Amendment_03 _Q A_-_Hog_Island_Light.pdf

AMENDMENT 03

Replace Hog Island Channel Light

HSCGG1-16-B-PRV002

PSN: 5096525

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

16 December 2015

1. Section 09 97 13.26 Paragraph 2.1.4 Warranty states that all coating systems shall be minimum 15 year warranty. Has the Coast Guard identified a manufacturer of the specified coating system that will agree to the 15 year warranty??

Response: Paragraph 2.1.4 of Section 09 97 13.26 is deleted.

2. Section 09 97 13.26 Paragraph 3.1.2.2 Scrape Cleaning specifies SSPC SP 10/NACE 2 which is a near white blast. Is it the intent to blast the surfaces to an SSPC SP 10 or hand scrape the surfaces?

Response: Only hand scraping is required.

3. In the specifications 1.2.1.e, the performance window is September 1st through March 31st;

the IFB F.1 states finish date is April 29 and that the performance period shall not exceed 28 days. Please clarify the 29 days difference between the finish dates.

Response: See Amendment 02, which was posted to FBO on 8 DEC:

Section 01 11 00, paragraph 1.2.1.e is deleted.

Contractor shall mobilize on or around 28 MAR 2016 and shall complete on-site construction work no later than 29 APR 2016.

Once mobilized, the Contractor shall take reasonable care to prevent wildlife from building and/or occupying any nest.

4. Given the specialized nature of the task specifications, the environmental challenges as well as short work window and project time frame, can the pier coatings portion of the SOW be deleted from this project and reissued as a standalone project?

Response: The pier coating portion of the SOW remains as is. The requirement is to apply the coating at low tide (MLW) without any additional encapsulation.

5. If the pier coatings portion of the SOW is not deleted, can the bids due date be pushed back to allow adequate time to plan and estimate the coating of the pier?

Response: The bids due date is NOT extended.

6. A concrete cap on top of gravel fill and other unknown materials as depicted in CD P5096525 does not appear to be structurally adequate to secure the anchor bolts for the new tower. The drawings provided are not stamped by a PE, has a structural analysis been performed to determine that the proposed anchor attachment means and method is viable? If so, please provide a copy of the report.

Response: The contract requirements as stated are correct and appropriate.