Atch_28 _Drainage_Questions_12_March_2013.pdf

AIRFIELD STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM

FA6703-13-R-0004

ATTACHMENT 28 - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

12 March 2013

1. CLIN 0003 – Based on the description of ‘Maintenance’ given in CLIN 0001, there is no identifiable ‘Maintenance’ in CLIN 0003/Option 03, shown on page C-108 of the Options drawings. All the construction shown on this page would be done as part of the overall ‘Repair’ part of the construction of Option 03. Please advise if I am misunderstanding the requirement and provide clarification.

See C-508 for maintenance items (may not be limited to this sheet alone)

2. CLIN 0010 – Based on the description of ‘Maintenance’ given in CLIN 0001, there is no identifiable ‘Maintenance’ in CLIN 0010/Option 05, shown on page C-113 of the Options drawings. All the construction shown on this page would be done as part of the overall ‘Repair’ part of the construction of Option 05. Please advise if I am misunderstanding the requirement and provide clarification.

See C-513 for maintenance items (may not be limited to this sheet alone)

3. CLIN 0011 – Based on the description of ‘Maintenance’ given in CLIN 0001, there is no identifiable ‘Maintenance’ in CLIN 0011/Option 07, shown on pages C-112, C-121 and C-122 of the Options drawings. All the construction shown on these pages would be done as part of the overall ‘Repair’ part of the construction of Option 07. Please advise if I am misunderstanding the requirement and provide clarification.

See C-512, 521, 522 for maintenance items (may not be limited to these sheets alone)

4. In Amendment 0003, page 5, 3. Part III – Past Performance, b. Relevancy – the RFP says to provide a list of not more than five (5), of the most relevant contracts to include “trenchless excavation, jack & boring under runways and taxiways, storm drain culverts, piping systems between 48” – 108” or larger, and detention ponds, runway and taxiway repair, concrete placement on runway and joint sealants” performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last seven (7) years. The 4th sentence in this paragraph further states that “If the information provided does not meet all aspects of the requirement, it will not be considered relevant. Relevant contracts include those with the same magnitude and scope of work.” Question: Does this mean that each of the individual five (5) relevant contracts Offerors provide must include all of the stated scopes of work to be considered a relevant contract? If so, there will probably be very few (if any) bidders who will be able to satisfy this requirement because of the multiple specialized scopes of work that will be required for this project.

However if the intent is to cover all the stated elements of work within the culmination of the 5 contracts, this would be more realistic and possible for Offerors to meet. Please provide a clarification of this requirement?

No, the intent is to cover all the stated elements of work within the culmination of 5 contracts.

5. C-106 – Is the construction shown on C-106 in Phase 1 or Phase 2 (as shown on drawings)?

Sheet states Phase II. C-506 shows limits of construction for Phase I but then has sampling for Phase II. See answer for question 29.

6. C-106 – Who will be responsible for lowering the pond level, the contractor or Dobbins? How will the pond level be lowered?

Contractor will lower the pond level by opening a gate valve.

7. C-108 – Please clarify how far around Taxiway K curb-and-gutter removal is required.

250 LF curb to be removed

8. C-106 – Please show Limits of Construction

Limits of Construction are shown on C-506

9. C-110 – Please show Limits of Construction

Limits of Construction are shown on C-510

10. C-122 – Please show Limits of Construction

Limits of Construction are shown on C-522

11. C-112B – Please provide details for the new tie-downs in the rigid pavement replacement.

UFC 3-260-01 Appendix B Section 11-5 (See Attachment #29)

12. C-112B – Please provide details for the grounding re-connections in the rigid pavement replacement.

UFC 3-260-01 Appendix B Section 11-5 (See Attachment #29)

13. C-128 – Please clarify the requirement shown for the end of the ‘EXISTING 48” RCP – LINE 1’, to stabilize the last 100’ of pipe with sod cover. This pipe does not appear to be exposed and does not appear to require stabilization.

Upon the original investigation, the pipe had some separation and a visible hole upwards with soil infiltration. The 100-ft assumption for bidding is for compaction and sod placement in the area as the surrounding conditions are unknown. The 100-ft should have a 4-ft width.

14. There are areas of construction on pages C-106, C-108, C-110, C-122, and C-128 that will require tree clearing, grinding and haul-off. Can the contractor do all these areas at the same time to reduce mobilization costs?

If permitting requirements are met and both phases are awarded.

15. Can areas in both Phases be done at the same time, or will Phase 1 have to be completed before Phase 2 begins?

If land disturbance permitting requirements and maintenance along with airfield waivers are met and both phases are awarded.

16. Will Dobbins procure and provide the Stream and Wetlands permits, or will this be the contractor’s responsibility?

Dobbins has obtained a nationwide permit per the construction plans. Prior to commencement of work the contractor is required to purchase mitigation wetland credits from an approved US Army Corp of Engineers’ mitigation bank.

17. Are the designated abandoned line segments to be filled with Geofill LD Cellular Concrete to the limits shown on the drawings or to a determined length beyond the extent of the respective paved surfaces? If it’s the latter, what is the minimum length beyond the paved surfaces that abandoned lines are to be filled? Please clarify.

The grout will be under paved surfaces extending from the closest structure on both sides

18. The abandoned twin 48” RCP line segments on Drawings C-103 (Base) and C-103 (Option

02) are inconsistent. Drawing C-103 (Base) shows the line to be abandoned-in-place, but Drawing C-103 (Option 02) shows the line to be grouted. Does the existing line segments need to be abandoned-in-place from Existing Structure GI II-280 on Drawing C-101 (Base) to the section of existing 48” RCP that is to be removed on Drawing C-103 or do these line segments need to be grouted? Please clarify.

Originally all storm lines that were to be abandoned were to be filled. In this solicitation, both base and option, abandoned lines will be filled under proposed and existing trafficked areas. The grout will extend from the closest structure on either side of pavement. In the cases where a line will be removed along this alignment then the grout will terminate at the point of removal. Please note that the plans indicate that both 48”pipes may not intersect with the same structure.

19. Are the abandoned twin 48” RCP line segments between Existing Structure GI II-340 (Drawing C-104) and Existing Structure JB II-200 (Drawing C-105) to be abandoned-in-place or are they required to be grouted? Please clarify.

Originally all storm lines that were to be abandoned were to be filled. In this solicitation, both base and option, abandoned lines will be filled under proposed and existing trafficked areas. The grout will extend from the closest structure on either side of pavement. In the cases where a line will be removed along this alignment then the grout will terminate at the point of removal. Please note that the plans indicate that both 48”pipes may not intersect with the same structure

20. Are the abandoned twin 48” RCP line segments between the removed sections of 48” RCP shown on Drawing C-105 to be abandoned-in-place or are they required to be grouted? Please clarify.

Originally all storm lines that were to be abandoned were to be filled. In this solicitation, both base and option, abandoned lines will be filled under proposed and existing trafficked areas. The grout will extend from the closest structure on either side of pavement. In the cases where a line will be removed along this alignment then the grout will terminate at the point of removal. Please note that the plans indicate that both 48”pipes may not intersect with the same structure

21. The abandoned twin 48” RCP line segments on Drawings C-105 (Base) and C-105 (Option

01) are inconsistent. Drawing C-105 (Base) shows the line to be grouted from Structure-to- Structure (presumable from Existing Structures JB II-305 to GI II-190), but Drawing C-105 (Option 01) does not indicate the length to be grouted. Please clarify the extent of the line segments that are to be grouted.

Originally all storm lines that were to be abandoned were to be filled. In this solicitation, both base and option, abandoned lines will be filled under proposed and existing trafficked areas. The grout will extend from the closest structure on either side of pavement. In the cases where a line will be removed along this alignment then the grout will terminate at the point of removal. Please note that the plans indicate that both 48”pipes may not intersect with the same structure

22. The abandoned 36” RCP line segment on Drawings C-114 (Base) and C-114 (Option 06) are inconsistent. Drawing C-114 (Base) shows the line to be abandoned-in-place, but Drawing C- 114 (Option 06) shows the line to be grouted. Is the line segment between the existing section 36” RCP that is to be removed (Drawing C-118) to Existing Structure JB VI-260 (Drawing C-

119) to be abandoned-in-place or is this line segment to be grouted? Please clarify.

Originally all storm lines that were to be abandoned were to be filled. In this solicitation, both base and option, abandoned lines will be filled under proposed and existing trafficked areas. The grout will extend from the closest structure on either side of pavement. In the cases where a line will be removed along this alignment then the grout will terminate at the point of removal. Please note that the plans indicate that both 48”pipes may not intersect with the same structure

23. Referencing Q&A #40 from Amendment No.3 – What are the maximum live aircraft loads that are to be considered?

Due to the wheel configuration a fully loaded B-52 shows the most impact although it weighs less than a C-17. The heaviest aircraft would be both a C-17 and a 747.

24. Since there are obvious rock conditions on this site that will affect construction, and since the contractor does not have a realistic way to quantify what affect the rock conditions will have (both in construction time allowed and additional costs incurred by working through the rock conditions), we request that the government allows the contractor to price the additional costs for ‘rock conditions’ as a unit pricing bid option.

Offerors shall provide cost for known rock conditions based on the soil borings as part of the bid package.

25. In reference to question #37 from the previous Q&A dated 2/28/13 – could you specifically explain what is meant by “the two pass method?” Does this mean that all trenchless crossings must have a casing pipe and a carrier pipe?

All trenchless crossings must have the steel carrier pipe for bidding purposes. The contractor can propose an alternate and design that alternate after award. Products, Materials, and Methods used must meet or exceed the design parameters, the physical characteristics, and performance specification of the construction documents.

26. Can we direct jack RCP under the E/W Runway, without using a steel casing pipe?

All trenchless crossings must have the steel carrier pipe for bidding purposes. The contractor can propose an alternate and design that alternate after award. Products, Materials, and Methods used must meet or exceed the design parameters, the physical characteristics, and performance specification of the construction documents

27. Does the existing pipe that is to be abandoned and is not under pavement have to be grouted?

No, but the grout must go from one structure to another where the abandoned pipe goes underneath trafficked surfaces.

28. Can all taxiways be open cut, in lieu of jack & bore (e.g. Taxiway E & V – sheet 207 from structure GI VI-C1 to GI VI-C2)?

Yes, but V (VEDA aka Assault Landing Strip) is not a taxiway. Veda is a ‘landing strip’ and will require it to be jack and bored.

29. In reference to plan sheet C-201 is the 84”x84” RCBC from sta. 0+20 to sta. 2+48 in phase I or phase II? The profile of the line in this section that is shown on sheet C-201 shows a phase line that divides this section. Bid item #4 describes that all drainage west of Taxiway J to be included in phase I. Which item dictates in this case – the phase line shown on the profile section of sheet C-201 or the description for bid item #4?

The phasing is for the installation of the box culvert due to construction scheduling. All work for this box culvert system is in Phase I of the project scope. The installation will require two phases due to the existing twin 48” culverts having to remain in service until the box culvert system can be brought on line.