INFORMATION-ONLY_Sol_140P2022R0078_Q_R_20220628.pdf

United States Department of the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DENVER SERVICE CENTER

12795 W. ALAMEDA PKWY

P.O. BOX 25287

DENVER, COLORADO 80225-0287

SOLICITATION: 140P2022R0078

PROJECT ID: CATO 250011, Rehabilitate Parkwide Utilities Infrastructure at Catoctin Mountain Park

SUBJECT: Solicitation Questions and Responses, June 28, 2022

1. The borings provided by NPS indicate a high likelihood of rock removal within the utility trenching area. Absent a measurement & payment section within the division 31 and 33 specifications; is rock excavation paid as a change order in addition to the base contract, or will it be considered incidental to the linear foot trenching of the utilities?

RESPONSE: Rock excavation is incidental. See specification 3123 16 Excavation paragraph

3.02. Boring logs are provided in the Geotechnical Report per response 7. See response to question #12 for clarification on contingent rock blasting.

2. If suitable backfill material is not available, trench side spoils as determined by the on-site engineer; the specification indicates that an approved select borrow will be required. Absent a measurement & payment section within the division 31 and 33 specifications; will select material be paid as a change order in addition to the base contract, or will it be considered incidental to the linear foot trenching of utilities?

RESPONSE: Incidental. Onsite screening is not mandated, but is suggested as a means of controlling costs, where the excavated material is found to be suitable for any of the various soil and rock material requirements. See also response to question #4.

3. Project specifications indicate excessive frost line in the winter months for the park; considering this and other extreme naturally occurring weather conditions at the Catoctin Park; will schedule accommodations be made for the winter months? IE: Possible Winter shutdown?

RESPONSE: The contract duration is firm. Contractor is allowed to shut down operations over the winter. Consider the constraints in 01 32 16 as some work is required to occur during the late fall/winter/early spring.

4. The trenching and backfill section of the specifications indicate that screening of backfill material will be required due to excessive sized rock; absent any specification for measurement and payment, is this to be considered incidental to the linear foot trenching of utilities?

RESPONSE: Incidental. Use of onsite material is not mandated but suggested. See also question #2.

5. Solicitation, page 49, item #1 states: “A minimum of 15% of the total contract value must be performed by small businesses.” Page 51, 5th paragraph states: Small Businesses (44%). Please clarify which percentage (%) will apply for this contract.

RESPONSE: The 15% requirement referenced on Page 49 is a requirement that 15% of the total contract value must be performed by small businesses. The 44% requirement referenced on Page 51 is a requirement, for those offerors required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan pursuant to FAR 52.219-9, that the NPS’s goal is 44% of subcontracted dollars be performed by

Small Businesses.

6. Please clarify the pavement sections on plan sheet 24 (C5). Detail 3/C3 is to only apply for the Central Treatment Asphalt roadway shown on plan sheet 22 (C3)? The asphalt layer #1 for this roadway is 2.5”? All other pavement restoration areas shall use Detail 1, which has an asphalt layer 2 of 3”?

RESPONSE: Correct. On C5, Detail 1 is trench patching. Detail 3 is the new Central Treatment driveway.

7. Has a Geotechnical report been completed for this project? Please provide this report with all available boring locations and logs. We are concerned about encountering rock material in the utility trenches. How will do we address “rock trench excavation”?

RESPONSE: The Geotechnical Data Report is included within the specifications, as a supplement to Section 01 11 00.

8. “Previous NPS DSC procurements have allowed for the submission of previously completed NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance questionnaires in lieu of the Attachment 7 Past Performance Questionnaires. Please consider adopting this procedure for this procurement.”

RESPONSE: Past performance questionnaires containing the same information in the Past Performance Questionnaire template will be accepted.

9. Bid Item 0013 - Option 000J, states demolish “two” 30,000 gal tanks for Camp Misty Mount. Plan sheet 122 show one tank. Is there another tank at this camp to demolish?

RESPONSE: There is a single tank and site location in Camp Misty Mount. Specifications and Price Schedule are revised accordingly.

10. Bid Item 0014 – Option 000K, states demolish 30,000 gal tanks for Camp Round Mound. Plan sheet 123 show two tanks. Please provide clarification?

RESPONSE: There are two tanks serving Camp Round Meadow. These tanks are adjacent.

Specifications and Price Schedule are revised accordingly.

11. Bid Item 0015 – Option 000K, states demolish 30,000 gal tanks for Camp Greentop. Plan sheet 124 show two tanks. Please provide clarification?

RESPONSE: There are two tanks serving Camp Greentop. These tanks are adjacent.

Specifications and Price Schedule are revised accordingly.

12. At the pre-bid/site visit it was mentioned that blasting is not permitted. There is a specification section 01 35 25 Explosives. Please provide clarification if trench blasting is acceptable?

RESPONSE: See response to question #1. Blasting is a contingency only. In accordance with specification 01 35 25 Explosives paragraph 1.4.C.6, it is suggested to submit a blasting plan for NPS review and resolve any comments in advance of potential need.

13. Will the park authority provide a waste area on-site for trench spoils? This will eliminate additional haul-off cost and possible dump fees to the project.

RESPONSE: The park does not have an existing soil stockpile area. Specification 31 23 16

Excavation paragraph 3.06 allows for onsite disposal with NPS approval. The contractor is recommended to plan for dispersed disposal along the utility corridors with no impact to visual or overland rainwater runoff function. If the contractor means and methods include screening to separate larger stone not meeting the trench bedding or pipe zone requirements, then it is anticipated that the leftover material will be stone and not soil. See also specification 31 23 23 Fill and Backfill paragraph 1.02.A.

14. Due to the details, scope, and project size please consider a Bid date postponement of 1-2 weeks? This would allow all potential subcontractors ample time to provide competitive pricing for the project.

RESPONSE: Proposal due date changes will be made through solicitation amendments. In order to not conflict with amendments and dates identified on this question and response document, please refer to solicitation amendments.

15. Can I please have the site visit attendee list for the job referenced above?

RESPONSE: The site visit attendance list has been posted to the SAM.gov advertisement for this solicitation, along with minutes of the site visit.

16. The solicitation stated that the bids at due 1700 local time. Since we are in Maryland does that mean it is due at 1700 Colorado time?

RESPONSE: Yes, local time is the time of the location of the office issuing the solicitation:

Denver, CO. The time zone is MDT.

17. Please allow a bid extension of two (2) weeks for subcontractors & suppliers to prepare competitive estimates after review of forthcoming RFI answers.

RESPONSE: Proposal due date changes will be made through solicitation amendments. In order

18. In regards to the current NPS solicitation referenced above, can you either provide me, or direct me to where I can find, a current Bidder’s or Planholder’s list?

RESPONSE: The NPS doesn’t maintain a bidders list; however, the SAM.gov advertisement has an Interested Vendors list where you can find companies who have selected to show interest and follow the advertisement. Also, the specifications, drawings, and other RFP attachments are all available publicly on the SAM.gov website. The advertisement is not set up to restrict or monitor access or who has downloaded the files. All of the information officially released by the NPS is available at the SAM.gov advertisement.

19. To confirm in drawing page T2 sheet note #7, #8 calls out for new Hand holes for CHH 14, 15, 16 and 22 and all new pathway.

RESPONSE: All telecom pathways and all telecom handholes (approximately 67) are new in the entire project. Keynote 7 and 8 on T2, and Keynote 3 on T10, identify where a few handholes (CHH- 05, 08, 14, 15, 17, 21, 22, 64, 65) are larger than the majority of handholes due to the location or number of conduits passing through those particular handholes.

20. To confirm all fiber strands will be fusion spliced with either LC or SC connectors.

RESPONSE: Fiber splices will be fusion. Connectors will be LC. If there is a case where equipment does not offer LC ports, but does offer SC ports, then SC connectors can be used in that case.

21. To confirm the 12 pair copper cable between the stable building 231 and Post 5A will be terminated by others and will be left curled up in the Pull box. No entrance protection is required?

RESPONSE: Confirmed.

22. Drawing T11 Note 6 any specifics on the type of switch and ports required?

RESPONSE: The ethernet switch requirements are listed in section 40 95 00 Process Control, para. 2.06, “Ethernet System and Accessories”.

23. Page 31 23 16 – 1 of Spec Section 31 23 16 Excavation Part 1.01, B. Controlled Blasting states to Refer to Section 31 23 16.27, Blasting Controls, however section 31 23 16.27 does not exist in the specs. Please provide additional spec section.

RESPONSE: This reference should be 01 35 25 Explosives instead of 31 23 16.27.

24. Please confirm that the Superintendent can also be the project SSHO and that the Project Manager can also perform the duties of QC Manager.

RESPONSE: There are no restrictions on the multiple roles performed by a single employee.

25. Due to the distance between bore holes/test pits it is difficult to accurately identify how much rock may be encountered on the project. Since the excavation spec identifies this project as Unclassified Excavation, we would like to request a CY of rock removal line item be provided by the government to allow bidders the opportunity to provide unit rate pricing and a LS price for that value of rock removal. This would provide fair and reasonable pricing for a highly unidentifiable aspect of the project.

RESPONSE: The government cannot provide a quantity of excavation, and a unit price structure for rock removal will not be incorporated into the contract pricing structure. Excavation quantity estimation and means and methods are the responsibility of the construction contractor.

26. During the site walk it was confirmed that this project is still unfunded, could the government please provide an update on the status of funding. Is this project still unfunded? If the project is still unfunded at time of proposal, how will the government accept bids?

RESPONSE: The solicitation language is a matter of the federal appropriations process. Funds are appropriated for this project. The project is unfunded as stated in the solicitation. A contract will be awarded when and if funds become available.

27. The IFC drawing set does not appear to be “wet stamped” by MDE for E&S or Stormwater approval. For the purposes of project proposal schedule please identify the status of these drawings with MDE. Will it be the contractor’s responsibility to submit for the first time for approval or have they previously been submitted by NPS. If the drawings are to be submitted by the contractor, please provide a timeframe to be assumed in the project proposal schedule. If the drawings have been submitted, please provide anticipated approval date.

RESPONSE: MDE plan review is complete. MDE plan # 22-SF-0017 was approved on April

14, 2022. Please refer to specification 01 57 23 Temporary Stormwater Pollution Prevention for contractor responsibilities. Paragraph 1.3.A lists the contractor requirements to prepare and submit an electronic Notice of Intent a minimum of 30 days prior to starting land disturbance.

28. With the recent extension there has been additional interest by subcontractors that did not previously exist, however, there has been multiple requests by subcontractors requesting an additional week for the bid schedule. Please advise if this would be acceptable to NPS.

RESPONSE: Proposal due date changes will be made through solicitation amendments. In order

29. Please advise if CPARS are acceptable in lieu of PPQs.

RESPONSE: Yes. Section L of the solicitation states, under Factor 5 “If available, offerors may submit a Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) evaluation report for a specific project in lieu of the Past Performance Questionnaire.” The CPARS and PPIRS systems are interrelated.

30. Sheet C4 (Treatment Plant) Please confirm the 3” Water from the Treatment Building to the Storage Tank is PVC and not HDPE or DIP. Using PVC is inconsistent with the remainder of the project.

RESPONSE: 3” PVC is the design. Specification is 40 27 00 with data sheet 40 27 00.10.

31. Sheet C4 (Treatment Plant) Are there any profiles available for the 8”, 6” and 3” (exterior) Waterlines shown at the Central Plant area?

RESPONSE: No. Minimum 3.5 feet vertical cover applies in accordance with notes on drawing C50.

32. Existing Conditions (Division 02) Is there any asbestos concrete (transite) piping in-ground? If so, at what location?

RESPONSE: The known locations identified on record drawings are in Camp Round Meadow.

See note 5 on C7, and Note 3 on C9.

33. Existing Conditions (Division 02) Are there any known asbestos or PCB problems at the park as it relates to the construction?

RESPONSE: See response to question 32 for asbestos concrete pipe which is the reason for specification 02 82 00 Asbestos Remediation. Specification 02 84 33 Removal and Disposal of PCBs provides requirements for PCB disposal from electrical transformers in the Visitors Center area. See 02 84 33 paragraph 1.02.

34. Sheet C47 (Fire Hydrant Detail) Are the 6” pipe leads to the Hydrant DIP or HDPE?

RESPONSE: C48 detail 5 note at top of detail clarifies that the short segment of pipe between the valve and the fire hydrant elbow is DIP.

35. Sheet C47 (Fire Hydrant Detail) Are there valves on each side of the tee that branches off to the fire hydrant? Detail 5 on sheet C48 suggests this but no mainline valves are depicted on the plan or profiles at the hydrant locations. At least 1 mainline valve at each FH tee would be a good idea in order to isolate the different segments of the system and for testing purposes.

RESPONSE: One valve is sufficient for FH branches. Detail 5 on C48 is a general detail for valves at Tees.

36. Sheet C47 (Fire Hydrant Detail): Are all Fire Hydrants per detail 2 on sheet C47? Some of the FH’s have 6”x2” tees called out for the hydrants.

RESPONSE: Detail 7 on C49 is a manual air release hydrant for supplemental air release while filling the long pipeline with no service connections between Central Treatment and Camp Misty Mount. It is a fire hydrant product that we found to meet this Manual Air Release Hydrant function. The intent of the Manual Air Release Hydrant detail name and note 4 on this detail was to help distinguish from the Fire Hydrant detail 2 on C47.

37. All Raw Waterline: Are there any piping details for what happens at Well 5A? The profile references detail 6 on sheet C48 which appears to be a drain detail.

RESPONSE: See Note 1 on C37. The frost free hydrant was a later addition and replaces the function of the valved drain line.

38. All Raw Waterline: Do Raw Water lines have to be disinfected since they convey “non-potable water”?

RESPONSE: All lines should be disinfected.

39. Protective Pipe Casings: Please confirm the size and type of casing materials to be used for 3”,6”,& 8” piping for both water and sewer mains. PVC as a casing pipe seems unusual for road crossing where there’s a lack of preferable cover. The Camp David entrance scales to 2.5 feet over the casing.

RESPONSE: Confirmed. The intent of the casings is to facilitate pipe replacement under the roads if maintenance is needed.

40. Protective Pipe Casings: The Data Sheet at 33 05 01.12.03 says the Sch40 PVC pipe is to be gasketed. Sch 40 pipe is typically a primer & glue joint. Please clarify what we’re to use.

RESPONSE: Primer & glue is acceptable for the protective pipe casings.

41. Sewer Manholes (Specification 33 05 13, Paragraph 2.03- Manhole Frames & Covers): Please indication which manholes get standard and those that get Water-tight Frame & Covers. There’s normally a substantial cost difference.

RESPONSE: Standard MH frame & cover are acceptable for all locations.

42. Trench Bedding: Are there any details for the Sanitary Sewer trench bedding? Detail 3 on sheet C47 indicates as such.

RESPONSE: Detail 7 on C5 Typical Trench applies to sanitary sewer as well.

43. Trench Bedding: Are there any bedding details for the HDPE waterlines?

RESPONSE: Detail 7 on C5 Typical Trench applies to HDPE waterlines as well.

44. Camp Misty Mount (sheet C33): Please clarify the proposed work in the area of MH-84. Are there any utilities going to the cabins in that area? (SEE BELOW)

RESPONSE: It is an existing utility layer that should have printed gray instead of black.

45. ¾” Water Services: Can we have the option of using standard watermain tapping saddles, brass corporation valves, and ¾” Type K Copper in lieu of the electrofusion pipe, fittings & couplings called for on detail 8 located on sheet C48? Electrofusion fittings are not as readily available as the brass/copper fittings should there be any unanticipated work or changes at the tie-ins.

RESPONSE: No.

46. Owens Creek Campground (Sheets C42 & C43): Bid Option 000G (CLIN 0010): What are the limits of this item? Is it from sta. 13+46 to 6+56 or to the Tee at 3+60.3?

RESPONSE: Bid Option 000G (CLIN 0010) starts at 6+56 and stops at 13+46 and is the pipe splitting segment. The work in Owens Creek Campground prior to Station 6+56 is 000H (CLIN 0011) installed by open cut.

47. Owens Creek Campground (Sheets C42 & C43): Bid Option 000H (CLIN 0011): Please confirm Water Service Laterals for this option is both the 3” line to both Comfort Stations and the ¾” (or 2”) line to the Existing Spigot.

RESPONSE: See answer #46

48. Owens Creek Campground (Sheets C42 & C43): Bid Option 000H (CLIN 0011): The plans call for a ¾” Service to the existing Spigot. The profile for WL “B” calls for a 2”x2” Tee at the same location. Please confirm if the service is ¾” or 2”.

RESPONSE: The waterlines and profiles should be labeled. The primary water line (STA 0+00 to 6+56, left profile) is “WL A” while the other line (STA 0+00 to 2+23, right profile) to service BLDG #140 is “WL B”. “WL A” and “WL B” are both 3” HDPE and shall connect via 3”x3” tee instead of 2”x2” tee as noted. There shall be a ¾” service line installed from STA 1+45.15 on “WL B” to the existing spigot. This service can be tapped off “WL B” rather than utilizing a tee.

49. Owens Creek Campground (Sheets C42 & C43): Bid Option 000H (CLIN 0011): Please confirm that all of the 3” waterlines shown on the plan view are indeed 3”. The profiles calls out 2” fittings instead of 3”.

RESPONSE: See response to Question #48.

50. Round Meadow (Sheets C7 & C45): The Meter Vault detail on C45 is for a 3” meter whereas the line it’s on (sheet C7) is a 6-inch HDPE line. There are no reducers shown. Please confirm it is in fact a 3” meter vault w/ 6x3 reducers.

RESPONSE: Confirmed. 6x3” reducers on both sides. Addendum 001 to the Specifications and Drawings provides further clarification on this detail.

51. Utilities in Shared Trench: Please confirm that the notes and details on sheets C50 & C51 take precedence over the scaled dimensions measured on some of the site plans. An example of this in on sheet C16 (3” RW & 6” Potable Water)- those distances (C/L to C/L) are approximately 8 feet whereas note 3.1 on sheet C50 spells out a 2 foot horizontal / 1 foot vertical separation.

RESPONSE: Confirmed. The utility spacing dimensions in the notes and details on C50 and C51 are the minimum requirements. In plan view, there are multiple instances where the parallel lines had to be spaced farther apart in the CAD file to be able to visually distinguish as separate lines. Clear area shall be minimized per Note 5.

52. HDPE Joining: Please confirm that Butt Joining, as opposed to Electrofusion Joining, is an acceptable method for both the 3” and ¾” HDPE materials. Detail 8 on sheet C48 stipulates the electrofusion process whereas the specification in section 35 05 01.10, paragraph 2.02 B says to butt fuse the material.

RESPONSE: Both are acceptable. Butt fusion is anticipated for end to end joining and electrofusion is anticipated for side branches. Neither are prohibited from any construction activity. The performance requirements for the pipe are the pressure test.

53. Water Utility Distribution Valves (Section 33 12 16, Paragraph 2.02B): Would Resilient Wedge (w/ rubber coated disk) be an acceptable alternative to double-disk valves call for? Resilient wedge valves are newer in concept and have become common-place in the industry.

RESPONSE: During design, information was reviewed from valve suppliers stating that resilient wedge was acceptable for HDPE pipes, but no confirming information from HDPE suppliers, industry groups, or independent researchers was found. Submittal of a fully documented alternative product pursuant to the requirements in Specification 01 67 00 will receive a technical consideration by the government.

54. Wage Determination: There are two different wage Rates (and Fringes) posted for some tradesmen, such as Excavator operator & Trackhoe operator. To my knowledge, they’re one in the same. Please clarify which rate we should be using for the project.

RESPONSE: In this specific wage determination, the two labor classifications of “Operator:

Excavator” and “Operator: Trackhoe” fall under two separate classification identifiers. The “Operator: Excavator” and associated hourly rates and fringes fall under and are applicable to the union classification for Operating Engineers Local 37 and rate of the employee if applicable. The “Operator: Trackhoe” and associated hourly rates and fringes fall under the SUMD2010 identifier rate and fringes. Please see the information regarding the rate identifiers at the bottom of the wage determination document for further details.

55. Rock Excavation: Given the size and scope of the project we feel that a total of 36 (Potholes and Boring Holes combined) investigation locations is not nearly enough to evaluate and quantify the potential subsurface rock excavation. We suggest an “Add Alternate” option with unit pricing should be considered by NPS. For instance, an option for 5,000 cubic yards of Trench Rock with a second option of Test Drilling. These options would need defined measurement parameters and invoiced accordingly.

RESPONSE: The government cannot provide a quantity of excavation, and a unit price structure for rock removal will not be incorporated into the contract pricing structure. Excavation quantity estimation and means and methods are the responsibility of the construction contractor.

56. At Round Meadow, does the existing and abandoned vault & drainfield get completely demolished & removed or do we just alter what’s there (i.e. manhole/vault) to where it’s no longer visible?

RESPONSE: The intent of Note 3 on C6 is to demolish segments of underground infrastructure encountered within the trench alignments in order to install this project as designed. The intent is to not chase additional segments of abandoned infrastructure beyond the trenches.

57. For any existing utility that comes in conflict with the new utility (water or sewer) do we just remove where the conflict is or do we remove the whole thing?

RESPONSE: Inside buildings rehabilitation remove the entirety of abandoned pipes. For site utilities, after confirming that the conflicting utility is inactive and does not need relocation, remove a segment conflicting with the installation of the new utilities.

58. Will the Government provide CAD drawings for the project to help with pricing efforts?

RESPONSE: CAD Drawings are not available for the solicitation period but will be issued to the successful construction contract awardee.

59. Regarding the important Stream Restrictions for this project. Here in MD we have to strictly follow MDE requirement, when it comes to streams. MDE rules everything we do on construction projects in MD. The streams on this project are noted on plan sheet 92 as USE III. I checked this through the MDE data bank. Use III stream closure restrictions are from Oct 1 to April 30th. We are not allowed to enter the stream during this time frame. When I checked this with Specification 01 32 16-6 8d2 it has the reverse noted. It says, “must not begin before Oct 1, 2022 and must be completed by April 30, 2023. Please clarify the specification requirement.

RESPONSE: Specification 01 32 16-6 is revised via Specifications and Drawings Addendum 001 to match the conditions set forth in MDE Letter of Authorization No. 21-NT- 3151/202161380 dated April 11, 2022 which states the following restriction: “Instream Construction Prohibition: To protect important aquatic species, motor driven construction equipment shall not be allowed within stream channels unless on authorized ford crossings. Activities within stream channels are prohibited as determined by the classification of the stream (COMAR 26.08.02.08): the unnamed tributaries to Big Hunting Creek and the unnamed tributary to Owens Creek are Use III waterways; in-stream work may not be conducted from October 1 through April 30, inclusive, of any year.”