MOTCO Reverse Industry Day Projects and Questions.pdf

Waterside Security Barrier

Project Description:

The project scope is to design and install a Waterside Security Barrier (WSB) at the Military Ocean Terminal, Concord, CA (MOTCO). The purpose of the WSB is to deter and delay boats from accessing the MOTCO waterfront, hence protecting waterfront assets and personnel from harm. The WSB shall be constructed along the edge of restricted zone to provide additional protections for vessels while at port loading and unloading ammunition.

This capability will provide a boat barrier system that is continuous, with modular lines of demarcation intended to stop and/or delay waterborne threats. A representative image of the type of proposed barrier systems is below. This project will provide a test and evaluation barrier system section that is transparent so that Surface threats can be observed. The system should have an operational design life of more than 15 years, if properly maintained. The barrier will use materials, connectors, and straps that provide zero corrosion and are extremely low maintenance. The barrier system will be equipped with automated, solar-powered, navigation lights approved by the United States Coast Guard as well as the International Maritime Organization. The luminosity and flash characteristics will be remotely programmable and able to be set for any local requirement. Signage will be made from marine-grade aluminum sheet or other suitable material with verbiage to be determined in the future.

Barrier system terminations are designed to the unique environmental conditions of the installation site. Shore termination designs will be finalized during the design phase, after conducting a site visit, and in coordination with state and federal environmental regulatory agencies. The project timeline is constrained by a strict environmental window for in-water work, limited to August through November.

IMAGES:

Waterside Security Barrier Reverse Industry Day Questions:

1. Please elaborate on any preferred means and methods, such as procuring and fabircating the materials off site and then assembling and deploying them from shore or from a barge directly?

2. Please discuss NAICS codes and acquisition type preferences (construction versus service contract)?

Wastewater Repair

This project will be an installation wide wastewater system repair for the MOTCO facility.

The scope of this project will include improvements to the wastewater piping, equipment and relevant connecting wastewater lines within the Tidal (mission) area. Existing conditions have already been established with a smoke test of the wastewater lines associated with a utility master plan update conducted at that time, and further defined by an FY26 sanitary sewer evaluation study (SSES) award. Improvements to the system shall consists of the repair by replacement of the sections of leaking piping, estimated at 12,000 linear feet, of the overall system that includes an approximate 58,422.95 linear ft of wastewater piping, as well as the repair by replacement of nonfunctioning lift stations.

Images:

Reverse Industry Day Question:

1. Do you anticipate any issues associated with issuing a DB2B contract for the funded portion of wastewater system, scoped directly from an SSES performed in FY27?

MOTCO Wharf 4 Demolition

This project is the demolition of timber-pile supported Wharf 4 at the Military Ocean Terminal, Concord (MOTCO). The scope of the project shall address removal of wharf 4 and the clearing of its area below the mudline for the purpose of making room for the future construction of Wharf 3.5. The project will include the permitting, in-water timber piles, and superstructure as part of the overall demolition scope of Wharf 4, as well as other underwater moorings that sit in MOTCO’s Tidal side footprint. This project will also include UXO removal for the purpose of clearing the area for the future construction and functioning of the Wharf 3.5.

Image:

Reverse Industry Day Questions:

1. The project involves the complete demolition of Wharf 4. What are your recommended methodologies and specialized equipment for in-water and underwater demolition of a wharf structure of this nature?

2. The Project Scope assumes some UXO removal will be necessary. What are your cost effective solutions to operate within new UXO requirements for standoff and protection?

3. What are the most effective and environmentally compliant methods for handling and disposing of the various materials (e.g., concrete, steel, timber) from the demolished wharf, especially any potentially contaminated materials?

4. What specialized equipment or personnel for this project have the longest lead times for procurement or mobilization? How would you manage this to prevent schedule delays?

MOTCO Wharf 3.5

This project will construct a new modern wharf and cranes in order to replace Wharf 3, the only current operational wharf. The cranes scope of this project shall include identification of a twin 20 ton cranes currently in service within similar seismic zones, and then designing a Wharf to fit both the cranes and mission requirements. The wharf will need to be serviced by water, power and sewer lines. Water valves and fire hydrants will need to be installed as well. Facilities will be designed to a minimum life of 50 years in accordance with UFC 1- 200-02 including energy efficiencies, building envelope and integrated building systems performance. The wharf should be designed in accordance with findings from the on-going flood study which projects a BFE of 14 feet in the wharves area. Wharf 3.5 must be built to withstand Sea Level Rise and extreme event flooding.

Images

1. The Wharf 2 crane procurement project presented challenges. What are the common pitfalls or points of failure when integrating pre-selected cranes with a wharf design? What specific performance criteria or interface details should we define in the 35% package to ensure a successful outcome?

2. What areas of the wharf and crane design (e.g., materials, construction methods, automation) offer the greatest opportunity for innovation that could enhance performance, reduce lifecycle costs, or accelerate the schedule? How can we best write the performance specifications to allow for this flexibility?

3. Knowing that the government intends to select a crane currently in operation, within similar seismic zones, should the procurement of cranes and wharf Design Build contract be combined or track in parallel?

MOTCO ACP1 Telecom Hut

This project will construct a new telecom facility to be built on top of existing ARMAG concrete foundation that is adjacent to building IA2. Project will provide the facility with power by installation of a Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) pad mounted transformer and connection to power lines located within the vicinity of the proposed site.

Project will provide HVAC, fire protection, lighting, cable routing to 3 existing racks and space to add an additional 2 racks for future growth. Facility will also require the purchase and installation of a new backup generator. Project will phase the relocation and connection of existing fiber from building IA2 to the new telecom hut to minimize time offline. The acquisition strategy is a Design-Build (DB) contract awarded through a lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) process.

Photos:

1. What are the anticipated challenges associated with this transfer?

2. Please discuss recommended sequencing of work associated specifically with transferring functionality while minimizing network down time?

3. What are your primary concerns associated with a project like this that the government should pay special attention to address in the RFP?

4. Dedicated Transformer & Utility Connection: If this project now requires a dedicated transformer rather than tying into existing capacity, what are the current market lead times for this equipment, and how do you estimate the civil, electrical, and utility coordination costs?

5. Electrical Wire Pulling & Conduit Risk: The plan involves pulling existing wire tied into existing facility and rerouting it to the new telecom hut through nearby existing man-holes. What risk factors (e.g., conduit blockages, deterioration, or structural damage) are you pricing in, and what is your assumption for the cost if new conduits must be trenched?

6. Backup Generator Upgrade vs. Replacement or UPS: backup power, would you be pricing a completely new, larger generator, or would you price the retrofitting/upgrading of the existing generator or UPS? Additionally, how would you estimate the cost of integrating this unit with the Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS)?

7. Given that there is an existing slab of 12’8” by 30’2” for the telecom hut, would bolting a prebuilt structure onto the slab be preferred over putting the structure together on the pad?

Dredging Phase II

The purpose of Phase 2 dredging at MOTCO is to achieve dredged depth of the approach channel leading to Otter Slough and the Barge Pier, which will allow for full mission capability and achieve depth in preparation for the construction of a new boat ramp. Finally, there are two large objects that remain in the vicinity of Wharf 2 that must be moved to the designated cultural site or otherwise disposed of. The dredging operations in early 2026 placed dredged material in two upland, lined detention basins on MOTCO, with no discharge back to the bay. All dredged material for Phase 2 is to be pumped into the empty detention basin, screened to 20mm for UXO/MEC, pumped back to a scow, and disposed of at the Montezuma Wetlands Restoration site. Additionally, the existing material in Detention Basin 1 is to be screened to 20mm (previously screened to 3 in) and disposed of at Montezuma with the final goal of leaving both detention basins free of material (water can remain). All relevant UXO/MEC regulations are to be followed as the material must be screened to 20mm to be taken to Montezuma.

Project Footprint:

The optimal dredging sequence would be to start at the Otter Slough area so that the Boat Ramp PDT can have the path cleared for the install of a new boat ramp.

Two hard spots (large objects) are identified in Cut7-8 and Cut 14-15 within the dashed lines:

A diver(s) will be required to identify the object or material and to identify a way for these two objects or hard spots to be properly dealt with. If confirmed to be from the Port Chicago disaster they will be moved to the cultural resources designated area and if not from the Port Chicago disaster they will need to be disposed of.

Detention Basin 1 to be screened to 20mm (already screened to 3 in) and pumped to a scow for final placement at Montezuma (picture as of 7/2/26):

Detention Basin 2 as of 7/2/26:

1. How can a fluidizer be utilized to increase production to help tackle some of the denser material when screening for UXO and for pumping? Much of the material is estimated to be up to 80% slit/clay.

2. Is there a way to demonstrate that dredged material can reliably screen down to 20mm for UXO as it is critical (mandatory) to the project execution.

3. Artifacts from the Port Chicago disaster or other cultural resources are likely to hinder production and have the potential to halt progress for the project. Are there any innovative solutions for dealing with these items that can help ensure uninterrupted delivery?

4. There are two large objects in the vicinity of wharf 2, suspected to be large pieces of ship hull(s), but initial attempts to get them moved to the cultural resources designated area were unsuccessful as it was difficult to find a place to hook onto. A diver(s) will be needed to get confirmation and to find a place. How would you address such an object?

5. The plan is to process the material that is already in Detention Basin 1 that contains UXO/MEC that was screened to 3 inches in PH1 and further screen it to 20mm and then pump it out and send to Montezuma. How can that reliably be accomplished?

6. The 2025 DESR changed the pumping of dredged material to intentional detonation distances so we should be pumping accordingly. Is there a way to pump remotely and if not, how could this otherwise be safely accomplished?

7. Is there a good QC process in place to guarantee that the material getting screened to 20mm, pumped back to a scow for final placement at Montezuma? What does that process look like? Is there an alternative recommendation to pumping back to a scow?

8. The detention basin pumping process needs to be set up in such a manner that pumps are not damaging the liners and the plan is to have both basins void of sediment (water is fine). Is there a way to get pumps set up such that the chance of tearing or unintentionally suctioning the liner can be avoided?