AMD 01 - N4008525B2501 - Cutler Perimeter Road.pdf

ACQR6082031

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to provide Government responses to all 26 Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPIs) received, see SF30 Continuation Page. The follow ing four (4) enclosures are also incorporated w ith this Amendment:

1) Area G S-7_EV and Haz Mat Data Report_2024.03.21

2) NRPA PERMIT PHOTOS_2024.11.27

3) Sign in Sheet - Perimeter Road

4) Preliminary Geotechnical Report_2024.04.03

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 10-Mar-2025

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N4008525B2501

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Jan-2025

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer 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.

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 copies to the issuing office.

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

10-Mar-2025

CODE

NAVFACSYSCOM MID-ATLANTIC

PWD MAINE - FEAD PORTSMOUTH

PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD

BLDG 59

PORTSMOUTH NH 03801-2032

N40085 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4008525B2501

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMD 01 - GOV RESPONSES TO PPIS

Amendment 0001 – Government Responses to all PPIs Received

The PPI’s are repeated below in italics with NAVFAC’s responses following in bold.

PPI-001: Please elaborate on the payment for in-lieu fee. Is this per Maine DEP or is there additional fees that the contractor should account for? If only Maine DEP applies there appears to be multiple compensation formular, which would apply to project (see link below for standard Maine DEP in-lieu fee structure)?

https://www.maine.gov/dep/land/nrpa/ILF_and_NRCP/ILF/fs-in-lieu-fee.pdf.

Response: The in-lieu fee is directly related to the NRPA Permit for the project which NAVFAC is currently pursuing. NAVFAC retained the services of an AE firm to provide permitting services. The AE firm has calculated the in-lieu fee to be $363,845.92. NAVFAC is currently waiting on confirmation of this value from the MaineDEP. For the purposes of bidding, this value can be assumed at this time. NAVFAC will issue an Amendment if the in-lieu fee is calculated differently by the MaineDEP. The expectation is that the Contractor will pay the fee prior to mobilization as outlined in the State permit.

PPI-002: Per Section 312300.00 it appears that no excavated soil will be reused on the site, additionally the specs imply that all soil will need to be disposed of at a licensed non-municipal landfill. The project will have substantial volumes of excavated soil, and there are no licensed non-municipal landfills in close proximity to the project site, which will add substantial costs to the project. Please confirm that excavated soil will be subject to disposal at a licensed non-municipal landfill.

Response: KTR may reuse excavated soils provided that the KTR can prove the soil meets the Specifications for the proposed use. Excess soil, including soil not meeting Specifications, must be disposed of at a licensed non-municipal landfill that has been pre-approved by PWD-ME Environmental. Excess soil must be characterized and managed in accordance with project Specifications and Navy, state, and federal requirements. Previous projects have used a waste management facility in Norridgewock. The contractor is responsible for identifying a facility compliant with project specifications and capacity to accept material.

PPI-003: Is there any additional information pertaining to the contaminants of the existing onsite soils? Borings show relatively low PID readings, but the specs make references to possible lead, PCBs, etc. We will need to know the exact contaminants in order to properly & legally dispose of this soil prior to the bid unless a Cash Allowance is established for this work.

The plans (G-003, Hazardous Materials Notes, 1) there was a summary of results in the environmental and hazardous materials data report dated 4.23.24. We did not find this report in the plans, specs, or solicitation info provided.

Response: The Specifications have a general reference to possible hazardous materials as the site was commissioned in circa 1964 and is a 2,860 acre site. Soil testing was conducted at Area-G only and the report stated:

“Soil contains low levels of select total and TCLP metals and petroleum hydrocarbons.

Based on the concentrations detected, surplus soil generated during the Project appears suitable for off-site transportation and disposal at a licensed non-hazardous landfill.

Alternatively, soil may be suitable for onsite reuse.”

Soil testing was not conducted at Area-H. For the purposes of bidding, it should be assumed that the conditions at Area-H are similar to those of Area-G. See Enclosure 1.

PPI-004: The Specifications state that work hours are limited from 7am to 3:30pm. For pricing purposed if the contractor anticipates 6am to 5pm work hours, will this be allowed?

Response: Yes, longer work hours are acceptable. The contactor should ensure these hours are reflected on their access requests.

PPI-005: Is all stone revetment/rip rap stated in pages 31-36 new or existing?

Response: Rip-rap shown near coastal sand-dune boundary is existing stone rubble material. All rip-rap shown immediately adjacent to the work area is new/proposed.

PPI-006: Are GC's to supply and lay new grass?

Response: Yes, restoration of disturbed areas is required, refer to drawings and specifications.

PPI-007: Is the sandbag cofferdam shown in drawings existing or is that to be new?

Response: Sandbag cofferdam is to be new and conform to applicable drawings and specification.

PPI-008: Is there any stone aggregate/rip rap specifics that is to be carried?

Response: Refer to specification section 35 31 19.

PPI-009: Would we be able to receive photos of the existing site?

Response: Refer to previously approved photos which were included NRPA permit application document dated November 27, 2024. See Enclosure 2.

PPI-010: The spoils must be taken to the landfill after the dirt has been tested and profiled.

a) How many TCLPS are required per 1000 YD3?

b) What waste classification does the landfill accept?

c) What is the turnaround time for each landfill?

Response:

a) Excess soil, including soil not meeting Specifications, must be disposed of at a licensed non-municipal landfill that has been pre-approved by PWD-ME Environmental. Excess soil must be characterized and managed in accordance with project Specifications, Navy, state, and federal requirements, and requirements established by the selected/approved disposal facility. Sampling frequency and analytical methods will be subject to the requirements of the selected/approved disposal facility.

b) See Response a), above.

c) The contractor should confer with the selected/approved disposal facility to determine turnaround time.

PPI-011: Does the Navy already have some of these permits in place? Will the GC be making amends to an already existing govt. permit or are they required to apply for new ones?

Response: The Government will obtain all necessary federal and state permitting with the exception of the Maine Construction General Permit. Standards should be captured in the specs and plans, including the required wetland mitigation (in-lieu fee payment). The contractor will be responsible for obtaining the Maine Construction General Permit, in accordance with the state requirements, and providing proof of submission and authorization to the Government. Additional information can be found at: https://www.maine.gov/dep/land/stormwater/construction.html.

PPI-012: Please provide us with the copy of the sign in sheet

Response: Refer to Enclosure 3 for site walk sign-in sheet.

PPI-013: Where is the pavement work that is being asked for Option 3? There seems to be a difficulty locating where in fact Option 3, CLIN 0005 is to be located on the drawings.

Response: The area immediately south of Bid Option 01 work.

PPI-014: Are any CAD files pertaining to this project that the GSA may be able to provide?

Response: CADD drawings will be provided to the successful bidder after contract award per the specifications.

PPI-015: What is the number of surveys required: Pre-construction, any mid construction, as-built. if the 2021-22 lidar contours are from NOAA they may not be suitable for pavement matching surveys. The Feb 2024 survey should be adequate for pre-con assuming no further damage since Jan 10, 2024 storm.

Response: Pre-construction survey as required by the specs is a site inventory assessment conducted by the contractor to log existing site conditions. Basic surveys using a total station and GPS equipment will be needed to perform basic surveys to record roadway alignment, infrastructure locations, and for as-builts which will be uploaded into CADD.

PPI-016: Whether drones are allowed with special attention given to guywires. DJI drones or NDAA approved drones? If drones are allowed, can downlooking imagery be used to confirm the point cloud and document progress.

Otherwise drone camera will not be brought onto site.

Response: CNIC has posted the entry point with a “No-Drones” sign. Drones will not be allowed for contractor use.

PPI-017: If no drones, is handheld GPS controlled lidar allowed or robotic total stations only.

Response: LiDar has been used onsite before; however, its use should be coordinated with down days to ensure proper equipment function. Basic surveys using a total station and GPS equipment is recommended.

PPI-018: Is there any sonar surveys required for this project? And if so, are there any procedures to update and integrate GPS RTK with soundings thereby eliminating tidal considerations.

Response: Sonar surveys are not required for this project

PPI-019: To ensure no Electromagnetic Interference from survey equipment with facility mission, the following technical electromagnetic emission specs are provided:

1. the lidar is an eye safe Class 1 laser at 905nm with no more than 25W emitted.

2. the drone comms is 2.4GHz with a range of 5km

3. the robotic total station is also at 2.4Ghz with range of 2000 feet.

4. the RTK GPS base station operates at freqs of 450-470 Mhz at 35W max

Response: There are no anticipated interferences between the proposed equipment and the facility mission for the scope of this project. See responses to PPIs 016, 017, and 018 above as well regarding equipment use.

PPI-020: The plans make reference to a Hazardous Material Report dated 4/23/2024, can you please provide this report.

Response: See response to PPI-003 and see Enclosure 1.

PPI-021: Is it up to the contractors to determine the cost of in-lieu fees with the dep or will the cost of these fees be provided? How will the in-lieu fee process be handled on the project (i.e. is the contractor handling permits with DEP or will the Government have the permits in hand prior to signing contracts)?

Response: See response to PPI-001.

PPI-022: Please confirm that ALL excavation needs to be stockpiled onsite, tested for contamination, and then disposed off at a licensed landfill regardless of contamination level instead of reuse on site or stockpiling onsite. There is a significant amount of excavation associated with the project and costs associated with the specified handling will be substantial. If excavated materials can remain onsite, cost will be significantly lower.

Response: See response to PPI-002 and PPI-010.

PPI-023: Limited Geotechnical data is available for the project site and it appears ledge may be encountered in multiple areas. Quantifying the ledge will be difficult due to the limited information available. Would the project team consider a unit price for ledge removal in an effort to reduce inflated ledge removal contingencies that contractors will have to carry when pricing as a lump sum?

Response: Borings in the Area-G range in depths from 14ft to 24ft with the exception of 1 boring which was stopped due to the presence of groundwater and using vacuum excavation. While no borings were performed at Area-H the 1959 Topography and Site Soil Survey indicate similar characteristics to Area-G. Ledge is not anticipated to be encountered during the execution of this work. See Enclosure #4.

PPI-024: Will work hours outside of the specified 7:00am-3:30pm be allowed? Typically, our crews are onsite from 6:00am-5:00pm.

Response: Yes, please see response to PPI-004

PPI-025: Please confirm that there needs to be a full-time onsite Superintendent, SSHO, and QC Manager. And that one individual cannot take on multiple roles (per spec section 1 30 00.00).

Response: The Project Specifications require a full-time onsite Superintendent, SSHO, and QC Manager and an individual cannot take on multiple roles.

PPI-026: Please confirm the need for security fencing in work areas, laydown areas, and stockpile areas (per spec section 1 50 00.00). The site appears fairly secure and such fencing may not be necessary.

Response: Fencing is not required for the roadway work areas as they are linear however adequate construction signage must be provided in general accordance with the MUTCD and the KTR’s submitted traffic control plan. Project site fencing is required for laydown and stockpile areas in accordance with EM-385.

A. Enclosures (attached as separate documents):

1. AMD-01 - 0_Area G S-7 and Haz Mat Data Report_2024.03.21

2. AMD-01 - NRPA PERMIT PHOTOS_2024.11.27

3. AMD-01 - Pre-Bid Site Walk Sign-In Sheet

4. AMD-01 - Preliminary Geotechnical Report_2024.04.03

(End of Summary of Changes)