Questions_and_Answers.pdf

Questions and Answers for AG-SPEC-S-17-0008

Question 1: Please provide a copy of the government’s estimated quantities for the per “lump sum” contract line items and the per “job” contract line items. The request is being made for the following contract line items: Clearing and grubbing, Protective Cover, and Mobilization and Demobilization.

Answer: Clearing and Grubbing – It is the contractor’s responsibility to determine the volume of clearing in accordance with the solicitation construction specifications CS 2.7.a.1. Protective Cover – Area of protective cover varies according to the contractor’s equipment and method of installation. It is the contractor’s responsibility to estimate their foot print of disturbed area that will require protective cover. Mobilization and Demobilization – The mob/demob costs vary greatly depending on the contractor’s choice of equipment. The contractor is responsible for estimating their mobilization and demobilization costs.

Question 2: During the pre-bid meeting it was noted that another site at West Stiers was going to be added via addendum. Please issue this addendum so that we can prepare our estimate accordingly.

Answer: The amendment has been issued and is available on www.fbo.gov.

Question 3: Please clarify that at each site in the “estimated quantities” chart there is “excavation, common” and “earthfill, class a”, if the excavation quantity is above the earthfill quantity then the material is excess and is to be disposed of offsite at the contractor’s expense.

Answer: Disposal of excess materials shall be in accordance with solicitation specification CS 21.10.a.3.

Question 4: We request that the pay item noted as “earthfill, class a, offsite” be measured and paid for by the CY (LVM).

Answer: Payment method for off-site fill will be LVM and was addressed in the amendment.

Question 5: Please clarify why the bid schedule calls out 1295 CY of “earthfill, class a, offsite”, however the only site that shows this item in the estimated quantities is on the Thistledown site and in the plans it shows 1260 CY instead of 1295 CY.

Answer: Updated off-site earthfill quantities are addressed in the upcoming amendment.

Question 6: Regarding the retaining wall at the Jefferson Davis Blvd. site, please clarify that the soldier piles (steel) are to 40 feet in overall length with 20 feet in the ground / borehole and 20 feet above ground with the wood lagging installed in it. From past reference, a quick rule of thumb that we find to be industry standard regarding retaining walls is to have a proportion to 2 feet in the ground for every 1 foot counter levered above ground.

Answer: Details on dimensions and installation of soldier piles are addressed on page 4 of the plan drawings.

http://www.fbo.gov/

Question 7: Regarding the retaining wall at the Jefferson Davis Blvd site, please clarify that the contract specs and drawings do not require any waler system to be installed at the top of the wall.

Answer: Items not identified in the plans, specifications, or amendments are not required.

Question 8: Regarding the retaining wall at the Jefferson Davis Blvd site, please clarify that the contract specs and drawings do not require a fence system to be installed at the top of the wall.

Answer: Items not identified in the plans, specifications, or amendments are not required.

Question 9: Regarding the retaining wall at the Jefferson Davis Blvd site, please provide clarification due to the drawings on sheet 3 of 17 showing the back fill behind the wall about 10’ down from the top of the wall as being “earthfill” and on sheet 5 of 17 it shows a different backfill detail.

Answer: The drawings on page 5 is labeled as “Typical and Not to Scale”. Please follow the actual x-sections on page 3 for guidance.

Question 10: Regarding the retaining wall at the Jefferson Davis Blvd site, please clarify if the geotextile that is utilized behind the retaining wall is to be measured for payment under the pay item “geotextile”.

Answer: All Geotextile identified to be installed according to design plans will be paid per square yard under pay item “geotextile”.

Question 11: Regarding the retaining wall at the Jefferson Davis Blvd site, please clarify that the owner (NRCS) feels comfortable with the operations that are deemed as being normal means and methods of installing the soldier piles and retaining wall including the additional excavation to meet the backfill requirement sections without creating liability from additional structural damage to the building to the north of the proposed retaining wall during construction.

Answer: Refer to contact clause 52.236-9 “Protection of Existing Vegetation, Structures, Equipment, Utilities, and Improvements” identified on page 20 of the solicitation for details on liabilities.

Question 12: Regarding the retaining wall at the Jefferson Davis Blvd site, on sheet 5 of 17 in the drawings the “typical wall section” states that the above ground section of wall “varies 9.5’ – 10’”.

Please clarify.

Answer: The drawing on page 5 is labeled as “Typical and Not to Scale”. Please follow the actual x-sections on page 3 for guidance.

Question 13: Regarding the retaining wall at the Jefferson Davis Blvd site, please clarify that there is no requirement for the steel piles to have any special coating on them. If so, please clarify.

Answer: Requirements for steel pilings are identified on 511-1 of the Material Specs in the solicitation.

Question 14: Regarding the retaining wall at the Jefferson Davis Blvd site, please clarify if the owner has any soil borings showing the type of soils at the underground tip elevation of the soldier piles. Example

– clay that will hold an open borehole or sand that will collapse, and / or if groundwater is present.

Answer: We do not have any available soil borings for the site in question.

Question 15: Regarding the retaining wall at the Jefferson Davis Blvd site, please clarify the material that is to be utilized as backfill behind the wall – there is a pay item for “drainfill” and “drainfill” is noted on sheet 3 of 17, however “sand backfill (type b)” is noted on sheet 5 of 17.

Answer: Drainfill and sand backfill are terms used synonymously in the plans. Please follow the sand filter material gradation chart on page 3 of the plans.

Question 16: Please clarify that the bids that are submitted are for all sites and that the owner will not delete any of the 5 sites currently noted (6 if West Steirs is added), due to either right-of-way issues or funding issues.

Answer: Please refer to the Federal Acquisition Regulations Clause 52.249-2 Termination for Convenience of the Government Fixed Price Contracts.

Question 17: We do not see any contract requirements in the drawings for installation of silt fence, turbidity barriers, and / or any other erosion control measures. Please clarify that these erosion control measures are not a requirement for this project.

Answer: Refer to solicitation construction specification 5 “Pollution Control” for directions on required erosion control.

Question 18: We would like to request that additional time (contract time) be allowed for the contractor to construct the project. It is our opinion that the current contract time of 167 calendar days is too short for the completion of the work, even with multiple crews and with multiple operations working concurrently. We request 200 calendar days.

Answer: Our performance time is based on average contractor performance on similar projects.

We do not have substantial evidence that warrants change at this time.

Question 19: Regarding the pay item “Drainfill 415.0 CY”, we assume that the gradation requirements is the one noted on sheet 3 of 17 as “Filter Material No. 1 C33 Sand”. After review and further discussion with many local pits / mines in close proximity to the project it has been determined that the locally available washed / screened sand material does not meet the noted specification, however is only out on the top limits of the #30 sieve. The request is that the noted specification / required gradation for “drainfill” be changed for the #30 sieve from 25-60 to 25-70 (which in essence is only changing the top limit for the #30 sieve from 60% passing to 70% passing).

Answer: If #30 sieve 25-60 passing isn’t readily available, we’ll accept #30 25-70.

Question 20: Regarding the retaining wall at the Jefferson Davis Blvd site, on sheet 5 of 17 in the drawings the “general notes – note #1” states “soldier piles (W12x36)”. However, many of the major nationwide United States steel companies / suppliers have noted that W12X36 is not a wide flange section. They provided information that there are the following available sections: W12X35, W12X30, W12X26, W12X40, etc. but no sign of a 36# W12 section. Please clarify which soldier pile beam will be acceptable.

Answer: We will accept 36# W12 and above. Therefore @12X40 is acceptable.

Question 21: Regarding the contract line / pay item for “erosion control blanket, type 2”, we have been unable to find a technical specification referencing the allowed materials for this item. Please clarify. As a note we do find the below in the specs, however it does not detail out the material for the blanket itself.

Answer: Type 2 Erosion Control Blanket is defined as follows: The blanket shall be a mat of a material with a consistent thickness and a photodegradable net on both sides. It shall weigh a minimum of 8 oz. per square yard. The mat material shall be straw and coconut (minimum 25% of weight) fiber. Place staples within blanket area at rate of 1 per 4 square feet.

Question 22: Regarding the drawing for the West Stiers Lane site that was provided at the pre-bid visit, please issue technical specifications for the items noted as “24”CPP – 111 LF” and also “Concrete – 2.0

CY”.

Answer: The needed specifications will be included in the amendment scheduled to be posted.