Q-A_11_24_15.pdf

DTFH68-15-B-00006 updated: 11/24/2015 HI SR 200(3), Saddle Road East Side

11/19/15

QUESTION #1

There are two (2) copies of plan sheet C1, please indicate which is correct?

Response: Please refer to amendment 1.

QUESTION #2

We are unable to locate the Hydraulics Report, Geotechnical Report, and Paving Report. Please provide us with copies of these reports?

Response: They are now available on www.fbo.gov

QUESTION #3

As many of the more recent Saddle Road plan sets have included, there are two “exculpatory” clauses/disclaimers at the bottom of the earthwork analysis sheets C5 – C6. These clauses seem to imply that the tabulations/analyses/diagrams (on pages C5 – C7) provided are unreliable; having the potential to create incorrect/erroneous conclusions regarding the earthwork volumes corrected for material shrink/swell, the varying amounts of different types of material (“ash” vs. useable soil/rock, etc.), the resulting mass balance, dozing to fill distances, over haul distances, and other such implied earthwork characteristics. Why are the tabulations/analyses/diagrams (on pages C5 – C7) provided if they are not to be trusted?

Response: The information provides the best available representation of existing and proposed conditions based on field data and engineering analysis. Please see Subsection 204.01 (d) Monitoring and Measurement and (e) Design Adjustments.

QUESTION #4

Will sufficient time and access to the project area be provided so additional test pits and supplemental geotechnical information can be obtained and analyzed to provide better and more reliable conclusions for the purpose of creating accurate risk analyses and cost estimates?

Response: Please refer to the Geotechnical Data Report including subsurface information and boring logs.

http://www.fbo.gov/

QUESTION #5

If the actual “ash” material volume encountered varies significantly from the theoretical volume represented, and the resulting mass balance is materially altered creating the need for either import borrow, exporting of excess soils, or severe “overhaul” situations ---- who will be responsible for such cost overruns?

Response: Please refer to Subsection 204.01(e) Design Adjustments.

QUESTION #6

If the “ash” stability mitigation [using “select topping” over geotextile fabric] depicted on plan sheet B6 is unsuccessful and other means are needed; who will be responsible for the cost impact to production and construction sequencing?

Response: Please refer to FAR 52.243-4 changes.

QUESTION #7

Are there accurate historic weather records for the project location? If so can you please provide access to such information? or please provide an internet location to obtain such information?

Response: It’s the contractors’ responsibility to identify and assess historic weather data.

QUESTION #8

Due to the “ash” soil condition and its extreme sensitivity to excess moisture; who will be responsible for the cost of adverse weather exposure and the resulting impacts to construction sequencing and schedule?

Response: Response: Please refer to Subsection 204.01(a) General and subsection 204.01(b) Staged Construction.

QUESTION #9

The paving operation will also be extremely impacted by excessive rain? Who will be responsible for the cost of rain delays? Will extra contract days be provided should rain create excess delays?

Response: Please refer to subsection 108.01 Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work for contractor responsibility of estimating inclement weather. Additionally refer to CFR 852.236-91(e) for unusually severe weather.

QUESTION #10

A comparison of the quantities provided on the bid form to those provided on plan sheets C1 – C4, reveals a significant difference. These differences seem to be consistently biased with the higher of the two numbers being on the bid form. There are significant fixed costs associated with such projects.

These fixed costs (i.e. corporate G/A, Bond, Project Overheads, etc.) are traditionally spread proportionately across all the bid items. With such a consistent positive bias on the bid form, the actual quantities that are paid at the conclusion of the contract could be significantly less. Fixed costs distributed to items that are deliberately structured to underrun could be lost.

If most of the bid item quantities are deliberately over inflated, where do you recommend that contractors place their fixed costs to protect what will be real cost to the project regardless of underruns in constructed quantities? Any in-appropriate distribution of fixed costs to any one item may be viewed as an improperly balanced bid item, and grounds for protest? Please provide appropriate direction on this matter?

Response: It’s the contractors responsibility to identify unit prices to be adequately compensated for the contract work requirements. See FAR 52.211-18 for variation in estimated quantity.

QUESTION #11

If there is an excess of “ash” soils (a volume which exceeds that provided in the x-sections for disposal along the roadway shoulders), will the contractor be allowed to expand the “ash” disposal areas to accommodate the excess material or will the excess volume need to be exported off the project site? If such a volume where exported offsite will the cost be paid as a change? Or will such a cost be the contractor’s responsibility?

Response: Please refer to 204.13 Disposal of Unsuitable or Excess Material.

QUESTION #12

Will the debris from trees and vegetation generated from the clearing and grubbing operation be allowed to stay onsite? Can such green waste be ground-up and used as slope cover? Or is such debris to be hauled off-site?

Response: Please refer to Section 201.

QUESTION #13

What is the best way to arrange to hike the alignment prior to bid? Is it ok to visit the alignment without being accompanied by an authorized project representative?

Response: See FAR 52.237-1 and section 108.01 regarding rights of entry limitations within the project limits. Additionally see NOTICE REGARDING PTA INSPECTION.

QUESTION #15

Please consider extending the bid date by two weeks. This additional time will allows us to review and develop a rock crushing plan using the provided PTA Quarry information, develop traffic diversion & phasing plans through the construction work zone, and quantify rock excavation that can be ripped and rock excavation that requires blasting.

Response: There is currently no intention for the government to re-establish the bid opening date.

QUESTION #16

We request the boring logs for the geotechnical memo (W.O. 4984-40, August 31, 2015) in order to evaluate the shrink/swell and to quantify the different types rock excavations, as noted in Special Contract Requirements (SCR) 204.16 (e) page E-99 and on plan sheet C-5 grading summary note. This will also allow us to distinguish between rock that can be ripped and rock that needs to be blasted.

Response: Please refer to the draft geotechnical data report. The draft geotechnical data report will serve as the basis to evaluate changes during contract performance.

QUESTION #17

One Earthwork Analysis Scenario we are projecting is as follows:

Striping depth averaging between 6 to 9 inches of depth

- Raw Cut volume after striping: 590,000 cy

- Raw Fill volume after striping: 450,000 cy

- Additional Ash Fill Volume available outside roadway prism: 130,000 cy

Obviously this is very close to a balanced scenario; however if the volume of ash encountered in the excavation exceeds 130,000 cy and/or the shrink of “suitable” material encountered is higher than expected there will not be enough “suitable” material available to construct the roadway prism.

If additional “suitable” fill material is needed beyond the project limits will the cost of such additional material be the responsibility of the contractor?

Response: Please refer to subsection 204.01 (b) and 204.01 (d).

QUESTION #18

When the earthwork material is excavated along the “ash” interface --- mixing will occur and lenses of blended / transitional material will be experienced. How will such material be identified accurately to discern whether it is “suitable” or “unsuitable”? Will frequent testing of such material be required? and who will make the judgement calls deciding between the different and marginal materials as to whether they are “suitable” or “unsuitable”?

Response: See section 204.14 Acceptance. See table 204-1 Sampling and Testing Requirements. See subsection 101.04 Definitions.

QUESTION #19

Please clarify whether there is more geotechnical information available for this project? The recent information posted to the FBO site is only 24-pages in length and does not include any boring/test pit logs, soil test results, density, sieve analysis, proctors, etc.? Will this information be made available?

Response: Please refer to the draft geotechnical data report. The draft geotechnical data report will serve as the basis to evaluate changes during contract performance.

QUESTION #20

In the event that the mass balance and associated length of hauls determined from all available information prior to bid are impacted for reasons beyond the control of the contractor’s will an equitable adjustment to the contract amount be made? Several reasons are apparent that such an event may occur?

For example: if more “ash” is encountered in a certain location, resulting in the need for more suitable embankment material to construct the roadway grades; such material may only be available at a distance much further away then what could have be reasonably assumed for the purpose of bid? In this event a longer haul will result in more cost; such a situation can not be reasonably anticipated prior to bid and should not be the contractor’s responsibility? Perhaps a bid item can be added for embankment volume hauled on a per station basis so a baseline is established to level the bid for all; and changes to cost in any hauling distances due to circumstances beyond the control of the contractor can be more easily agreed upon during construction?

Response: See subsection 204.01 (b) Staged Construction. Please refer to the geotechnical data report as it refers to material type.

QUESTION #21

SCR 602.03 states use of precast units require approval by the CO. Please confirm the use of precast box culverts is acceptable.

Response: Precast units are acceptable with CO approval.

QUESTION #22

Page A-iv of the Notice to Bidders states that a sample plan for subcontracting requirements can be downloaded from the following link: http://www.cflhd.gov/contracting/construction/ReferenceLinks.cfm. I was unable to locate the sample plan from the website, so please provide sample plan to be used for this project.

Response: The link has been updated.

QUESTION #23

On this project the marking are specified as Type A paint. The state of Hawaii does not normally utilize paint, much less solvent based ones, on roadways. On previous sections of the Saddle Road that were done the material was Type H Thermoplastic. Since this material was used on other Federal projects and is the material utilized typically throughout the islands we believe that there may have been an error in specifying the paint

Response: Please refer to Amendment 2.

QUESTION #24

On sheet L-27 a significant amount of work is identified as typical culvert details over soft soils. Please clarify how this work will be measured and pay for IE: sub-excavation, non woven geotextile, and select topping?

Response: See subsection 602.03 of the FP.

http://www.cflhd.gov/contracting/construction/ReferenceLinks.cfm

QUESTION #25

In reviewing the current solicitation it appears that the replacement of sub-excavated materials with select topping material is only measured and paid as embankment however it is very unclear. In addition the woven geotextile fabric and geogrid are incidental to the embankment pay item for the indicated station ranges and depths on plan sheet B-6 & B-7. Question: Would you please provide pay items for the replacement of subexcavation with select topping as this is not common embankment and the volume could vary? Question: Would you please provide pay items for woven geotexile and geogrid as they are extremely large costs and more than likely the quantities will change in the field?

Response: See subsection 204.15 and 204.16 for measurement and payment.

QUESTION #26

Due to the high rain fall and the steepness of the terrain, implementation and maintenance of BMPs is an extremely labor and equipment intensive activity in addition to being un-quantifiable. Will you please provide a unit pay item for the maintenance of such?

Response: Please refer to subsection 157.13 Maintenance and cleanup and subsection 157.15 Measurement.

QUESTION #27

On sheet R2 waterline notes and schematics there is no horizontal dimensions for the 8" and 4" ductile iron mainline pipe.Will you please provide the 8" and 4" DIP horizontal dimensions ?

Response: Please refer to plan sheet D26.

QUESTION #28

Precast reinforced concrete box sections are referenced in 706.07, are precast box culverts allowed?

Response: Please refer to subsection 602.03 of the contract requirements.

QUESTION #29

Sheet S1 note 5 reinforcing steel references ASTM A615 grade 60 however section 55407 speaks of epoxy coated rebar. Please clarify the requirements for reinforcing steel?

Response: ASTM A615 grade 60 is required in accordance with the plans. Please refer to amendment 2.

QUESTION #30

Section 702 added penetrating emulsion for prime coat is a prime coat required if so please add pay item?

Response: Prime coat is not a requirement of this contract.

QUESTION #31

Given the complexity and size of the project as well the missing information ie: complete geotechnical report would you please postpone the bid date for proper evaluation of a complete geotechnical report?

Please refer to the draft geotechnical data report. The draft geotechnical data report will serve as the basis to evaluate changes during contract performance.

QUESTION #32

The Geotech memo on page 7 mentions that an on-site crusher should be considered for processing construction aggregate materials. Please confirm that on previous Saddle Road projects for Fed Hwy, an on-site crusher was used to produce Aggregate Base to meet material specification 703.05 Table 703-2 Grading Designation C, D, or E; in the FP-03 Standard Specifications. If yes then we kindly request a copy of the material submittal. A copy of the material submittal would assist on determining whether or not an on-site crusher should be used for this project.

Response: It is the contractors’ responsibility to provide materials meeting the specification requirements of the contract. On some previous projects a crusher has been utilized to generate aggregate materials meeting the contract specification requirements.

QUESTION #33

Plan sheets F1 and F2 show a construction fence.

a. Please clarify if this construction fence is one and the same as the temporary fence per FP-03 Specification 619.06. If it is not the same, then please specify if temporary fence is needed and where if so.

b. Please provide a detail for the construction fence, and if required a detail for the temporary fence.

c. Please specify under which bid item the construction fence will be paid for, and if required under which bid item will the temporary fence be paid for.

Response: See plan sheet C3 and corresponding specification for item 63503-1000, temporary traffic control – plastic fence.

QUESTION #34

FP-03 Specification 619.04 specifies grounding fences. It is not clear where this is needed. Therefore please clarify if grounding fence is required. If required then please specify location.

Response: Grounding fence is not required for this contract.

QUESTION #35

Please specify which plan sheet shows the location of bid item 61901-0200 Wire Fence 2,930 linear feet and bid item 61902-1400 Metal Gate 3 each called out on Plan Sheet C14 Fence & Gate summary. Also please provide wire fence details for bid item 61901-0200.

Response: Please refer to amendment 2

11/20/15

QUESTION #36

Given the Thanksgiving holiday and limited time before the bid due date, will the bid be postponed? There is still a lot of factors we need to analyze and price.

Response: There is currently no intention for the government to re-establish the bid opening date.

QUESTION #37

Plan sheet B4 shows the Typical Rock Embankment Detail Sta. 1545+00 to 1729+00. Please verify that rock embankment per this detail can be used from Sta. 1729+00 to 1864+00 in areas above the select topping working platforms as shown on details on plan sheet B6.

Response: See subsection 204.08 (a)

QUESTION #38

Paragraph 204.04, on page E-88 of the Special Contract Requirements, has requirements for Ash Management Plan. It requires method of achieving specified moisture and density requirements. On page E-95, paragraph 204.13 Disposal of Unsuitable or Excess Material references use of excavated ash material to flatten embankment slopes from Sta. 1729+00 to 1864+00. Is the intent that the material considered ash will only be placed on the flatten slope areas as shown on details shown on plan sheet B5? If there is a compaction requirement for this material, please provide what the requirements are and proctor information so that it can be analyzed.

Response: See amendment 2 adding the following language to section 204.13:

Shape and compact the waste material in its final location. Do not mix clearing or other material not subject to payment with the waste material.

QUESTION #39

There are two bid items numbered 20441-0000. One for Waste (Disposal on Embankment Slope) 157,000 CUYD and the other for Waste 55,000 CUYD. It is unclear what material gets measured and how the quantity gets paid. Please clarify the differences between the two bid items.

Response: See subsection 204.15 (e) Measurement and 204.16 Payment. Both will be measured and paid for.

QUESTION #40

Please verify if select topping for replacement of overexcavation for pavement section in cuts shown in Typical Cut Section Detail (Sta. 1545+00 to 1729+00) on plan sheet B4 is measured and paid under Bid Item 20420-0000 Embankment Construction.

Response: Please see subsection 204.15 (1) (a).

QUESTION #41

Please clarify how select topping (shown in detail for Earthwork Condition No. 2A, 2B, 3, and 4 on plan sheets B6 and B7) for backfill in those ash conditions from Sta. 1729+00 to 1864+00 will be measured and paid for.

Response: Please see subsection 204.15 (1) (a).

QUESTION #42

Plan sheets R1 and R2 show overhead utility and pole relocate work to be done by others. Please provide schedule for when the relocate work by others will take place and the duration of that work.

Response: Please see subsection 104.07.

QUESTION #43

Pages 7, 8, and 12 of the Technical Memorandum W.O. No. 4984-40 dated August 31, 2015 for geotechnical recommendations, indicate a settlement period of 2 to 4 months after completion of fill embankments in soft soil areas. Please clarify if this recommendation will be required for this project, and if so please provide the necessary information, including the affected areas, monitoring plan, surcharge plan, settlement waiting periods, so it can be analyzed and priced accordingly.

Response: Contract requirements take precedence over memorandum recommendations.

QUESTION #44

In addition, Paragraph 204.15 (b) (2) on page E-97 states: "Do not measure the following in embankment construction: (d) Adjustments for subsidence or settlement of the embankment or the foundation on which the embankment is placed." Is the intent that adjustments for settlement of the embankment or foundation will be considered a change?

Response: It is the contractor’s responsibility to assess settlement through the contract period based on available geotechnical information. The contractor should develop unit prices based on this information.

QUESTION #45

Paragraph 204.06 (c) Rock Cuts, on page E-89, states: "When blasting rock, use controlled blasting methods according to subsection 205.08." The project cross-sections reflect the steepest cut slopes to be 1(V):2(H). FP-03, paragraph 205.08 ( c) Controlled Blasting states: "...use controlled blasting methods to form the final rock cut faces when the rock height is more than 10 feet above the ditch grade and the staked slope is 2(V):1(H) or steeper." The cross-section slopes in rock cuts do not match the requirements of 205.08 Controlled Blasting in the FP-03. Please clarify.

Response: We agree. Slopes steeper than 2(V):1(H) or steeper will require controlled blasting.

QUESTION #46

Paragraph 204.04 (f) on page E-88 states: "Plan for conservation of topsoil and replacement upon completion of embankment to establish vegetation." Please clarify that if it is the intent that in the earth/ash areas the existing topsoil be conserved and placed on the slopes. If so, please indicate under which bid item will this measured and paid for.

Response: See amendment 3

QUESTION #47

If a contractor intends to use material from the PTA Quarry, please confirm if the Davis Bacon Wages apply to the truck drivers delivering Asphalt Concrete and Aggregates between the PTA Quarry and the Saddle Road work site?

If a contractor intends to use material from the PTA Quarry, please confirm if the Davis Bacon wages apply to work related to the PTA quarry including: development and reclamation plans, overburden removal, drilling/blasting, excavation, crushing, stockpile and waste handling, access roads improvements and other related work included under other pay items in the bid schedule.

Response: The contractor is responsible for following Davis-Bacon regulations. The attached should help bidders with this determination. Note #15-#22 directly discuss this question.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/contracts/dbra_qa.pdf

QUESTION #48

If a contractor does not intend to use material from the PTA Quarry, what price should be entered in Item No. 31101-0000 Stockpiled Aggregate (1-1/2 Inch) 7560 TON, and Item No. 30608-0000 Dust Palliative Application (For Quarry Haul Road) 3,000 GAL?

Response: Please see subsection 311.01. Stockpiled Aggregates are only required if the option to utilize the PTA quarry is exercised.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/contracts/dbra_qa.pdf

11/23/2015

QUESTION #49

Why are there only 155 stations on the linear grading item, when there are 285 stations of alignment?

Response: Linear grading applies to the portion of alignment on existing Saddle Road.

QUESTION #50

Please provide a better description of what should be included in item 20402-0000 “Subexcavation”?

Should the geotextile, geogrid, rock for the work platform, etc. be in this item as-well?

Response: See subsection 204.15 (d) (2) for what will be measured for payment under the 20402-0000;

subexcavation item. See subsection 204.15 (b)(1)(a) for what will be measured for payment under the 20420-0000 Embankment Construction.

QUESTION #51

Please provide a better description of what should be included in the second item labeled 20441-0000 “Waste”? Is this an export (off-site disposal) item?

Response: The intent of the project is to dispose of unsuitable material in accordance with section

204.13. Item 20441-0000 Waste is included as contingency should on-site disposal be unavailable. This is an off-site disposal item.

QUESTION #52

If the linear grading bid item is to include finishing and fine grading of excavation and embankment slopes? And that because such quantities are not considered a function of volume; why is the linear grading item being limited to only a portion of the project alignment? Why not the entire length? There is finish grading / finegrading for all the alignment beyond station 1700+00?

Response: Please refer to the second sentence of subsection 204.02 (c).

QUESTION #53

Which bid item should include the “geotextiles”, “geogrid”, and crushed aggregate used to construction the “work platforms”? The embankment and subexcavation items specifically exclude these costs on pages E-98, section 204.15, subsection (b)2 (k) and subsection(d)2.

Response: It’s the contractor’s responsibility to identify unit prices to be adequately compensated for the contract work requirements. Please refer to subsection 204.15(b)(1)(a) for measurement of select topping.

QUESTION #54

Which bid item should include the water used for moisture conditioning of embankment materials (compaction)?

Response: It’s the contractor’s responsibility to identify unit prices to be adequately compensated for the contract work requirements.

QUESTION #55

The FBO website changed the name of the project from ‘Saddle Road East Side’ to ‘Daniel K. Inouye Highway’. Will the bid documents be revised by changing the project name from ‘Saddle Road East Side’ to ‘Daniel K. Inouye Highway’?

Response: Both names are referencing the same project, under solicitation # DTFH6815B00006. Bid documents will not be revised.

QUESTION #56

Typical Section sheet B3 shows a paved swale outside the paved shoulder from Sta. 1813+00 to 1864+00. Roadway Plan sheets D20 to D24 show only the 8’ Edge of Shoulder. What kind of AC mix is required for the 2” Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement in the paved swale. Do the summary sheets reflect the paved swale quantity? Under what bid item is the paved swale to be paid?

Response: The paved swale will be paid for under Item 40201-1300 Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement and item 30101-0000 Aggregate Base. See section 402 and 301 of the contract specifications for material requirements.

QUESTION #57

Is an MTV Required for the paving of swales from Sta. 1813+00 to 1864+00?

Response: An MTV will be required for all HACP work.

QUESTION #58

Please clarify the location of the grouted riprap at Sta 1771+25. Drainage Summary sheet C8 calls for

319.9 CY of placed Riprap and 227 CY of Grouted Riprap at sta. 1771+25. Sheets F11, L2 and S6 show placed riprap outlet, but no riprap at the inlet. Plan sheet L2 shows Inlet Concrete End Treatment (See sheets S1-S4 & S6).

Response: Grouted riprap will be placed at the inlet.

QUESTION #59

Refer to plan sheets B2 and B3. What types of materials are acceptable for the 2” thick layer of shoulder reconditioning?

Response: See section 303.04 of the of the contract specifications for work requirements.

QUESTION #60

Can all the 55,000 CUYD Waste from bid item 20441-0000 Line A0520 be disposed of in authorized bury pits within the project limits?

Response: The intent of the project is to dispose of unsuitable material in accordance with section

204.13. Item 20441-0000 Waste is included as contingency should on-site disposal be unavailable. This is

QUESTION #61

Is the volume of the 55,000 CUYD Waste from bid item 20441-0000 Line A0520 included in item 20420-

0000 EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION?

Response: Item 20441-0000 Waste is included for disposal off-site.

QUESTION #62

Surfacing Summary for mainline sheet C9 shows 40101-0500 Superpave AC Pavement, but there is no superpave on the access road summary on sheet C10. Is there a transition detail available from the 2” superpave to the access road pavement?

Response: Access Road HACP will match the perceived mainline edge of pavement.

QUESTION #63

Refer to 633.03A(e) – Apply a fog seal on rumble strips complying with Subsection 409.10. Will the application of the fog seal be incidental to Option X, Item Nos. 63313-0000 and 63313-1000?

Response: No. Fog seal will be applied to the finished paved surface and paid for under item 40920-1000 fog seal.

QUESTION #64

Regarding the VETS 100 Reporting on Sheet A-I, is it currently referred to as VETS 4212 Reporting by the U.S. Department of Labor?

Response: yes

QUESTION #65

Please provide specification for the herbicide to be used for Bid item 62535-0000 Herbicide, 370 gal. The Special Contract Requirements and FP-03 do not have specifications for the herbicide.

Response: See subsection 625.02.

QUESTION #66

Some of the FHWA responses to the questions asked thus far have simply referred the contractor back to the specification. We would greatly appreciate it if you could please consider further clarifying beyond your specification and/or please re-write the sections of the specification that require better clarity on questions such as #48, #43, #41, #39, #26, #25, #24, #10, etc.?

Response: We have reviewed the responses previously provided and feel they are appropriate for the purposes of this solicitation.

QUESTION #67

For example: question #39 – this is a reasonable question regarding two bid items with basically the same item description? It is a reasonable question to wonder why there are two items and whether the difference between the items is a possible difference in cost to the contractor; is one item implying a further distance away for wasting excess material? perhaps off-site? The specification section you reference in your response does not properly clarify the difference between the two bid items?

Response: The intent of the project is to dispose of unsuitable material in accordance with section

204.13. Item 20441-0000 Waste is included as contingency should on-site disposal be unavailable. This is

QUESTION #68

The quantity of water required in bid item 15801-0000 seems excessively low compared to previous phases of the Saddle Road construction? On one of the “C1” sheets that was deleted the quantity was 30,000 m-gal? Now it is 4,000 m-gal? Please clarify?

Response: Please see subsection 204.15(b)(j). Water will not be measured for embankment construction.

QUESTION #69

This section of the Saddle Road tends to experience an extremely high degree of unpredictable rain events of both duration and intensity; the existing section of Saddle Road was very difficult to pave due to such unpredictable rain events? Will there be any mechanism to account for and/or adjust for excusable delay in the schedule for such unpredictable rain events? The overall amount of precipitation may be consistent on an annual basis, but the degree of intensity and frequency within that annual period is extremely unpredictable? The previous response to Question 9 does not properly address the risk associated with such a special case as this? Any additional guidance would be much appreciated?

Response: We have reviewed our prior response previously provided and feel it is appropriate for the purposes of this solicitation.