Attachment_20_-_RFI_Log_25_Feb_19.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 4 Bridges Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA468619RA002
About this file
Attachment 20: RFI Log 25 Feb 19.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 44
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Solicitation RFI Log
| RFI # | RFI Response | Response |
| 1 | Are there any updates available for this solicitation? Is there still an intent to solicit, award and build by this November? | The period of performance has been updated. (See SF1442, Block 10) |
| 2 | Can I get a copy of the Hydrology report for 4 Bridges please? | See Section J, Attachment No. 9.1 & 9.2. |
| 3 | It appears the 1442 is missing from the solicitation issued on the 8th? A draft version was in the change dated 14 December. Also, both the pre-solicitation and the solicitation appear to not have merged in the fbo.gov website. | The SF1442 was not properly attached with the original posting. Amendment 1 included the SF1442. |
| 4 | I was hoping to confirm the due date for Proposals. The FBO posting notes March 4th, whereas the SF 1442 notes February 27th. | The proposal due has been corrected via previous Amendment. (See SF1442, Block 13) |
| 5 | Contractor A is in receipt of Solicitation FA468619RA002- Repair Four Bridges System located at Beale AFB, and would like to attend the site walk set for February 19, 2019 at 1000. The solicitation mentioned that we need to submit any EALs no later than four days prior to the site walk, I am not familiar with this form, is that something you can send me so I can get them filled out for the people that will be attending the site walk, or do I need to provide you with a list of names with current state issued driver’s license information, etc.. | Previous amendment included the EAL template. |
| 6 | Thank you for the below answer on the EAL and posting the required amendment on FBO. I have another very important question that I believe is critical to the solicitation and the question is as follows: |
| 1. The FBO solicitation shows Set Aside: Competitive 8(a) yet the Standard Form 1442 issued shows a Negotiated RFP. We are, per the FAR clauses, asking for clear and concise language to describe the planned procurement and that it remain 8a Competitive as advertised. | This project is an 8(a) set aside. (See SF1442, Block 10) | ||
| 7 | What is the official due date? | The current due date with the Amendment 01 is 13 March 19 at 1100 hrs PST. | |
| 8 | I am reaching out to you on behalf of Signet Testing Lab in regards to the Beale AFB 4 Bridge Repair FA468619RA002. |
Will the Testing and Inspections for this project be going out to bid or will the GC be responsible for this?
| Testing and inspections will be the responsibility of the awardee. | ||
| 9 | As of this morning I have not seen the 3rd amendment clarifying this solicitation as a Competitive 8a Set Aside as you stated below? In addition, the SF 1442 lists a due date of Feb 27, 2019 while the advertisement shows March 13, 2019. These clarifications are needed so that interested parties can prepare accordingly. | See Amendment 3 which has been posted. |
| 10 | Quick question – We see that the completion date for this project is November 2019. Has that date changed with the newest solicitation issued. We couldn’t find any date changes. Please advise. | The period of performance has been updated. (See SF1442, Block 10) |
| 11 | 1. It appears we are going to need to perform ground surveying, and perform the hydrology & hydraulic analysis in order to update the 35% plans for final design. Can you tell me how long USAF will need to review our designs and will you require plans to be submitted for review in stages (i.e. 35%, 65%, 75%, 100%)? |
2. We will also need to prepare a final foundation report for the bridges. Assuming a NTP on March 1, and assuming you could construct the project in 4 months with an October 15 completion date (at least out of the water by this date), we would need to have permits in hand on June 15 (start of construction). Can you tell me what permits have been obtained to date (i.e. 1600, 404, 401)?
3. Permits generally take at least 60 days to obtain after submitting the applications, and most agencies require 65% plans to be submitted with the applications. Thus, we would only have 6 weeks to complete the surveying, H&H analysis and get to 65% design, which does not seem feasible. Even if we assumed permit applications could be submitted without preliminary plans, we would only have 14 weeks to complete final design as well as for USAF to review the plans. Can you go into more detail on your timeline assumption for contractor plan submission, assuming a 3/1 start date?
| See Statement of Need. See Section 3 regarding environmental permits. | ||
| 12 | Can you please provide the necessary channel survey to create the HEC-RAS hydraulic models for each structure? | See Attachments 29 through 33. |
| 13 | Can you provide the redacted information from the AECOM report? | Redacted information will not be provided |
| 14 | Who will be reviewing the hydraulic models? | 9 CES and USACE |
| 15 | What is the expected permit review and processing time? | 60 Days |
| 16 | Should sidewalks be included on each side of the bridges? | Not required |
| 17 | Can you please provide the referenced hydrology study? | See Section J, Attachment No. 9.1 & 9.2. |
| 18 | Please confirm that a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW is not necessary for the project. | The Base is exempt from the 1600 SLA permit, not required |
| 19 | Will Base staff be conducting the restoration monitoring and maintenance activities after construction or will the contractor be responsible for providing those services? | See Section C, SON Paragraph 3.11.4. |
| 20 | How many trees were removed from the work area prior to contractor being awarded the project? | See Attachment 16 - Riparian Mitigation Planting Guidelines. Assume 5 acres total for mitigation, dependent on actual disturbance. |
| 21 | Please identify restoration locations that would require irrigation? | See Attachment 16 - Riparian Mitigation Planting Guidelines. Assume 5 acres total for mitigation, dependent on actual disturbance. |
| 22 | Did the National Marine Fisheries Service provide concurrence that the project is not likely to adversely affect listed fish species (i.e. Chinook salmon)? | Yes. Consultation and letter of concurrence received. |
| 23 | How far from the edge of new pavement do the existing driveways need to be restored? | See Section C, SON Paragraph 5.6.2.1 |
| 24 | Do the above mentioned driveways need to be paved? If so, how far? | See Section C, SON Paragraph 5.6.2.1 |
| 25 | How far down do we need to remove existing columns? | See Section C, SON Paragraph 5.2.1 |
| 26 | How far upstream and downstream do the structures need Rock Slope Protection? | To be determine by KTR scour analyses |
| 27 | Please confirm permanent lighting is required to replace the existing light poles? | See Section C, SON Paragraph 5.8.6 |
| 28 | Will barrier scuppers to allow water to drain into the creek be allowed on the new structures? | Scuppers are acceptable |
| 29 | We noticed bird nesting under the bridges, will nest be removed by the government prior to contractor taking over the site? | The Government will remove bird nests |
| 30 | What is the requirement for existing traffic lights, poles and infrastructure? | Existing traffic lights, lighting circuits, poles, footings, and related appurtenances to be removed and recycled or disposed of appropriately |
| 31 | Is there any existing hazardous material survey information available? | Hazmat surveys have not been completed |
| 32 | Will the Air Force consider utilities installed within the bridge structure in lieu of hanging off the bridge? | Yes. Designs will be considered |
| 33 | Do we need to consider the 500 Year flood plain in our design? | No. |
| 34 | Are botanical surveys required? | Answer to be provided in future amendment. |
| 35 | For bidding purposes can we assume the 100-year flood plain elevation at the existing bridges is 154.5’ above sea level? | No. Determine 100-year flood plain based on hydraulic analysis performed by contractor. USACE hydrology report to provide design storm and flow basis |
| 36 | Please confirm the air force base is to submit the environmental permits that are generated by the contractor. | The Base will submit environmental permit application prepared by the contractor |
| 37 | Is there a preferred bridge rail type? | Caltrans ST-10 |
| 38 | Please identify temporary power requirements? | See Section J, Attachment 8 |
| 39 | Please confirm existing roadways are required to be raised to match the new bridge elevation? | Confirmed. Existing roadways to be raised to match new bridge deck elevations. Alternative designs are encouraged to minimize required fill material to elevate roadways. |
| 40 | Please confirm existing approaches and asphalt roads require removal. | Existing approaches and asphalt roads require removal to the extent that pavement systems will adhere to Caltrans standards |
| 41 | Please identify traffic signaling requirements. | Traffic signals not be required once two lane traffic is restored. |
| 42 | Indicates that sealed offers must be submitted in original and 2 hard copies. However, Section L: Instruction to Offerors specified that we are required to submit each part of the proposal separately in 3-ring binders with 1 hard copy and 1 CD. | Both Section L and the SF1442 have been revised to include 1 original and 2 copies. There are three (3) separate parts; Part I - Price Proposal, Part II - Technical Proposal and Part III - Past Performance Proposal. Each copy of each part shall be submitted in a seperate three ring binder. |
| 43 | Clarify if Part 1 should be submitted in its own 3-ring binder; while Parts 2-3 can be combined into 1 binder. The entire proposal (Parts 1- 3) shall be included in 1 CD in either Excel, MS Word or as Adobe Acrobat format. | There are three (3) separate parts; Part I - Price Proposal, Part II - Technical Proposal and Part III - Past Performance Proposal. Each copy of each part shall be submitted in a seperate three ring binder. |
| 44 | Per FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee. 1996-09 Item (c.) The amount of the bid guarantee shows 100 percent of the bid price. This seems to be a typo as all bid guarantees are usually between 10% - 20% per industry standards. Once the project is awarded then a 100% payment and performance bond is the norm. Please clarify? | FAR 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee, has been revised. |
| 45 | The RFP indicated that the offeror shall submit experience information as an Experience Form. We did not receive an Experience Form with the solicitation. Does the Air Force expect the offeror to provide experience information using our own format as long as all information requested are included? | The contractor may use their own format as long all information is provided. |
| 46 | It was indicated that only one (1) Experience Form will be accepted; but offeror may submit up to 9 pages of documentation related to the offeror’s experience in the form of contract documents, product sheets, official project description. Does it mean that the offeror is only required to submit one (1) relevant project experience within an experience form, and additional pages as long as it meets the 10 page limit for the Technical Factor section? | In accordance with Section M of the solicitation, "The prime contractor or subcontractor must submit information for a single project…" |
| 47 | Will the Air Force accept Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) for the project experience presented in Part 2- Technical Factor to satisfy the past performance information being requested for Part 3? | Past experience is difference than past performance. CPARS is used for past performance. |
| 48 | If no CPARS, PPIRS, eSRS are available for the project, what other form of past performance information (PPI) does the Air Force require that are not already included by the offeror in Part 2-Technical Factor? | Section M requires the contractor to provide a point of contact for the project identified for past performance. |
| 49 | For a design-build of this magnitude and to thoroughly vet the project, a due date of March 13th seems unrealistic. Can the AF extend the bid due date to allow for thorough vetting and preparation of a adequate cost proposal? | At this time the Government does not intend to extend the proposal due date. |
| 50 | Can the Government provide any as-built drawings of the existing water line, sewer line, manholes, and electrical? | See Section J, Attachment 8 |
| 51 | States, “Demolish, and dispose of all debris of four (4) reinforced concrete bridges …”, but also states, “Design and construct (up to four bridges) …”. Does the Government anticipate issuing individual bridge awards? If so, is there a priority progression? | The governments intent is to leave open creative solutions to cross the 4 branches of the creeks. Consider spanning the creeks with less than 4 discrete spans. |
| 52 | General Note 7 calls for, “air vacuum relief”, but the force main and sanitary has been deleted from this TO. There is a second Note 7, located in the deleted Plan Notes table. Which Note 7 is referred to in the Plan View and is either Note 7 applicable? | All components of sewer restoration are omitted from this project. Sewer work will be limited to removal of sewer piping and manholes within the project boundary and capping/plugging pipes at project boundary |
| 53 | Shows the bottom of bridge structure at 1.0 feet above the firm 100-year water level, but the SOW, Section C, 4.1 (Hydrology and Hydraulics – General) stipulates, “The contractor shall estimate the design storm peak high water surface (WESL) at the bridge structure, to determine bridge deck elevations and freeboard”. Which criteria governs? | The contractor shall estimate the design storm peak high water surface (WESL) at the bridge structure, to determine bridge deck elevations and freeboard |
| 54 | Typical Roadway Section, show the fill slope at a 2:1 to catch at existing ground. Will any pretreatment of storm water be required prior to entering Dry Creek or Best Slough? | Construct appropriate erosion protection where water exits paved surfaces per Caltrans guidance |
| 55 | Sections show a 6” force main and associated hanger on the side of each bridge. Per sheet C-01 the force main was deleted. Please clarify what Government would like as the final product? | All components of sewer restoration are omitted from this project. Sewer work will be limited to removal of sewer piping and manholes within the project boundary and capping/plugging pipes at project boundary |
| 56 | This section calls out the relocation of an existing 3-inch water line by hanging it off the bridges. A water line is not shown on the bridge section on plan sheets S-03, 04 & 05. Please clarify the Governments intent? | An existing three-inch water line that crosses bridges 3113 and 3114 and continues to Site 17 shall be replaced in kind. The water line shall be supported from the bridges at a minimum elevation of one foot above the 100-year flood elevation. Water service to Site 17 must be maintained during construction.. |
| 57 | Please provide a vicinity map showing this site’s location? | Refer to Engineering Report-Conceptual Design - Index Sheet |
| 58 | This section states, “… continuous for light duty maintenance vehicle …”. The potential exists that the combination of environmental restrictions and the level of construction will preclude through access to this type of vehicle for short periods. How does the Government wish to resolve this requirement? | The Government will coordinate periodic access with the contractor. Providing continuous access will NOT be a requirement |
| 59 | para. 3.11.7 States associated documents will be provided with the AF 813 and associated BMP's are summarized in the Four Bridges Replacement Consultation Summary. Can we get said document for the purposes of proposing on the associated BMP's? | See Section J, Attachment 17 - Consultation Summary |
| 60 | Are there any communication lines associated with construction and that need to be constructed or supported from the proposed bridges? If so, explain need and requirements. | Six-inch steel support pipe shall be provided on the north side of each bridge span. Two, 2-inch roll pipes shall be provided from each buried roll pipe connection through the bridge support, and to the subsequent buried roll pipe on the opposite side of the bridge. Where the connection to the existing buried roll pipe is not feasible, a new buried roll pipe shall be provided. The ending communication lines should be two, two-inch continuous roll pipes. |
| 61 | Can we be provided the actual topographic survey data files to utilize in our basis of proposal? | See Section J, Attachments 29 through 33. |
| 62 | Notes that the contractor will not disturb more than one acre to complete this project and is not authorized to do so; therefore, a NPDES storm water construction permit is not required. However, Section 3.11.4 calls for restoration of all disturbed areas to pre-project conditions which includes restoration of 1.9 acres along creek sides. Please confirm there will be no SWPPP required. | A SWPPP will be required for disturbance greater than 1 acre |
| 63 | Is an Endangered Species Act Permit required for this project? Please confirm if 9 CES will provide the necessary environmental clearance surveys. | Surveys and consultation have been completed. |
| 64 | CWA permits (401 & 404) typically process permit applications within 180 calendar days of receipt, can the government expedite the processing of these permits since outdoor work is required to be completed between June 1 and October 31? And if so, please provide estimated duration of review time so contractor can incorporate permit acquisition durations in its project schedule. | Plan for a review time of 60 days |
| 65 | Where can water for dust control and construction be had? Is there a site on Base that can be used for this effort? | The Government will provide access to a fire hydrant for dust control. KTR to provide certified backflow prevention device and all other equipment needed. |
| 66 | What entry gates can be used for this construction effort? | All commercial vehicles must use the Wheatland Entry Control Point. |
| 67 | Consider changing “…prime offeror must submit …” to “… prime offeror or prime subcontractor, with a letter of commitment, must submit …”. | Solicitation revised to include subcontractor. |
| 68 | Para. C states to complete the entire work ready for use not later than November 15th, 2019 including final clean-up. During the the pre-bid meeting it was stated only in-water work needed to be completed by this date. Can the Government confirm completion date? | The period of performance has been updated. (See SF1442, Block 10) In water work - work below the ordinary high water mark is excluded during the limited operations period from 1 November 2019 to 1 May 2019. |
| 69 | The SF 1442 states 270 calendar days after receipt of Notice to Proceed. The anticipated NTP is said to be April 21, 2019. 270 calendar equate to well beyond the November 15th, 2019 completion date. Please confirm? | See answer to RFI #68 |
| 70 | The AECOM report entitled, “Engineering Assessment Report, Three Bridges Replacement, Beale AFB, California, June 2014” contains blackouts for critical data throughout the report. Will a clean report with all data visible be provided? | This data will not be provided. |
| 71 | The solicitation indicates AECOM performed a hydraulic analysis. Will the surveyed cross sections and the computer files for the hydraulic model be made available? | See Section J, Attachments 29 through 33. |
| 72 | Will CADD files be made available for AECOM’s Sheet S-1? | See Section J, Attachment 28. |
| 73 | Will CADD files be made available for the survey data by Cranmer Engineering, Inc.? | See Section J, Attachments 32 & 33. |
| 74 | Will the base LIDAR information be made available? | Base LIDAR for the project site is avialble on CD. Contractor must submit a completed Section J, Attachment 21 to the solicitation POC before the data will be made available. |
| 75 | Please provide the as-built drawings for the Site 17 irrigation system. | See Section J, Attachment 8. |
| 76 | Can the Caltrans pavement design method be used? If so, will the Government provide either the expected traffic loadings or the Traffic Index (TI)? | Minimum heavy-duty (truck/apparatus) flexible pavement section shall be 5 inches of asphalt concrete over 12 inches aggregate base course at 100 percent compaction over 6 inches subbase course at 95 percent compaction over minimum 6 inches of compacted subgrade at 90 percent compaction. |
| 77 | Please confirm the Bid Due Date is 13 March 2019 versus the 27 February 2019 listed in the solicitation. | The period of performance has been updated. (See SF1442, Block 10) |
| 78 | Has the government completed a haz mat survey on these bridges? If so, will this information be made available? | KTR to complete hazmat survey and dispose of materials appropriately |
| 79 | Will the government remove the tree stumps and root balls remaining from the recent tree clearing activity along the bridge alignment? | No. |
| 80 | Please confirm the USACE will be reviewing each design submittal for this project. Please provide the number of review days required by the USACE for each design submittal. | USACE will be reviewing design submittals and review times will be governed by the contract |
| 81 | Will the USACE provide comments using DrChecks? | No |
| 82 | Can manual irrigation valves be used for the mitigation site? | System must be automated and can be connected to Site 17 water and power. |
| 83 | Will the government consider extending the period of performance for this project to accommodate the time required to design, obtain environmental permits, and execute construction? The solicitation cover sheet lists the period of performance for this contract at 270 calendar days. Section F indicates the period of performance from 22 April 2019 to 15 November 2019 (208 calendar days= approx. 30 weeks = approx. 7 months). The solicitation is requiring three design submittals (65%, 95%, and 100%). Assuming 21 calendar days required for review of each submittal by Beale AFB (Per the solicitation - 14 days for review followed by 7 days allowed for written review comments) and 14 calendar days required by the USACE (estimated review time) – each design submittal will require approximately just over a month for review for a total of 3 months in government review time. This leaves approximately 4 months to perform design, permitting, and construction activities (eg. geotech investigation/report, civil survey, hydraulic analysis, construction drawings and specifications, and permit development, submittal, and approval). Considering these project elements - it is not likely this project can be designed, permitted, and 100% constructed in 2019. | The period of performance has been updated. (See SF1442, Block 10) |
| 84 | The government indicated in the pre-bid conference that the environmental permits including the 404 permit application can be developed using 65% level design drawings. Please verify this assumption and provide the time required to obtain the approved permit after the formal submittal date. This information is needed to determine construction activity schedule impacts to the project. | The 404/401 permit applications shall be submitted when the 65% drawing have been completed. Plan for a 60 day review period. |
| 85 | Item #12 in Form 813 notes that consultation with NMFS was in progress. What is the status of the NMFS consultation? | NMFS consultation has been completed. Section 7 letter of concurrence received. |
| 86 | Please confirm the number of Hard Copies and CDs? The SF1442 states “sealed offers in original and 2 copies” On Page 64 of 74 it states “Submit 1 hard copy original and 1 compact disk (CD) with electronic data files, in accordance with paragraph 3(D) below:” for each Part. | Both Section L and the SF1442 have been revised to include 1 original and 2 copies. There are three (3) separate parts; Part I - Price Proposal, Part II - Technical Proposal and Part III - Past Performance Proposal. Each copy of each part shall be submitted in a seperate three ring binder. |
| 87 | The RFP doesn’t mention the format for submitting Part III. On Page 65 the RFP states “Submit Part I and Part II of the proposal using a three ring binder. Part I and Part II shall be submitted in separate binders in order to clearly determine page counts.” Please confirm how this section should be submitted. | Section has been revised. |
| 88 | Please provide the “Experience Form” mentioned on page 64 line 42, “Offeror shall submit experience information as a Experience Form. A point of contact must be provided, so the Government can verify the information provided. Only one Experience Form will be accepted. | See response to RFI No. 45 above. |
| 89 | Please clarify the page limits for the Part II Technical (Experience) Section and Part III Past Performance. On Page 64 line 39 and line 48 the RFP states “Limited to no more than 10 pages” then on the following lines states “The offeror may, but is not required to, provide up to 9 pages of documentation. | Each part is limited to a total of 10 pages to include the first page which contains specific contract information. |
| 90 | Bid Response date on the solicitation states 2/27/2019 at 12PM; the FBO website states an ‘original response date’ of 3/11/2019 at 1PM with a ‘response date’ of 3/13/2019 at 11AM. Which RFP Response Date and Time is correct? | The period of performance has been updated. (See SF 1442, Block 10) |
| 91 | Given Flood information provided at the job walk it appears the structure height may need to be elevated 5 to 6 feet based on girder dimension to make the new requirement of 1’ of freeboard in a 100-year flood event below the bridge girders. Given current road elevation have you considered that fill between bridges 1 and 2 may need to be contained? Is a one bridge solution for spans 1 and 2 a preferred design to limit the impacts to existing habitat? | Minimizing the impact to existing habitat is a top priority. Elevating the roadway without the use of fill material is preferred, however, the solution must be cost effective. KTR may use two longer spans instead of 4 shorter spans. |
| 92 | What is the typical amount of time for the government to receive a Section 404 Nationwide Permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification after submittal of a complete application in through the government’s accelerated process? | Plan for a review time of 60 days |
| 93 | Given that the contractor has the responsibility to prepare the permits for “government submission by the Air Force” what consideration will be given for escalation if the permit approval period exceeds what the contractor anticipates and pushes the work out beyond the November 2019 date. Will the contractor be allowed to re coup cost for a second mobilization and escalation on Labor and materials? This schedule is an added risk to contractors and may not provide value to the government if escalation risk is put on contractors, i.e. escalation to 2020 is put in all base bids to capture the risk of government approval of 401 and 404 permits. | The period of performance has been revised to allow for either limited operations due to permit requirements or for the contractor to cease work due to potential permit requirements. Contractor will not be entitled additional remobilization costs for work stoppage due to permit conditions. |
| 94 | It was stated that schedule was not being evaluated, however a date that has considerable risk is “advertised” as contract completion and LD’s are listed. Given the reality that the contractor does not have control of the Government Approval duration, will a proposal that does not complete by November be considered “non-compliant”? | The period of performance has been updated reducing project risk. (See SF1442, Block 10). |
| 95 | Will the job walk slides and sign in be provided to the contractors? | The sign-n sheet is included in Section J, See Attachment 19. |
| 96 | When will the USACE Hydrology report data and Topo survey, including previously surveyed Ordinary High-Water Mark elevations, be made available to contractors? | See Section J, Attachments 9.1, 9.2, 29 through 33. |
| 97 | Are there any nearby wetland reports, including proposed wetland mitigation, that can be provided to contractors for their use to speed permit preparation? Does the government have a wetland mitigation bank on base? | The design must not negatively effect wetlands, however, riparian forest restoration will be required. Refer to Section J, Attachment 16 Riparian Mitigation Guidelines. The Government does not have a mitigation bank on base. |
| 98 | The 35% AECOM design appears to conflict with the Statement of Need regarding the number of bents in the water. Will you be revising the language to add clarity to what is considered an in water bent? Observation of the ordinary high water elevation mark is not clear from the AECOM documents, will this elevation be provided for the stream channels be clarified and provided for basis of design? | The 35% AEOCOM design is for reference only. The Government would like to minimize the number of bents between the two bridge abutments. In water bents are defined as bridge support structures located between the two bridge abutments. |
| 99 | Will utility locations and utility as-builts of project area be provided. | See Section J, Attachment 8. |
| 100 | The period to hold pricing is listed as 180 days given the proposed period of construction is 270 days it appears that this work has the potential to be postponed until May of 2020 in water season. Is funding available or should escalation be priced in the event the April 15 2019 award date is not met or permit delays result in construction occurring in May 2020? | The period of performance has been revised. This is a firm fixed priced contract. Modifications for additional costs will be considered if the terms and conditions of the contract are changed. |
| 101 | The contractor will need to perform ground surveying and perform the hydrology & hydraulic analysis in order to update the 35% plans for final design. Can you tell me if USAF will need 14 days to review designs at 35%, 65%, and 95% (Contract Specifications indicate that you will need 14 days)? | The Government review period will be 14 days as defined by the contract specifications |
| 102 | Can you tell me what permits will need to be obtained (i.e. 1600, 404, 401)? The USAF said that only 401 and 404 permits will be needed during the site visit presentation. | The base is exempt from CDFW 1600 LSA permit. The 404/401 permits will be required. |
| 103 | What role will USAF play in the obtaining the permits? The USAF indicated that the DB team will prepare the permit applications and the USAF will submit to the USACE. | USAF will submit the permit application and correspond with the approving agency |
| 104 | What timeline do you anticipate obtaining the 401 and 404 permits from the USACE? | Plan for review time of 404/401 permits to be 60 days |
| 105 | Is the USACE going to require 65% plans to accompany the permit applications? | 65% plans will not be required by USACE, however, plans must be sufficiently developed to accurately estimate project impacts. Past experience indicates this information is reliable at 65%. |
| 106 | If a roadway realignment allowed some of the existing bridges to remain in place during construction, would you consider extending the contract to remove the existing bridges in 2020 if all bridges were constructed by November 2019? | The period of performance has been updated. (See SF1442, Block 10) |
| 107 | The FBO website shows a revised response date of 3/13/19, however the prevailing form 1442 and SF30 for amendment 1 establish the current bid date as 2/27/19. Please issue an amendment extending the bid date. | The period of performance has been updated. (See SF1442, Block 10) |
| 108 | The amendment 1 SF30 attachment dated 2/12/19, indicates modification made to bid package attachment 1 thru 10, however no revised document were provided. Please either confirm that amendment 1 made no changes to the original bid packages, or provide revised documents. | See Section J for revised list of attachments. |
| 109 | Since this project is not using a RFI posting site such as projnet.gov, how will all bidder questions and associated responses be posted? | Included as Attachment 20 via Amemndment 5. |
| 110 | The RFP assumes an NTP date of 4/21/19, with a day for day extension if this day is missed. Given the extremely tight design/build and November completion date associated with this solicitation, any delays may render the November 15th deadline impossible. If the project is delayed for any reason, will construction be allowed beyond 11/15, or will the project have to stop work at that point and return next season to complete? | The period of performance has been updated. (See SF1442, Block 10) |
| 111 | If we assume an NTP date of 4/21/19, 30 days for geological investigation and 35% design revision, 14 days for 35%-65% and 65%-95% designs, contract required 14 days for USAF review at 35/65/95 design, and 60 days for final permits (starting at 65% approval), and first time approval for all submittals, the absolute best case for RFC approvals appears to be early August, but more is more likely to be mid-September. This leaves a best case construction window of between 2 and 3 months for the entire project. Has USAF evaluated the feasibility of the timelines design/preconstruction/construction phases for this project? | The period of performance has been updated. (See SF1442, Block 10) |
| 112 | Given the extremely tight schedule, this project will likely require significant overtime and nightwork, Will the contractor be allowed to work without restrictions? | The period of performance has been extended. Therefore weekend and night work is not likely an option. |
| 113 | Can the Air Force please provide copies of all permits and/or letter of determination from USF&WS and NMFS concerning Threatened and Endangered Species, Central Valley Steelhead, the NMFS Biological Opinion and the outcome of the SHPO consultation. | The Government has conducted consultation and received letters of concurrence from USFWS, NMFS, SHPO. Copies of the communications will not be shared at this time, however, the BMPs developed through consultation are inlcuded in the 4 Bridges Replacement Consultation Summary provided with this amendment |
File details come from the government source that posted it.