QandAs.pdf

Solicitation IBM09B0005 Solicitation Amendment A002 RECOVERY – Questions and Answers Construct Main Floodway Levee Improvements

- 1 -

Performance Period: The performance period has been revised to a total of 605 calendar days from Notice to Proceed (NTP). See the full text of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.211‐10 in Section F of the solicitation.

QUESTION FROM PRE‐BID CONFERENCE ON 07‐15‐09:

The attendee posing the question was a material supplier (Avila Stone) on granite material from Mexico:

Answer: This 43‐mile levee reach does not require any quantities of rock, as there is no rock riprap proposed in the plans;

The only rock that could be required would be for the Construction Exits (but there are different types of Exits, and we did not limit the Contractor to utilize rock or stone for the exits);

If needed, Contractors have identified that there are other sources of rock material.

QUESTION RECEIVED FROM JAIME VAZQUEZ, GAVIOTA SAND PIT & MATERIALS ON 06‐30‐09:

Please register Jaime & Ruby Vazquez the owners of Gaviota Sand Pit & Materials for the July 15, 2009 mandatory site visit and pre bid meeting. Additionally, a question concerning this project. The initial information on this and other levee improvements in the Lower Rio Grande Valley stated that the embankment material would come from commercial sources. Does this still apply to the above stated project and other related levee projects? If so where can I find this on this solicitation or other solicitations in the Lower Rio Grand Valley levee projects.

Answer: Specification 01 59 00, paragraph 1.2.A has been revised through Addendum No. 1 to read that it is the Contractor’s responsibility to obtain fill material from any source that meets the fill requirements of the Technical Specifications.

QUESTIONS FROM JAIME & RUBY VAZQUEZ, GAVIOTA SAND PIT & MATERIALS ON 07‐15‐09:

Thanks for the presentation today and thank you for helping Ruby & I two years ago with the CCR and related registrations. My question concerns the answer given to me on 07‐15‐09 at the Pre‐Bid Conference concerning the interpretation of a “commercial source”. Beginning with the initial solicitation for studies, architect, engineering services and this solicitation it clearly states that embankment material & other materials shall come from “commercial sources”. Today, initially the answer was "Yes" it must come from a commercial source, However when the gentlemen behind asked if that meant he could buy material from “Farmer John” the answer was also yes. A private land owner that does not sell material as a business is not a “commercial source.” Allowing a prime to purchase material from a private land owner is contradictory to the term “commercial source” and the purpose of the Recovery Act. I firmly believe that is will compromise our ability to participate in this and other levee work and is contrary to the purpose of this stimulus money. I spoke to Hugo White on this matter last week. After speaking to him, I was confident that a "commercial

Construct Main Floodway Levee Improvements

- 2 -source" was an organization that in its regular course of business sold materials. I respectfully thank you in advance for addressing this question again.

Answer: Specification 01 59 00, paragraph 1.2.A has been revised through Addendum No. 1 to read that it is the Contractor’s responsibility to obtain fill material from any source that meets the fill requirements of the Technical Specifications.

QUESTIONS FROM RAY BERTLESON, NORDIC INDUSTRIES RECEIIVED 07‐17‐09:

1. Line Item 010, Raise Levee (Bench Excavation)

Benching is typically performed in conjunction with the embankment operation as spelled out in Section 34.41.00‐P(0), Expanding Existing Levee Slopes.

Given this procedure, an actual surveyed measurement of the benching excavation cannot be performed.

Therefore, will the measurement for this item be based on a theoretical quantity?

Note: the lines shown for bench excavation on Plans Sheet 06.02 are not a true depiction of how benching is performed.

Answer: The answer to this question is already included in the Contract Drawings; Plan Sheet No. 6.02 shows the typical section limits and Plan Sheet Number Series 10 represents the true limits of benching and quantity required.

2. If the contractor uses a borrow site that is near the IBWC levee are there restrictions as to how close to the levee the borrow excavation can be performed? In addition, are there limitations on the slopes of the borrow excavations and the depth of the borrow excavations?

Answer: Specification 01 59 00, paragraph 1.2.A has been revised through Addendum No. 1 to read that it is the Contractor’s responsibility to obtain fill material from any source that meets the fill requirements of the Technical Specifications. The Contractor shall also provide an excavation plan of borrow sources as per paragraph 1.6 of SPECIFICATON 35 41 00.

3. Line Items 007 and 012, both regarding topsoil, are measured by the cubic yard (CY).

To avoid the necessity of performing two survey cross‐sections of the entire project we suggest that the measurement of these two items be changed to the square yard. This would definitely speed up the project and in addition it would avoid the cost of the two surveys.

Answer: The Contract Drawings and Technical Specifications identify top soil to be bid by the CY; the Contractor shall bid this item according to the Contract Drawings and Technical Specifications.

4. At the pre‐bid conference on July 15th, much was said about the reason that Liquidated Damages are not specified. Ms. Elliott stated that all federal projects are actually covered for “actual damages”. Presumably that is stated in the FARs?

- 3 -

If that is the case, then what makes this project any different from all the rest of the Federal projects for which LDs are stated?

Our bonding company is not too willing to provide a bond on a project for which the cost of the project inspection, project management, and government overhead costs are not defined. That is why a definitive statement of the liquidated damages is important.

Answer: To the maximum extent permitted by law, the actual damages incurred by IBWC due to fault or negligence of the contractor will not exceed $3 million. The text in F.3 under Section F is also changed by this amendment to add the limitation.

5. Ms. Elliott was emphatic that the bid submittal date of July 27th cannot be changed and that the bidders have had since June 29th to work on the bid.

That said, the fact that the government is not providing a borrow source introduces a factor that makes a 30 day bid period unworkable for the following reasons: the bidders must locate properties that potentially will work as borrow sites; for each property the rightful owner or agent that has the authority to make a deal must be determined; those individuals must then be located and contacted; a deal must be negotiated; and the deal must be finalized in a binding document. All of those steps must be done before the bidder can determine the cost to haul the material, productions rates, etc. Short of a miracle, this will not happen in 30 calendar days.

Answer: The deadline for receipt of bids has been extended by Solicitation Amendment A001 to 4:00 p.m.

Mountain on Wednesday, August 12, 2009.

6. The bid date of July 27 is a Monday. Please consider changing this to another day of the week which would give the bidders an opportunity to work on the bid, and to express mail it to the El Paso, the day prior to the due date.

A Monday due date would require the bidders to mail the bid on Friday which shortens the effective bid preparation period.

Answer: The deadline for receipt of bids has been extended by Solicitation Amendment A001 to 4:00 p.m.

Mountain on Wednesday, August 12, 2009.

7. The “Index of Sheets” on Sheet 01.01 does not reference any plan sheets for the South levee. Therefore, we have no way of knowing if we have all, or the correct, plan sheets for the project.

Answer: The Index of Sheets has been revised through Addendum No. 1; however, the plan sheets for the Cross‐Sections for the South Levee were included in the Contract Drawings (see plan sheet nos. 10.286 – 10.547).

8. The 10 year warranty that the Contractor must provide for the floodgates is unreasonable based on the fact that the IBWC will perform the maintenance of these floodgates for the duration of the warranty period. The

Construct Main Floodway Levee Improvements

- 4 -

Contractor, and the gate manufacturer, cannot be expected to warrant a product for 10 years when they cannot control how that product is maintained.

Answer: The warranty has been reduced to five (5) years).

QUESTIONS FROM RAY BERTLESON, NORDIC INDUSTRIES RECEIIVED 07‐21‐09:

Please clarify the following:

We need to know what would happen at locations where the new levee toe that is shown on the cross‐ sections falls outside of the proposed sediment control fence as shown on the plan view.

For example, at MFN1 Sta 269+00 (left) the new left levee toe is shown to be offset 72.83’ on plan sheet

10.05. On plan sheet 08.02 the line of sediment control fence at the same location is approximately 62’ offset.

This is only one example of many instances like this.

The answer to this question is very important because in many of these instances, if the cross‐sections are correct, the new levee toe will fall within a wetland that would have to dried up in order to construct the levee as shown.

Are we responsible for dewatering these wetland areas in order to build the levee?

Answer: The Contract Drawings and Technical Specifications show placement details for temporary sediment control fence on Plan Sheet No. 13.01, which is outside the levee slope and topsoil windrow. Since there are no jurisdictional wetlands within the Main Floodway project limits, the Contractor is responsible for and is required to dewater areas in order to build the levee as per Specification 35 41 00, paragraph 1.9.

QUESTIONS FROM RAY BERTLESON, NORDIC INDUSTRIES RECEIVED 07‐23‐09:

We have a question regarding note V.2 on plan sheet 14.01.

This note, which reads “Construction activities would be scheduled to occur outside the March through August 31 migratory bird nesting season.”

There is no other mention that we have found in the plans or specifications that indicates the work season is limited to September through February.

The answer to this question is extremely important. If the note on the plans is correct the work can only be conducted 6 months per calendar year.

Answer: The body of the project’s environmental document identifies this restriction; however, the Executive Summary to the environmental document adds the words “to the extent possible.” Plan Sheet No. 14.01 has been revised through Addendum No. 1 to remove the restriction.

Construct Main Floodway Levee Improvements

- 5 -

QUESTIONS FROM PAUL DISHMAN, FLOODBREAK AUTOMATIC FLOODGATES, LLC RECEIVED 07‐17‐09:

One quick question. We are forwarding information to some contractors to bid on the installation of our flood gates.

On page 9 of 51, the items numbers 22, 23 and 24 are clear and we will forward the quotes for the roadway version of our gate.

Line item 025 calls for 34ea of a vehicular gate, would you know the dimensions called for on these units? The other items have the dimensions in the description, but not 025.

Thank you and look forward to your response on how to proceed, Answer: The vehicular gates are not flood gates. They are described under Specification / Bid Item 90 79 01.

Additionally, the following plan sheets provide information regarding location, size, and dimensions:

‐ No. 4.01 – Estimate of Quantity – provides total Bid Item Quantity under Bid Item 90 79 01

‐ Nos. 5.01 thru 5.05 – Estimate of Quantities by Levee – provides quantity by location (levee and plan / profile sheet by station range)

‐ Plan & Profile Sheets (Sheet Series 8) – Identify the exact location of the vehicular gates.

‐ No. 1501 – Heavy‐Duty Vehicular Gates – provides the standard dimensions of the proposed vehicular gates.

QUESTIONS FROM CLAYTON KINDELL, FOREMOST PAVING RECEIVED 07‐17‐09:

Upon review of the plans, specs, and pre‐bid meeting, Foremost Paving, Inc. has a list of questions that need clarification:

Does the Levee Embankment Quantity include the quantity of dirt removed under the Bench Excavation item?

Or is the Embankment Quantity just the difference between the Proposed Elevation and Existing Elevation?

Answer: The Contract Drawings and Technical Specifications show that the levee embankment is calculated based on the top‐of‐levee elevation and side slopes to the bench cut line.

What is the approximate Start Date for the project?

Answer: As stated in Block 11 of the Standard Form (SF) 1442, within 10 calendar days from the Notice to Proceed.

The details surrounding both the Auto‐flood Gates, Paved Roads appear to be low in number. Could the Engineer provide more information regarding these topics?

Answer: The Contract Drawings and Technical Specifications include the requirements for Auto‐Flood Gates through, but not limited to, Plan Sheet Nos 12.116 thru 12.119 and Specification 60 80 00.

- 6 -

The Roadway Embankment seems to have a PI requirement of 15. May the Contractor blend sand and/or lime to the material to reach this requirement? If so, may this material be mixed in place?

Answer: The Contract Drawings and Technical Specifications included requirements for PI of Roadway Embankment through Specification 50 11 00; the Contractor shall bid this item according to the Contract Drawings and Technical Specifications.

In the Pre‐Bid Meeting, Colleen mentioned “that taxes be included”. Can this statement be elaborated on?

Isn’t this work tax‐exempt?

Answer: If not exempted, include all relevant taxes.

Where do sealed bids need to be delivered to by the 27th?

Answer: See Block 8 on the Standard Form (SF) 1442.

Is the Well Gate Hardware to be re‐used? If so, does this affect the warranty clause?

On past IBWC projects, a small business was given an “edge” over larger business in the case of a statistical tie, is this still the case? If so, can you point to the wording in the specifications?

Answer: Yes, the gatewell hardware is to be re‐used, unless otherwise indicated; reference Specification 00 31 50 issued through Addendum No. 1.

Have there been any addendums? Where can we check? Where do we acknowledge them?

Answer: Yes, one. See Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps). The following link will take you to the solicitation and any amendments.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ee2bb5f4099fe6993b1d5f8f2e56ec56&tab=core &_cview=1

Does the Accident Prevention Plan require an Engineer’s Seal?

Answer: The Contractor’s Accident Prevention Plan will require an Engineer’s sign, seal, and date if it includes items that are defined by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers needing an Engineer’s sign, seal, and date.

Does the IBWC have any areas designated for Field Office/Material storage site?

It states in the specifications that the Contractor must supply his own SW3P. However, there are Bid Items for Silt Fence, Construction Exits, Seeding, and Vegetative Watering. Does the Contractor still have to design a SW3P with this knowledge? If so, are we to incorporate these Bid Items into the SW3P? What happens on an overrun of these items?

Answer: As per the Contract Drawings and Technical Specifications there are no proposed locations within the USIBWC right of way for Staging; as per the Contract Drawings and Technical Specifications, the Contractor shall bid the SW3P according to the Contract Drawings and Technical Specifications.

- 7 -

Page 35.41.00‐3 G. States that “Inspection and test results shall be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer.” Is this a function of the CQC System Manager? Or is this a testing lab requirement?

Answer: As per the Contract Drawings and Technical Specifications the Contractor is responsible for Quality Control and the Government has the option to perform Quality Assurance.

Does the Surveyor have to be registered in California?

Answer: No, Specification 01 71 00 has been revised to show Texas and is included in Addendum No. 1.

QUESTIONS FROM JOE FORSHAGE, FOREMOST PAVING RECEIIVED 07‐22‐09:

Page 01.59.00‐1 states “Note: For this Project, the Contractor will be required to obtain material from a commercial source in lieu of a borrow pit.” Could you please define “commercial source”?

Answer: Specification 01 59 00, paragraph 1.2.A has been revised through Addendum No. 1 to read that it is the Contractor’s responsibility to obtain fill material from any source that meets the fill requirements of the Technical Specifications. The Contractor shall also provide an excavation plan of borrow sources as per paragraph 1.6 of Specification 35 41 00.

QUESTIONS FROM JIM EKROAT, MCALLEN CONSTRUCTION RECEIVED 07‐17‐09:

Sheet 12.16, sheet 4 of 97. The cross section shows “Prop Retaining Wall” – What item is this work paid under? What type of material / structure extends from the top of the referenced retaining wall to the SET?

And how is this work paid for?

Answer: Plan Sheet No. 12.16 has been revised through Addendum No. 1 and removed any requirements relating to Prop Retaining Wall.

Sheet 12.110 – Gatewell adjustment details Dimension X2 is shown to vary from 4’ to 7’ in table A. The profile view of the structure and section B‐B identify X2. The cross section shown for he operating platform shows what would be dimension X2 as a constant 4’. Please confirm which data is correct.

Answer: Plan Sheet No. 12.110 and 12.111 have been revised through Addendum No. 1 to address these issues.

Dimension X1 is shown to vary from 5’ to 14.58’ in table A. Section B‐B identifies dimension X2. The cross section shown for he operating platform shows what would be dimension X1 as a constant 6’‐2”. Please confirm which data is correct.

Answer: Plan Sheet No. 12.110 and 12.111 have been revised through Addendum No. 1 to address these issues.

Will the values in table A determine the dimensions of the Gatewells?

- 8 -

Answer: Plan Sheet No. 12.110 and 12.111 have been revised through ADDENDUM No. 1 to address these issues.

Will the landing platforms be dimensioned 4’‐6” x X1?

Answer: Plan Sheet No. 12.110 and 12.111 have been revised through ADDENDUM No. 1 to address these issues.

Is a construction joint permissible between the landing platform and the gate well structure?

Answer: Yes.

Sheet 12.111 Neither the profile view nor section A‐A notes where dimensions X1 or X2 shown in table A apply. Please provide additional information.

Answer: Plan Sheet No. 12.110 and 12.111 have been revised through ADDENDUM No. 1 to address these issues.

Will the gate wells shown on sheet 12.11 be constructed as per table A or the dimensions on section A‐A?

Answer: Plan Sheet No. 12.110 and 12.111 have been revised through ADDENDUM No. 1 to address these issues.

There is presently at least one gate stem that is bent. In the event that the existing gates or gate stems require replacement parts will the cost of the replacement parts be compensable?

Answer: Yes, as subsidiary to the Bid Item 60 65 15; it is the intent of the Specification that the gatewell hardware is to be re‐used, unless otherwise indicated; reference Specification 00 31 50 issued through Addendum No. 1.

For work performed outside of ‘normal” business hours, what is the hourly charge for inspection?

Answer: The current estimated $400.02 hourly charge for inspection is broken down as follows:

S&B Construction Engineer (straight‐time/over‐time) $150.95 S&B Construction Inspector (time‐and‐one‐half) $134.72 IBWC Inspector (time‐and‐one‐half) $54.16 IBWC Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) straight‐time/over‐time) $60.19

QUESTIONS FROM ERNESTO RAMON, BALLENGER CONSTRUCTION RECEIVED 07‐17‐09:

‐Will the embankment quantity determination figure (per station) will be available? (In reference to specification 5011 00 Part 4.1)

Construct Main Floodway Levee Improvements

- 9 -

Answer: The Contract Drawings and Technical Specifications identify embankment quantity through summary tables and plan sheets.

‐What is the rational for specifying A.P.I. of less than 15 for roadway access construction? (In reference to specification50 11 00 Roadway Embankment) Section 2.1 Materials)

Answer: The Contractor shall bid this roadway embankment in accordance with the Contract Drawings and Technical Specifications.

‐(In reference to sheet 1 of 97 in Section 12.13 of the plans), the proposed structure is to be casted as a platform structure and the gatewell adjustment details show on 12.111 to be build as a structure without a platform? Additionally the cubic yard quantity is the quantity figured from the top of the existing elevation rather than the actual construction joint beneath the platform?

Answer: This structure does not require a platform plan sheet; Plan Sheet No. 12.110 and 12.111, which show gatewell adjustment details, have been revised through Addendum No. 1.

‐Is there a bid item for the retaining wall on sheet 4 of 97 Sections 12.16 of the plans and what is the stretch and details of the retaining wall?

Answer: Plan Sheet No. 12.16 has been revised through ADDENDUM No. 1 and removed any requirements relating to Prop Retaining Wall.

‐Unable to determine the prefered installation of the proposed CJ‐1020‐2K‐ADH waterstop embeded in the existing structure. Is there an alternative adhesive type of waterstop?

Answer: The Contract Drawings and Technical Specifications indicate the water stop may be a compliance‐ confirmed equal.

QUESTIONS FROM ERIC WOODALL, WRS COMPASS RECEIVED 07‐17‐09:

Division 00.31.24, page 2, provides that the contractor shall "Address all environmental issues...." Should this language in Division 00.31.24, page 2, be read to mean the same as incorporated FAR clause 52.236‐7, which requires only obtaining "necessary" licenses and permits "applicable to the performance of the work?" If not, what must a contractor do to properly "address" an issue? Is there a list of other suspected environmental issues so that contractors can estimate the price of addressing all environmental issues?

Answer: As per Specification 01 57 00, the Contractor shall obtain a qualified Field Environmental Monitor.

There are several questions in regards to the 10 year warranty period and the discussions of actual damages for the 10 year warranty period. The structures are to be retrofitted to existing systems with COE provided equipment and materials. How is the contractor to determine the integrity of the existing system? Who will maintain the systems during the 10 year period?

Construct Main Floodway Levee Improvements

- 10 -

Answer: The prime contractor is responsible for the warranty. The warranty period is to be reduced to five

(5) years.

The design for the structures and the levee system are already provided for the contractor to install.

Comments were made during the pre‐bid that the contractor was responsible for the integrity of all systems for the 10 year warranty period. If the contractor builds the systems in accordance with the plans and specs, passes all Quality assurance testing, and is paid for completion of the project, how can the contractor be held responsible for failures and or flaws in the design? Also, how can the contractor reasonably ascertain the level of effort for maintenance of the system?

It was stated that the IBWC would release the bond at the completion of the contract which is 517 days.

Bonding companies do not consider the bond released in the case of an existing warranty period. How will the IBWC assure that the bond is released at the completion of the 517 day schedule? What security will the IBWC have for the warranty if the bond is released?

Answer: None. The written warranty is the assurance that the deficiency will be corrected.

It was stated during the pre‐bid that Builder’s risk insurance will be for the entire value of the project. It has been our experience that insurance companies will not issue Builder’s Risk policies on earthwork including levee construction. They only issue policies on physical buildings, structures etc. Please clarify the Builder’s Risk insurance policy.

Answer: It remains required for the entire contract amount.

Please provide estimated costs for testing and over site charges per day if the contractor is required to work additional hours outside of the hours in the plans and specs.

This is an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act project which from what I understand is to stimulate the US economy. There was an extensive conversation on the import of rock from Mexico during the pre‐bid. The gentlemen arguing the rock is correct in the fact that rock from Mexico will be significantly less costly than rock imported from up north. Please clarify if the rock from Mexico will be allowed.

Answer: This 43‐mile levee reach does not require any quantities of rock, as there is no rock riprap proposed in the plans;

The only rock that could be required would be for the Construction Exits (but there are different types of Exits, and we did not limit the Contractor to utilize rock or stone for the exits);

If needed, Contractors have identified that there are other sources of rock material.

It was indicated that any borrow source can be used if the material meets specifications. Will the IBWC require environmental testing on the material? Will the IBWC require that a local, state and federal permit be issued for the borrow source? Please elaborate on acceptable borrow sources.

Answer: Specification 01 59 00, paragraph 1.2.A has been revised through Addendum No. 1 to read that it is the Contractor’s responsibility to obtain fill material from any source that meets the fill requirements of the

Construct Main Floodway Levee Improvements

- 11 -

Technical Specifications. The Contractor shall also provide a Plan of Operations, including plan of borrow sources as per paragraph 1.6 of Specification 35 41 00.

Again, this is an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act project. Therefore, will borrow material from a site in Mexico be allowed?

Answer: No.

QUESTIONS FROM CARRIE ZITMAN, PHILLIPS & JORDAN RECEIVED 07‐16‐09:

Page 39 (of 51), section 52.246‐21, subsection (b) references “Division 60 68 00 of the specifications referenced in Section J, item J.12”. Section 68 of Division 60 is not included in the files. Please advise on how to obtain a copy of this section.

Answer: Specification 60 68 00 has been issued through Addendum No. 1.

QUESTIONS FROM MIKE TEAM, PHILLIPS & JORDAN RECEIVED 07‐17‐09:

1. Since the contractor must pay the government employee for work beyond normal hours what is that rate of pay and how many government employees per shift is expected?

Answer: The current estimated $400.02 hourly charge for inspection is broken down as follows:

S&B Construction Engineer (straight‐time/over‐time) $150.95 S&B Construction Inspector (time‐and‐one‐half) $134.72 IBWC Inspector (time‐and‐one‐half) $54.16 IBWC Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) straight‐time/over‐time) $60.19

2. Will the contractor be responsible for damages caused by Acts of God? Example (Hurricane).

Answer: Refer to Default clause at FAR 52.249‐10 in the solicitation.

3. What is the definition of commercial source for borrow material? Answer: Non‐governmental source.

Answer: Specification 01 59 00, paragraph 1.2.A has been revised through Addendum No. 1 to read that it is the Contractor’s responsibility to obtain fill material from any source that meets the fill requirements of the Technical Specifications.

4. The contractor is responsible for flood control during the project does that mean he is responsible to maintain the existing top of levee elevation?

Answer: The contractor must maintain existing conditions, including current top of levee elevations. The Flood Protection Plan defined in Specification 02 02 00 covers the requirements.

5. The specs require the following for construction staking: Will you have to do this amount of staking even if your machinery is GPS controlled?

Construct Main Floodway Levee Improvements

- 12 -

a. Alignment Staking ‐ 50’ on tangent and 25’ on curves

b. Slope Staking ‐ 50’ on tangent and 25’ on curves

c. Pipelines ‐ stake prior and during construction

d. Cross‐sections ‐ original and final

e. Easement staking ‐ 50’ on tangent and 35’ on curves

Answer: Specification 01 71 00 has been revised through Addendum No. 1; the Contractor is still responsible for performing the staking as identified in Contractor’s Question a‐e.

6. What does ‘compliance‐confirmed’ lab mean? If we are Corps validated in Missouri and Louisiana will those validations prove we are a compliance‐confirmed lab?

Answer: Yes, if contractor’s Testing Laboratory meets the requirements of the Contract Drawings and Technical Specifications, including but not limited to Specification 01 46 00.

7. The specs state that the surveyor must be registered in California (pg 01.71.00‐3). Should it be Texas?

Answer: Yes, Specification 01 71 00 has been revised and is included in Addendum No. 1.

8. The specs talk about cement‐stabilized backfill where is this material required, and is it a large quantity?

Answer: This project does not require cement‐stabilized backfill; and if it did, as per the specification, it would call‐out “Levee (Cement‐Stab)” as a required pay item.

9. Will GPS mounted equipment mounted on ATV be acceptable for final as‐built survey?

Answer: The contractor is to perform the final as‐built survey in accordance with Specification 01 71 00.

10. Are there any weight restrictions for trucks running on the levee?

Answer: No.

11. Can the existing flex‐base be used again on site to build ramps and will we have to haul it offsite in the end?

Answer: As per the Contract Drawings plan sheet no. 6.02 in Note 4, the existing base material can be used in building the access roads.

12. In the raising of existing structures how will the warranty apply to the existing mechanical operated equipment that is not supplied by the contractor but is material that will be reused by the contractor or will the contractor be required to furnish new mechanical equipment for the existing structures?

Answer: As per Specification 00 31 50, the Contractor shall be required to refurbish existing gatewell mechanism to working condition to include, but not be limited to, greasing of the mechanisms, adjustment of stems, replacement of missing or broken parts, and increasing height of existing ladders.

13. If the contractor supplies and installs new mechanical equipment and that equipment is jammed by logs or debris during times of high water is this contractor negligence?

Construct Main Floodway Levee Improvements

- 13 -

Answer: No.

14. Will you allow trucks to access the site thru use of the top of the levee?

Answer: Yes.

15. Will we be able to use the ramps off the side of the levee to go (sic) and come also.

Answer: Yes.

16. Have you listed all the public access points to the project or are there others that we may use?

Answer: The Contract Drawings identify existing access roads; however, the Contractor is responsible for reviewing the project site for access points for determining his plan of operations.

17. The bid items make reference to the following specifications (60 65 15), (60 67 02), (60 80 02), (60 80 03), (60 80 04), and (80 79 01) where are these specifications located? I believe they are just numbered wrong.

Answer: The numbers identified are bid items that also have contract line item number (CLIN) identifiers, i.e.

001 through 025. For the Specifications: The first pair of numbers identify the division; the second pair of numbers identify the item number within that division; and the third pair of numbers comprise the description code for the specific bid item. The three paired bid item numbers are also contained in plan sheet 04.01.

There is no bid item called 80 79 01.

18. Does the Field Environmental Monitor need to be on site everyday for the entire length of the project or can he make inspections every other day or what is the standard?

Answer: As per Specification 01 57 00, the Contractor shall obtain a qualified Field Environmental Monitor (FEM); the FEM shall make inspections as required for the Contractor to be compliant with SPECIFICATINO 01 57 00, as well as the Contract Drawings and other Technical Specifications.

QUESTIONS FROM CARRIE ZITMAN, PHILLIPS AND JORDAN RECEIVED 07‐20‐09:

The Builders Risk requirements below are inconsistent. Section H.4.(a) requires Builders Risk no less than 100% of the contract price. Section H.4.(c) requires Builders Risk based on 100% of the completed value of the insurable portion of the project.

Please advise as to which of the above Builders Risk coverages will be required.

Answer: Section H.4.(a) is correct. Paragraph (c) is corrected to show the same value in this amendment.

QUESTIONS FROM MIKE TEAM, PHILLIPS & JORDAN RECEIVED 07‐21‐09:

I am very aware that the time for asking questions is up but after speaking with the manufacture of the Floodgates what is the definition of mechanical devices according to this contract? I spoke with the representatives of Flood Break (Paul

Construct Main Floodway Levee Improvements

- 14 -and Kyle) and in their opinion the floodgates are not mechanical devices. In light of the different opinions and the value of the answer I hope that you give us some insight to how this will apply to the project?

Answer: The Floodgates are mechanical devices and will need to be covered by a warranty.

QUESTION RECEIVED FROM MARTHA GARZA, FOREMOST PAVING, INC. ON 07‐23‐09:

If we overnight the bid for the above referenced project to your office in El Paso for delivery between 6‐8 am will there be someone at your office to receive it?

Answer: The office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

QUESTION RECEIVED FROM DAN REYNOLDS, SULLIVAN LAND SERVICES ON 06‐30‐09:

Section L.8 (d) – States questions are to be received no later than July 17, 2009.

Is this date incorrect as it is after the conference date of July 15, 2009, or is this the final date for questions after the pre bid conference?

Answer: It was intended to be the final date for questions arising from the site visit and pre‐bid conference.

However, as noted in this document all questions received by 07‐24‐09.

QUESTION RECEIVED FROM JUDY KENNEDY, LAKESHORE GROUP ON 07‐09‐09:

Could you please provide CAD files for this project?

Answer: No. Only the pdf files are available to prospective bidders, as posted at FedBizOpps.

QUESTION RECEIVED FROM BOB STEFFES, SITE DEVELOPMENT ON 07‐09‐09:

Due to the size of this project it will be difficult if not impossible to do a manual quantity take off in the time allotted. Will it be possible to get a CADD file?

Answer: No. Only the pdf files are available to prospective bidders, as posted at FedBizOpps.

QUESTION RECEIVED FROM HANK FRAILING, BALLENGER CONSTRUCTION ON 07‐09‐09:

Looking for Liquidated Damage Chart or Amount/Day figure for above‐referenced project.

Answer: There are none. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the actual damages incurred by IBWC due to fault or negligence of the contractor will not exceed $3 million. The text in F.3 under Section F is also changed by this amendment to add the limitation.

QUESTION RECEIVED FROM ERNIE RAMON, BALLENGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ON 07‐09‐09:

Construct Main Floodway Levee Improvements

- 15 -

Joe Charles Ballenger Sr. is concerned with the flex base quantity has it been addressed in the questions to be answered? There is a rough quanity figure of 23% over the bid item cost.

Answer: Not sure of the question; but the Contractor needs to bid the flex base quantity as shown in the Contract Drawings.

QUESTION RECEIVED FROM GEORGE TILLOTSON, ZURICH ON 07‐21‐09:

As we discussed, Zurich is the surety for a possible number of bidders on the above project. I appreciate your spending the time to help me out with the FAR regulations. The problem we have is with the term "actual damages". While I see that under Section 52.249‐10 under Default (Fixed Price Contract) it excludes acts of God and specifically floods, we are not sure this would apply to damages. It would stop the government from putting them in default. It has been the policy of this and most surety companies to not approve projects with "actual damages" unless there is a reasonable cap for the damages. We do not want a surety bond to become a liability policy. We would like to see liquidated damages set for this project. Since there is a concern that they can't be determined, maybe they can be set a little higher to cover the potential.

Answer: To the maximum extent permitted by law, the actual damages incurred by IBWC due to fault or negligence of the contractor will not exceed $3 million. The text in F.3 under Section F is also changed by this amendment to add the limitation.

QUESTION RECEIVED FROM CARLOS AGUILAR, BALLENGER CONSTRUCTION CO ON 07‐30‐09:

Reference Contract Clause F.3. Actual Damages. This concerns the referenced clause and its applicability to the work. Our bonding company has expressed their apprehension about bonding a contract that may have an unlimited liability in the event of levee failure and subsequent flood damages.

In our interpretation, Clause F.3. Actual Damages (pg 13/51) refers to the Government’s cost of administering the contract and not for third party damages in the event the contractor exceeds the established completion date . Do you concur with our interpretation? Will you provide your estimate of actual damages?

A clause that alludes to damages is 52.236‐7 Permits and Responsibilities which states, “The Contractor shall also be responsible for all damages to persons or property that occur as a result of the Contractor’s fault or negligence.” The Corps of Engineers utilizes the same FAR clause in their construction contracts but they attach a Damage to Work qualifier in their Special Contract Requirements section which serves the same purpose as your Division 00 – Procurement and Contracting Requirements. The Damage to Work clause clarifies the contractor responsibility and moderates the risk. I have attached copies of both clauses for your perusal. By itself, your Permits and Responsibilities clause without the accompanying Damage to Work is an exculpatory clause that assigns total risk to the Contractor.

Construct Main Floodway Levee Improvements

- 16 -

Will you provide a legal clarification on the applicability of the Permits and Responsibilities/Damage to work suggestion? In view of our discussions with the bonding company, time is of the essence so we request a prompt reply.

Answer: To the maximum extent permitted by law, the actual damages incurred by IBWC due to fault or negligence of the contractor will not exceed $3 million. The text in F.3 under Section F is also changed by this amendment to add the limitation.