main discharges into a manhole approximately 40' downstream of the lift station. The goal is to replace the manhole and all downstream piping to the limit of work as shown on the Utility Plan.

62. Section 01111 Special Project Procedures, Subsection 3.4 Permits, Paragraph 3.4.1 indicates that the

Contractor is responsible for all permits. Please advise if the Contractor’s design will be subject to review, comment and approval of the Kodiak City Building Dept.-Plan Review inclusive of Building

Permits and inspection fees.

Answer: Review and approval by Kodiak City Building Department is not required.

63. Section 01800 Design Build Criteria, 1.7 Architectural, 1.7.2 Exterior Building Envelope, 1.7.2.1

Exterior Walls: In lieu of an exterior wall frame with a minimum R-Value of R-25 inclusive of continuous insulation board of R-6 at the exterior wall, as an alternative, would it be acceptable to apply closed cell urethane spray foam of R-6 per inch applied in the wall cavity to achieve a total exterior wall

R-Value of R-25. The closed cell spray foam is superior to the combination of fiberglass batts and rigid insulation board and provides a very air tight installation from air leakage caused by gaps.

Answer: It is not acceptable to apply closed cell urethane spray foam of R-6 per inch applied in the wall cavity to achieve a total exterior wall R-value of R-25. The minimum R-6 continuous insulation board is an important element of the exterior wall construction and is required.

Amendment 0003 12

64. Section 01800 Design Build Criteria, 1.13 Electrical, 1.13.1 Electrical Service: This section describes the role of the Kodiak Electric Association (KEA) in the project providing and installing primary and secondary electric service up to the KEA handhole. Is the Government or Contractor responsible for KEA fees and/or installation costs?

Answer: The contractor shall coordinate the KEA work with KEA throughout the construction process.

KEA indicated that the new electric utility services will not require fees or installation costs from KEA.

65. The structural drawing for the exist canopy illegible and the dimension cannot be read. Please provide legible copy.

Answer: Available As-Built drawings are provided in an alternate format for better readability.

66. Site Demolition Key Note 7 states to "Relocate Canopy Structure and Associated Furnishings and

Equipment". Please provide as built drawing or product data of the Furnishings and equipment.

Answer: Available As-Built drawings are provided in an alternate format for better readability.

67. Site Demolition Key Note 7 states to "Relocate Canopy Structure and Associated Furnishings and

Equipment" Please confirm the same surface material (pea gravel per asbuild drawings) should be relocated and used.

Answer: The goal is to relocate as much of the structure as is feasible. Foundations can likely not be relocated and potentially some surface materials (such as pea gravel) may not be easily reused.

68. Site Demolition Key Note 7 states to "Relocate Canopy Structure and Associated Furnishings and

Equipment". Please confirm all finishes of the canopy will remain as is.

Answer: Confirmed for finishes – Please see next item (PPI 69) for roof finish answer.

69. Site Demolition Key Note 7 states to "Relocate Canopy Structure and Associated Furnishings and

Equipment". As the existing roofing material will need to be removed to relocate the structure, please confirm roofing material replacement is part of the scope of work.

Answer: The roof (shingles) appears to be in poor condition. Assume the roof materials will be replaced rather than relocated.

Amendment 0003 13

70. Section 18.4.3.1.8 Excess Construction Generated Dirt/Soil/Fill Removal and Disposal, states that the Environmental Protection Plan must discuss how all federal, state, and local regulatory requirements related to soil transport and final disposal will be met. It further states that "Any excess soil/dirt/fill material generated as part of the project that is not required or suitable to complete on-site work shall not be considered, classified, or defined as an “unrestricted” use material. The Contractor shall transport and dispose of this material at an offsite permitted ADEC/EPA RCRA Subtitle D Municipal Solid Waste

Landfill that routinely accepts the type of material being removed from the site." Meanwhile, a latter paragraph of this section stats that "Soil may be reused on-site, as the arsenic concentration is below the commercial /industrial EAL. However, surplus soil slated for off-site disposal or reuse should be tested prior to export from the site using the multi-increment sampling method in accordance with HDOH

Guidance." Please confirm that, if excess soil material is demonstrated to not be contaminated and all

ADEC/EPA and/or other State or Federal Environment requirements are followed, that the contractor may reuse this at an offsite location other than a permitted ADEC/EPA RCRA Subtitle D Municipal

Landfill.

Answer: If excess soil material is demonstrated to not be contaminated and all ADEC/EPA and/or other

State or Federal Environment requirements are followed, then the contractor may reuse this at an offsite location other than a permitted ADEC/EPA RCRA Subtitle D Municipal Landfill.

71. Please clarify Specification 01800, paragraph 1.3.2 which requires "The new multi-family residential buildings shall be certified by the US Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design: Building Design & Construction: Homes & Multifamily Low Rise version 4 at least at the minimum level of “Certified” utilizing the LEED for Homes Rating System™" Are formal

LEED certifications required for every duplex delivered or only one duplex?

Answer: Formal LEED certifications shall be provided for one duplex of each type (1 ADA duplex, 1

4BDR duplex, and 1 3BDR duplex building).

72. Section 1.11.3.7 of Specification 01800 mentions acrylic or fiberglass shower enclosures. Please confirm if these are required in all showers or only in ADA units.

Answer: These are required only for handicapped accessible showers.

73. Section 1.11.3.7 of Specification 01800 directs us to provide cluster mailboxes. Please provide the quantity and locations of these mailboxes.

Answer: Postal Specialties are specified in Section 01800, 1.7.7.2. A single cluster mailbox shall not serve more than 8 housing units, and the mailboxes shall be centrally located to the housing units they serve.

Amendment 0003 14

74. Base Bid Diagram A shows units 741, 743, & 745 along the south side of Barometer Ave. RFP

Drawings CU-101 & 102 show these units connect to the sewer utility structure near the south end of

South Alyeska Ave (CU-102). Most of this main gravity sewer run serving these units is located outside of the Base Bid boundaries. Please advise if it is acceptable to reconfigure the site utilities distribution to allow for the Base Bid scope to take place within the prescribed boundaries shown in Diagram A.

Answer: Reconfiguring of site utilities is acceptable as long as design requirements are adhered to.

75. Section 1.18.4.3.1.8 addresses Excess Construction Generated Dirt/Soil/Fill Removal and Disposal.

Materials other than soil (concrete, wood, asphalt, etc.) are not listed. Please verify these other materials require no special disposal.

Answer: Typical construction debris disposal process is applicable for materials other than soil

(concrete, wood, asphalt, etc.).

76. RFP section 01800_1.13.8 states “Panelboards should be located in dedicated electrical or utility rooms, as practical.” However, there is no dedicated electrical room shown on the Typical Unit Layout

Plans included in Appendix A2 of the RFP. There is one shared Elec/Mech Room shown between the two units for each building. Is it intended that the individual unit panelboard be located in the shared

Elec/Mech room or should the individual unit panelboard be located inside each unit in a dedicated room or space? If the intention is to locate the individual unit panelboards in the shared Elec/Mech Room and there are not proper working clearances or physical space for all of the mechanical, plumbing, electrical and telecommunications equipment in this room is the Contractor allowed to locate equipment within the individual units instead?

Answer: Individual unit panel boards may be located inside each living unit with the main service panel board located in the utility space.

Amendment 0003 15