Amend 005 S-12-0004 Desert View Overlook.PDF

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 15

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

005 2/02/2012

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

SW IDAHO-NEVADA ACQUISTION CENTER

1249 S VINNELL WAY STE 200

BOISE, ID 83709-1663

CONTRACTING OFFICER - USDA ,USFS, SWINAC

c/o SPRING MTNS. NATIONAL REC. AREA

4701 N. TORREY PINES DRIVE

LAS VEGAS, NV 89130

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State, and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

AG-0261-S-12-0004

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11/22/2011

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

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.

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 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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 you 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.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

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

(X) 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)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return 1 copies to the issuing office.

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

Project Title: Desert View Overlook Rehabilitation

Purpose of Amendment: To answer questions posed by vendors

Receipt of Offers: The date, time, and receipt of proposals remains unchanged. The place for receipt of offers remains the same.

Acknowledgment: See Block 11 above regarding how to acknowledge this amendment. The acknowledgement must be received at the place designated for receipt of offers (see Block 19 of the Solicitation, Offer, and Award, Standard Form 1442).

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.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Margaret S. Schafer

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Amendment 005 AG-0261-S-12-0004 – Desert View Overlook

1. The Schedule of Items is hereby replaced in its entirety. (attached below)

2. Section C is hereby replaced in its entirety. (attached below)

3. Section J is hereby replaced in its entirety. (attached below) The following changes are hereby made to attachments in Section J of the Solicitation, due to errors or inadequate information either in the project specifications or drawings.

a. Delete the General Specifications and replace them with the FP-03 Standard

Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway

Projects.

b. Retain the AIA Specifications and the NDOT Specifications segments, which originally were at the end and part of the General Specifications.

c. Add the Supplemental Specifications FP-03.

d. Add the Retaining Wall Design Technical Scope of Work.

e. Replace the original Final Drawings with the new edited Final Drawings.

f. Replace the original Option 1 Drawings with the new edited Option 1 Drawings.

4. Offerors are notified that the replacement master specifications, FP-03 Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges are available for downloading at the following Federal Web

Site – http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/specs/

5. No further questions will be accepted after February 21, 2012, 2:00 pm PST.

6. Following are questions and answers submitted by vendors.

Q – 1. An amendment shows: “Answer: A site visit was held on November 16, 2011. No other pre-bid or site visits will be held.” We did not find a site visit announcement in the presolicitation documents published on the reissuance of cancelled solicitation AG-0261-S-11-0013-Desert View Overlook Rehabilitation SMNRA. Here are some questions: 1) In which documents was this site visit announced? 2) What items were discussed during this site visit? 3) Will you issue a questions and answers amendment regarding this site visit?

Answer: Amendment 002 answer was in error. No new site visit was held for the reissued solicitation. The only site visit held for this project was under on solicitation AG-0261-S-11-0013 on 09/19/11.

Q – 2. We have received a number of requests from our subcontractors that we request you to please change the current bid date to sometime after the Christmas/New Year’s holiday.

Answer: No, this is a reissuance of a previous solicitation. This project as originally posted has been available for review for several months. It was cancelled and reissued in order to provide for specification and drawing clarifications, but was substantially unchanged from its original content. No further extensions of this project will be considered.

Q – 3. Since Desert view Overlook is considered remote and at least a 90 minute commute from the nearest concrete batch plant, we are asking fo the use of EUCON DS Set Retarding Admixture to extend the life of the batched concrete before placement.

http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/specs/

Answer: 1. Yes, EUCON DS Retarding Admixture or equivalent can be used provided that: 1) The concrete design mix must be specifically formulated to use this admixture. And 2) The batch plant must provide data for previous breaks to confirm the compressional strength of the mix.

Additionally, samples must be taken from the mix during the pour for strength, testing. Test results must be reported to the Forest Service to confirm the mix meets specifications as defined for compressional strength.

Q – 4. On sheets C105 thru C107 it calls out retaining wall at the stations listed but no heights of the wall. It also shows a note that says retaining wall required. See Sheet C302, it calls for this detail to be used from sta 10 to the end. The cross sections on sheets C303 thru C305 only show walls in some of the locations – some on one side of the trail some on both sides. On sheet G003, line 35 has 1900 sqft.for retaining wall listed. Is this the proper amount of wall or is there a wall profile somewhere?

Answer: Sheets 9-11 show plan and profile of trail with station notes of wall locations. Station notes show wall lengths and location by distance left or right of trail centerline. Sheets 17 & 18 show x-sections of trail, where the designed height is to be sealed off.

Q – 5. We have tried from several different computers on a couple of different days to print the project drawings. However, the PDF drawings on the Fed Biz Ops website listed below are failing to print. Pages that do not print are printing blank. Only the OPTION 1 drawings will print.

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USDA/FS/261/AG-0261-S-12-0004/listing.html

Answer: Delete cover sheet/Page #1, either before or after you save drawings to a file on your computer. You should then be able to print all the drawings to 11 x 17 tabloid landscape, which fits the entire page.

Q – 6. The wrong project highway directions are found in section C-2.

Answer:

Delete the following:

C-2 PROJECT LOCATION

A. The project is located in the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Clark County, Nevada, in Section 31, T. 18 S., R. 57 E. It is located approximately 35 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The project may be accessed from State Highway 157 at milepost 7.3.

And Replace with:

C-2 PROJECT LOCATION

A. The project is located in the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Clark County, Nevada, in Section 31, T. 18 S., R. 57 E. It is located approximately 35 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The project may be accessed from State Highway 158 at milepost 7.3.

Q – 7. Is there a list of attendees at the November 16, 2011 site visit that can be sent out? –

Answer: See Q-1 correction to November 16, 2011 site visit.

Q – 8. Is there liquidated damages for the contract - in what amount?

Answer: No, there are no Liquidated damages on this contract.

Q – 9. Do the references (attachment 5) have to be for the projects that we are listing? The https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USDA/FS/261/AG-0261-S-12-0004/listing.html reason I ask is one of our references for a listed project with project details says he doesn’t do reference forms and is not willing to do one and I haven’t been able to reach the other contact.

Answer: That is the intention. Note this in your proposal and in addition, provide your other project references.

Q – 10. The truncated domes on the access ramps-are they to be normal rubberized material or something stronger such as cast iron? Please specify what will be required. We have used the cast iron on past Forest Service projects and they are very hard to get.

Answer: Truncated domes/detectable warning pad at accessible ramps shall be cast iron.

Q – 11. In follow-up to our question regarding the quantity of retaining wall, we are coming up with about 1880 lineal feet. Perhaps the square foot on the bid sheet is a typo and it should have been Lineal Feet. Please verify.

Answer: The total design length is 980 feet. We will delete 1900 S.F. as the Line Item total and change it to 980 lineal feet.

Q – 12. Is there any source for water for earthwork and grading operations near the site? If so, Can the contractor have access or buy the water? Often times we have been able to access a hydrant in the vicinity and gain authorized access to use the water source. Or shall we price our bid assuming all water will have to be trucked in?

Answer: There are no Government provided water sources.

Q – 13. We are coming up with a lot more than 1900 sq ft for Bid Item #35, Retaining Walls. Is this quantity correct?

Answer: See answer to Question #11.

Q – 14. Bid Item #17, 6” concrete flatwork- where is this particular concrete located?

Answer: Concrete flatwork is center of island within the Type 3 concrete curb.

Q – 15. In the Bid Schedule, the 5th column is entitled “PRICE”. We assume this is the unit price. Please confirm.

Answer: That is correct – Unit Price.

Q – 16. How will the contractor be compensated if during excavation work, we encounter hard rock that will require specialized equipment in order to break through? Also, excavation work may potentially uncover large amounts of boulders that will need to be removed and/or stockpiled; how should we cost our base bid for these unknown conditions.

Answer: No soil surveys were done for area, so the excavation is unclassified. Rock is evident at the surface level, so contractors should expect rock in the excavation. Rock not utilized at project are shall be treated as excess excavation.

Q – 17. Can we offer additional pricing options in addition to the bid schedule for certain items?

Answer: Under this solicitation, no provision authorizing offerors to propose alternative terms and conditions was included. (See FAR 52.236-28 – Preparation of Proposals – Construction)

Q – 18. Can the experience of subcontractors be considered in the technical evaluation, or must the Prime contractor have the relevant experience first hand?

Answer: Yes, relevant experience of subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement can be considered in the technical evaluation.

Q – 19. Can we block off one lane of the road if we have flaggers?

Answer: Contractors will also need warning signs and safety devices as required by MUTCD standards. Approximate start and duration times for any road closure shall be included in your traffic control and safety plan submittals for the Contracting Officer’s review and acceptance.

This submittal is required prior to start of construction. Traffic control and safety plans shall also comply with NDOT highway rules and regulations.

Q – 20. Line Item No. 37 in the Schedule of Items Bid Form denotes Railing w/o Mesh. The drawings currently call for all Railings to have the Specified Stadium Design Mesh (Drawing C- 502 Mesh Detail) included.

Answer: The railing shall have stadium design mesh for total length of the railing. Line Item No.

37 will be changed to show with Mesh.

Q – 21. Can we substitute the VENDURA Retaining Wall System for use in lieu of the specified MSE Wall System? In support of this request we have attached General Product Information from our Subcontractor along with the Manufacturer's Product Literature. One advantage of this Retaining Wall System is that it is has an option for a fully plantable surface which will serve to soften the visual impact of the wall and will render it virtually graffiti proof!

Answer: There are no submittal substitutions considered or allowed prior to contract award.

Product brand and names currently in contract are a measure of quality, utility or standard. Any substitution would only be allowed if approved by the Contracting Officer after review during submittal process.

Q – 22. Is Line Item No. 35 in the Schedule of Items Bid Form intended to be for all of the Cast- In-Place Concrete Retaining Walls and Retaining Wall Footings that parallel portions of the new Pedestrian Trail? If this is the case, the quantity of 1,900 SF would appear to be incorrect.

Considering there is a total of 980 LF of new Concrete Retaining Wall called for on the drawings, at a total area of 1,900 SF this would mean this wall would have an average height of 1' - 9".

Answer: See answers to Questions #11 and #13.

Q – 23. Piles P18-P32 state an exposed height (lagging height) of greater than 6’. For bidding purposes are we to assume the lagging height is the difference between the rock socket depth and total height? Please clarify.

Answer: Yes.

Q – 24. Item 2.02D states that all drilled shaft excavations shall be filled with concrete to final grade. Usually the embedment of the beam is filled with hard rock concrete and the height is filled with excavatable slurry. Due to the difficulty in excavating hard rock is the hard rock for the embedded portion of the beam and slurry for the cut height acceptable? Please clarify.

Answer: There is no slurry. It is all concrete.

Q – 25. Section 3.01H states that Splicing of the piles shall not be permitted, unless approved in writhing by the engineer. Will splicing of the epoxy coated beams be acceptable if the engineer determines the soldier piles need to be deeper than what is indicated on the plans?

Answer: Splicing if any shall be determined by geo-tech input and recommendations.

Q – 26. Product Substitutions: Will product substitution approvals be allowed before the bid date?

Please clarify the pre-bid product substitution process.

Additional information: We would like to submit a proposal, along with value engineering, to allow for the use of the Redi-Rock Retaining wall system for the retaining walls along the pedestrian trail as well as a substitute product for the modular block wall that has been specified to the Tensar Mesa block system. In addition, we propose to use the same Redi-Rock form liner on the face of the precast panels for the soldier pile wall. One major benefit of using Redi-Rock is to provide improved aesthetics, giving all walls on the scenic overlook project the same look. We hope that through this proposal we can reduce the cost of construction by introducing competition, while providing technical and aesthetic improvements. It should be noted that Redi- Rock manufactured by Jensen Precast is listed on the NDOT Qualified Products List.

Answer: See answer to Question #21. The Value Engineering clause is not included under this contract.

Q – 27. Drawing Reference: C-105, C-106, C-302. Will alternate methods of construction be accepted for the cast-in-place concrete retaining walls as shown on C-302 Typical Section No. 3?

Answer: Under this solicitation, no alternative proposals will be considered. (See FAR 52.236-28

– Preparation of Proposals – Construction)

Q – 28. How will alternate methods of construction be evaluated, and what type of information, technical data and engineering will be required?

Answer: Under this solicitation, no alternative proposals will be considered. (See FAR 52.236-28

– Preparation of Proposals – Construction)

Q – 29. Would a proprietary retaining wall system such as Redi-Rock gravity retaining wall be allowed? Can we seek pre-bid approval?

Answer: See answers to Questions #21 and #26.

Q – 30. Specification Section 2.15 Segmental Concrete Facing Units specifically states that the Tensar Mesa block system shall be used. In the geotechnical report, Section 5.3, it states, “A number of proprietary wall systems have been pre-approved by NDOT, and, if such a system is selected, the wall supplier is typically responsible for the design of the system.” Please clarify if “Or Equal” product substitutions that are on the NDOT QPL will be allowed? What additional requirements will be required for other suppliers?

Answer: See answers to Questions #21, #26 and #29.

Q – 31. I am requesting clarification on the sidewalk width that is shown in the plans for the Desert View Overlook Rehab. Drawing C-102 shows a distance of 5 feet in width from the back of curb to the face of the MSE wall (STA. 119+04.21 RT 42.70 to STA. 119+04.21 RT 47.70).

Drawing C-607 shows a minimum 17” from the face of wall to the outside face of the footing.

Drawing C-502, Handrail Detail, shows the placement of the handrail centered in the footing.

Combining the 17” minimum distance from the face of the wall to the 7” from the location of the handrail centered in the footing equals two feet (2’-0). Subtracting this distance from the 5 foot width of the sidewalk leaves only 3’ of sidewalk from the outside face of the handrail. Drawing R-

5.2.1 of the NDoT Standard Plans states in the Design notes (D1) that the sidewalk width cannot be less than 4 feet if there are Right of Way restrictions. Please clarify.

Answer: 5’ minimum width for the sidewalk.

Q – 32. The schedule of item #10 is requesting pricing for one (1) cast-in-place inlet box. Sheet C-104 is calling out a cast in place catch basin and to see Sheet C-505. Sheet C-505 references the NDOT Standard Plans. This table does not contain a NDOT drawing number for a cast-in-place inlet box and a drawing could not be found on the NDOT website. Please provide drawing showing the size of the inlet box.

Answer: The drop inlet type 3 is located on drawing number R-4.2.3 (see supplemental page 2 R- 4.2.3.1) and is located in NDOT Standard Plans for Road and Bridge Construction.

Q – 33. The schedule of item #17 is calling for a 6" thick concrete flatwork. Please provide a location of this item.

Answer: See answer to Question #14.

Q – 34. The Bid Schedule line item states “Railing w/o Infill Panels” and there is not any finish or color identified. The Project Specifications 055213 states “Railing with Perforated Panels, Galvanized, Primer and Paint”(No Details Provided). Special Project Specifications does not discuss these items. The Drawings refer to Sheet C-502 for clarification details which indicate the AMETCO Manufacturer Stadium Design Mesh 3-5/16 x 3-5/16 Powder Coated, no color indicated. Using Paragraph I-9 Order of Precedence-Construction, Line (a) “The Schedule (excluding the Specifications)(Section A-H)” will govern. That being said it appears a standard Railing w/o Infill Panels, finish or color should be provided. Is this correct? If not, please provide the correct Handrail/Fence system, finish and color to be used.

Answer: Stadium design mesh shall be provided for total railing length. Color and finish will be determined by submitted samples for review by the Contracting Officer. Approved color and finish will be chosen from Contractor provided samples.

Q – 35. I would like to have Keystone Retaining Wall system listed as a or equal to the Mesa system, that has been specified.

Answer. The Retaining Wall System called for in the specifications is dictated by NDOT, not the USFS. Keystone Company would need to pursue having their retaining wall system added to NDOT’s Qualified Products List.

Q – 36. The quantity for bid item # 14 (3/4” Plantmix Bituminous Surface) appears to be in error;

tonnage should be in the order of 444 tons. Want to ensure that our bid remains competitive and would like to confirm if the bid item is correct or not.

Answer: See corrected Schedule of items.

Q – 37. The bid documents lack a copy of the NDOT Encroachment Permit which dictates asphalt specification and specific conditions of work within the NDOT Right-of-way. I have communicated with NDOT to fill in information and they appear to be confused as to why this information is not part of the Bid Documents. They were also wary of providing information to me directly and said they would contact the Forest Service.

Answer: The Forest Service has obtained the NDOT Encroachment Permit and will be provided to the successful offeror. The Right-of-way document is not part of this solicitation but a PDF copy of the NDOT "Terms and Conditions Relating to Right-of-way Occupancy Permits" is provided with this amendment as a courtesy to offerors.

Q – 38. There is no specification for the cast-in-place concrete retaining walls. In particular, I am concerned that the exposed finish for those wall is not specified. Would you provide a specification for the cast-in-place concrete for the retaining walls along the trail that defines the exposed finish desired?

Answer: See new Specification from FP-03, Section 258. Pay Item is 25802, which specifies colored and stamped finish.

Q – 39. The plan view drawings of the trail appear to have the retaining wall locations defined by a schedule labeled “RETAINING WALL REQ’D”. Drawing C-106 has a retaining wall labeled near station 17+00 that is not contained in the “RETAINING WALL REQ’D” schedule. Would you clarify if this retaining wall is required and if so, define the location and length?

Answer: Yes it is required. Refer to new Specifications and Drawings.

Q – 40. The cast-in –pace concrete specification 033000 paragraph 3.09 (A) commits the Contracting Officer to select a testing laboratory that the Contractor will employ and pay for required testing. Would you select a testing laboratory now and advertize their name in an amendment so we can get their pricing to include in our proposal?

Answer: Refer to new Specifications - 153 Quality Control. Contractor must use a currently certified lab for testing.

Q – 41.Specification sections 032000 and 321613 appear to be for the same elements of work.

Would you choose which specification governs so conflicts between specifications will be eliminated?

Answer: these Specifications no longer apply.

Q – 42. In the “Past Performance and Company Experience”, it is asking us to “Describe (1) all contracts and subcontract currently in process and completed by your firm in the past 3 years.”

We have completed in the neighborhood of 1000 projects in the Vegas Valley in the past 3 years.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Answer: Remove the word “all”. You should provide contracts and subcontracts currently in process and completed by your firm in the past 3 years that are relevant contracts in similarity, size and scope. However you may also included other noteworthy references as well.