Amendment0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 ? 4

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4 REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ NO. PROJECT NO. (If applicable) 0003 30 March 2010 N/A

6. ISSUED BY Code 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6.) Code N/A

Contracting Division

USCG, Facilities Design & Construction Center

(Atlantic) 5505 Robin Hood Road, Suite K

Norfolk, VA 23513-2431

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

HSCG47-10-R-3EFK02

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18 February 2010

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended is not extended . Offers 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 copy 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 ADMINISTRATION 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.)

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT THE WATERFRONT BULKHEAD REPAIRS AT U. S. COAST GUARD

STATION INDIAN RIVER, REHOBOTH BEACH, DELAWARE.

The proposal due date remains Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 4:00 PM.

(SEE CONTINUATION PAGES)

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR (Same as Item 8) 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV.1-83) 0224-3(10-90)

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Prescribed by GSA

FAR (49 CFR) 53.243

Amendment 0002

HSCG47-10-R-3EFK02

The following inquiries and responses to offerors are incorporated by this Amendment:

QUESTION: RFP drawing C101 indicates that for estimates we should assume -10 ft elevation at the foot of rip-rap, but also indicates that water is much deeper along the rip-rap line. Toe of rip-rap would have to placed at current depth, requiring more stone than indicated by the assumed toe elevation. For purpose of proposal, should we assume to supply all necessary rip-rap for complete installation?

RESPONSE: It is the Coast Guard's intention to place the excavated fill material behind a rip-rap berm on the State property at the corner indicated on RFP Contract Drawing C-101. The Coast Guard will not purchase additional fill for the corner. See attached USACE as-built hydro survey for the current water depths.

QUESTION: Reference RFP Contract Drawing C101; Note 6 states the reconfigured corner area fill shall be removed and placed on the beach, see note 11. Note 11 states "Construct rip-rap berm, behind which the excavated comer fill volume shall be deposited. See note 6." A note on the drawing in the beach area states "for estimates assume -10 It elev at the foot of the riprap berm." No finish grades and limited existing grades have been provided in the beach area and it would appear the available approximate 7000 CY of corner excavation would satisfy the fill requirements behind the rip-rap berm.

The question arises is how we should plan to build the rip-rap berm on the edge of a deep scour hole with water depths as much as 33' deep. By our calculations another 15000 CY of some type of material would be necessary to build up the existing side slopes where the berm is proposed to be placed. What type of material would be necessary and how can we be assured adequate slope stability will prevail and support the rip-rap berm with such an unknown scour condition? Is this a condition being cured by the ongoing dredging operations by the U.S. Army Corp of engineers referenced by 01158 1.8.2.7 in the specification?

RESPONSE: It is the Coast Guard's intention to place the excavated fill material behind a rip-rap berm on the State property at the corner indicated on RFP Contract Drawing C-101. The Coast Guard will not purchase additional fill for the corner. See attached USACE as-built hydro survey for current water depths.

QUESTION: Can the existing bulkhead that is proposed to be removed be cut off at an elevation of -10 in lieu of complete removal?

RESPONSE: Yes. Existing bulkhead can be cut off at an El -10'-0".

QUESTION: Currently the site is unbalanced between removal of fill and placement and beach replenishment. Can the D/B team adjust the height of the fill behind the stone revetment and the depth of removals behind the existing bulkhead to achieve a balanced site?

RESPONSE: The Contractor shall be responsible for determining how to best ‘balance’ the two areas.

1st priority is removing the required fill from the protruding corner to accommodate riprap and slope to existing grades. 2nd priority would be to calculate the final location of rip-rap berm and sand-dune elevations to provide an appropriate solution that accommodates the total quantity of removed fill. The drawing C101, provided by the USCG, is for illustrative purposes only and estimated elevations were provided for approximations. The intent was to illustrate a continuous rip-rap berm that would connect the existing riprap (located on State land) to the rip-rap being installed to protect the USCG property.

The final design shall be based on the contractor’s surveys and design solutions; the final berm may be closer or farther from the shoreline as determined in the final design by the Contractor. See the as-built USACE dredging plan for the current water depths.

Amendment 0003

QUESTION: The hydrodynamic model of current and sediment stability does not account for the proposed dredging/filling performed under the USACE Maintenance Dredging/Beneficial Use contract.

Will the model be updated to reflect the new conditions?

RESPONSE: The model will not be updated to reflect new condition. See the attached as-built USACE dredging plan for reference and general information only. The contractor is responsible for obtaining additional information as required for this design-build project.

QUESTION: The hydrographic survey does not reflect the proposed dredging/filling conditions. The base map accuracy greatly affects the quantity of riprap and design of the bulkhead sections. Because this might have a large effect on the design and price submitted, would it be possible to extend the due date to allow us more time to insure our best possible design and price?

RESPONSE: See attached as-built USACE dredging plan for updated water depths.

QUESTION: The plan location of the proposed riprap berm toe appears to range in elevation from -33 to -14. The plan note indicates that the berm toe shall be established at elevation -10. Please confirm if the graphic location of the toe or the noted elevation of -10 is desired.

RESPONSE: Noted Elevation of -10 is desired. See attached as-built USACE dredging plan.

QUESTION: The distance from the USCG bulkhead to the existing riprap, west of the site, appears to be approximately 450’ based on aerial photography and the USACE maintenance dredging plans. The RFP drawing (C101) shows the proposed riprap berm running west for a distance of approximately 220’ with a note stating “Existing State riprap protection at the end of USGC riprap”. Please confirm that the intent is to meet the existing riprap to the west or to stop at 220’.

RESPONSE: The intent is to meet the existing rip rap to the west.

QUESTION: Specifications indicate that the D/B Team is responsible for Storm Drain design.

Regulatory agencies may require watershed management practices such as a vegetative swale with a weir retention of discharges. Please confirm if this part of the contract.

RESPONSE: The Contractor shall comply with all regulatory agency requirements for this project, including watershed management practices as they may apply. For proposed pavement area (note 7 on Drawing C101): 1st priority is addressing the current drainage problem that exists . 2nd priority is providing resurfaced area for the Station. If the 2nd priority cannot be accomplished or only partially accomplished, due to regulatory requirements for watershed management practices, the Contractor shall design the best solution for priority 1 and the secondary priority 2 (in that order).

QUESTION: Please confirm that new steel sheeting will be coated with coal tar epoxy on both sides of the sheeting from the full length.

RESPONSE: Yes. The new steel sheeting shall be coated with coal tar epoxy on both sides for the full length.

QUESTION: Please confirm that cathodic protection is only required for the existing sheeting from Station 0+60 to Station 1+90.

RESPONSE Confirm that Cathodic protection is required only for existing sheeting from Sta 0+60 to Sta 1+90

Amendment 0003

QUESTION: We understand from the prebid meeting that excessive permit review time by regulatory agencies may be a basis for contract extension. For purposes of uniformity of the bidding can we assume that a 90 day review period will be allowed?

RESPONSE: It is our understanding that the time required for permits may be anywhere from 90 to 150 days.

QUESTION: Please confirm height of top of steel sheeting is Elevation 8.0’.

RESPONSE This question has been clarified earlier. The Elevation of the top of cap shall be set at 8.5'.

QUESTION: Please confirm survey datum for hydrographic surveys is the same for land surveys or provide the datum utilized for each.

RESPONSE: This has been clarified earlier. The Datum is NAVD88.

QUESTION: Are the existing items that are presently located just behind the bulkhead on the north side of the boat basin between Sta. 6 +90 to 8 +30,Such as the fire station ,safety box, and light pole, supposed to be incorporated with the new drive area, or the to be completely relocated?

RESPONSE See RFP section 01158, paragraph 1.4.7 and Note 10 on RFP Drawing C-101.

QUESTION: Drawing S03 and S05 are not very clear. Request a clearer drawing.

RESPONSE: See attached.

Amendment items:

Section J- LIST OF ATTACHMENTS, J.3, incorporate U. S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) As-Built hydro survey (dredging as-built plans) (attached hereto and forming a part of this amendment).

NOTE

Failure to acknowledge amendments may be cause for rejection of your offer.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT