MPB_RFI_8_21_2026_1.pdf

RFI No. 140R2026R0020

1 | P a g e

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)

Mendota Pool Bypass and Reach 2B Improvements

Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) California–Great Basin Region, Acquisition Office – Sacramento, CA

NAICS: 237990 – Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction Size Standard: $45M (average annual receipts) Construction Project Magnitude: Between $225 Million and $300 Million.

Response Due: September 8, 2026, 5:00pm PDT

THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION.

1. PURPOSE:

This Request for Information is being issued solely for market research and planning purposes only in accordance with Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) Part 10. The DOI/BOR is seeking to:

A. Provide interested parties with the background and overview of the potential project.

B. Obtain information from experienced Contractors on the best possible approaches for executing this requirement within the Government’s time constraints.

2. PROJECT BACKGROUND:

The Bureau of Reclamation, San Joaquin River Restoration Program, is required under the Stipulation of Settlement in the federal litigation of Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), et al. v. Kirk Rodgers, et al. 2006 and authorized by the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Title X of Public Law 111-11 to construct channel and structural improvements including the creation of a bypass channel around Mendota Pool to ensure conveyance of at least 4,500 cfs from Reach 2B downstream to Reach 3.

3. PROJECT OVERVIEW:

Reclamation’s Technical Service Center has designed the project in phases with principal components of work and phases at various design levels. The first phase of the project is to provide volitional passage for upstream migrating adult Chinook salmon around Mendota Pool and Mendota Dam as they traverse the river to their natal spawning grounds below Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River and to provide the ability for juvenile Chinook salmon to use the same pathway to emigrate downstream to the ocean. The first phase includes the

2 | P a g e

Mendota Pool Bypass Channel (MPBC), interim approach channel, north wing dam and levee, Mendota Pool Bypass Control Structure (MPBCS), fish ladder, auxiliary water supply (AWS) and fish screen, operation and maintenance (O&M) and controls building. The MPBC and levee are at approximately 90% design completion, and early construction could start on these features. The remaining scope of work included in the first phase was also at the 90% design phase until the fish screen was added to the project requirements. This feature will need to be fully designed, and the fish ladder and AWS will need design modifications to accommodate the addition of the screen.

The second phase of the project includes a head works structure, canal, siphon and pipeline to replace the two existing intake locations in Reach 2B of the San Joaquin River and preserve water delivery from the Mendota Pool to the Columbia Mowry Delivery System.

These features are at a 30% design level.

Reclamation has completed thorough geotechnical investigations in support of these designs.

Reclamation has completed documentation of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the project. This documentation is anticipated to be sufficient to construct the MPBC and north levee as described above. Reclamation is in the process of completing supplemental documentation in accordance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations as needed for the remaining elements of the project. Completion of all necessary supplemental environmental compliance documentation is anticipated to be completed by Reclamation prior to or concurrent with finalization of designs for all project elements. Reclamation’s goal is to begin construction on the channel and levee in 2027 and to have the first phase of the project operational no later than spring 2030 in time for the adult spring-run migration.

The Governments procurement acquisition lead time (PALT) for a project of this size is approximately 300 calendar days from receipt of the requirement to contract award.

4. REQUESTED INFORMATION – INDUSTRY FEEDBACK:

Reclamation is requesting input on whether to continue with a design-bid-build (DBB) strategy or to transfer the current project designs, draft specifications and drawings to a contractor and utilize the design-build (DB) delivery approach. Given the existing progress in design and Department of Interior procurement policies, we will not consider methods such as construction manager at risk or early contractor involvement.

The following attachments are available for review:

o Geotechnical Data Report – North Levees o Geotechnical Data Report – South Levees o Mendota Pool Bypass Design Drawings o Mendota Pool Bypass Specifications o Mendota Pool Bypass Geological Investigations o South Canal & Siphon Design Drawings

3 | P a g e

To obtain access to the attachments, complete the Federal Non-Discolsure Agreement (NDA) form 7-2577 (attached) and submit to Stephanie_Lindner@ios.doi.gov.

Section A — Delivery Method & Risk (DBB as baseline; DB or Hybrid DBB/DB as optional alternatives)

A.1 Delivery Method Preferences & Risk Allocation o Given the current DBB baseline, what are the top 5 risks (design clarity, geotechnical uncertainty, material lead times, etc) that most affect cost/schedule? Is there a benefit to splitting the two phases and issuing separate DBB contracts once design is fully complete? Is there a benefit to utilizing a hybrid DBB and DB delivery method once 90% designs are fully complete and using the remaining incomplete designs as DB bridging documents?

o If DB were considered to shorten schedules and reduce risk, which risks would meaningfully transfer or be reduced under DB (e.g., design, coordination of fish screen/fish ladder/AWS interface, shop drawing integration for controls and screen, supply procurement lead times)? Please describe specific examples from similar water resources/fish passage projects.

A.2 Design Completeness & Constructability o For features at approximately 90% design, such as MPBC and the levee, what further information is needed to finish the design with DB? Or do you recommend Reclamation to complete these designs and consider using a hybrid DBB/DB approach?

o For features impacted by the added fish screen (screen, ladder modifications, AWS modifications), what design information (hydraulic performance curves, debris/bioload assumptions, maintenance access, bypass/cleaning sequences) is essential for a reliable DB firm bid?

A.3 DB Option: Schedule Compression o If the Government issued a DB RFP with performance requirements for fish passage (adult migration target spring 2030), draft 30%-90% design specifications and drawings and defined hydraulic/biological criteria, how much time could realistically be saved vs. DBB from NTP to substantial completion of Phase 1 and phase 2? What are the primary drivers of this delta (e.g., overlapping final design and procurement, early packages for earthworks, shop fabrication start for the screen)? Specifics requested in Section B. below.

Section B — Timeline & Phasing (Request for Estimated Durations) Please provide the following schedule estimates (calendar days) and key assumptions.

B.1 Design Completion (Industry Estimate to Inform Government Planning Only) mailto:Stephanie_Lindner@ios.doi.gov

4 | P a g e o MPBC Earthworks & Levee— Final design duration (from 90% basis of design to 100%): ___days o Fish Screen — Final design duration (from concept to 100%), including hydraulics, structural, MEP, controls integration, O&M/cleaning system design:

___ days.

o Fish Ladder & AWS Modifications — Design updates to accommodate screen addition: ___ days.

o Controls & O&M Building — Controls architecture, instrumentation, SCADA integration: ___ days.

o Phase 2 Features at ~30% (headworks, canal, siphon/pipeline) Final design duration to 100%: ___ days.

o Assumptions: design review cycles (number/duration), environmental compliance inputs, subconsultant availability, survey/geomatics refresh, and any pre-procurement technical submittals.

B.2 Construction Schedule (Industry Estimate by Major Work Package to Inform Government Planning Only) o Package 1: MPBC Earthworks & Levee (90% design) — Mobilization, clearing, excavation/fill, embankment construction, erosion/sediment control, revegetation, QA/QC testing, and demobilization: ___ days.

o Package 2: MPBCS, Fish Ladder, AWS, Fish Screen — Civil/structural, MEP, controls, commissioning: ___ days.

o Package 3: O&M/Controls Building & Ancillary Works — Building, utilities, SCADA: ___ days.

o Package 4 (Phase 2): Headworks/Conveyance — Headworks structure, canal, siphon/pipeline: ___ days.

o Critical Path & Windows: Identify critical path activities; in-water work windows (May 15-October 31); flood season constraints (November-April);

submittal/fabrication/lead times; testing/commissioning durations; and contingency float.

o (DB): If DB were used, please provide an overlay schedule showing potential overlaps (final design with early procurement, early site/earthworks packages) and net calendar day reduction vs. DBB.

o (Hybrid DBB/DB): If a hybrid approach were used with an estimated nine months delay to complete the 90% designs and solicitation, please provide an overlay schedule showing potential overlaps (final design with early procurement, early site/earthworks packages) and net calendar day reduction vs. DBB or DB.

B.3 In-Water Work Windows & Flow Management o Identify feasible construction sequences that maintain environmental flows and minimize turbidity and fish impacts, including temporary barriers and bypass pumping. Provide examples of sediment control, dewatering, and monitoring plans used on similar projects.

Section C — Geotechnical, Hydraulics & Constructability

5 | P a g e

C.1 Geotechnical Conditions o Reclamation has completed thorough geotechnical investigations. Based on similar riverine levee/channel projects, what additional field verification (test pits, borrow source confirmation, compaction trials) would you request pre-award to improve bid certainty?

C.2 Hydraulic Structures & Excavation Methods o For the bypass control structure and fish ladder foundations, what excavation support systems, cofferdams, or sequencing are preferred to reduce schedule risk, considering flood season and groundwater variability? Provide anticipated productivity rates and constraints from recent projects.

Section D — Logistics, Labor, and Working Hours

D.1 Site Access, Staging, and Crew Logistics o Identify constraints on haul routes, staging area size, stockpile management, and laydown requirements for large, fabricated items (e.g., fish screen assemblies), and recommend minimum acreage. (Use comparable examples from remote or secured sites if applicable.)

D.2 Labor Availability & Shifts o Do you foresee the need for multiple shifts or extended working hours to meet the target operational date?

o Do you anticipate any risk in labor availability.

D.3 Project Labor Agreement (PLA) o This project would be required to include RFO Part 52.22-33, Notice of

Requirement for Project Labor Agreement, and RFO Part 52.222-34, Project Labor Agreement. PLA, as defined at FAR 22.501, means a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project and is an agreement described in 29 U.S.C. 158(f). Would the requirement of a PLA substantially reduce your ability to submit an offer on an RFP? If yes, why?

Section E — Procurement & Lead Times

E.1 Long-Lead Items (Current Market Conditions) o Provide current lead times for critical items likely relevant to Phase 1 & 2:

structural steel, HVAC equipment, electrical gear (switchgear, MCCs, electrical panels), control systems, pre-engineered building elements (for O&M/controls building), specialty fish screen components (drums, brushes, actuators), and SCADA networking equipment.

E.2 Fabrication/Shop Drawing Sequencing

6 | P a g e o Recommend early release packages for phase 2 to minimize critical path delays, with typical review and fabrication durations.

Section F — Additional Information

F.1 Additional Information o Based upon your experience, is there anything else the Government should consider?

o Is there any relevant information (ie. similar project experience) about your company you would like to provide?

o Would your company be able to secure the necessary bid, payment and performance bonds, as well as insurance for a project of this size?

5. SITE VISIT

The Government is not conducting site visits at this time.

6. RESPONSE INTRUCTIONS:

The Government is requesting responses to all Request for Information (RFI) questions in Section 4. Please ensure your responses correspond to the questions numbered in sequence.

For efficiency, please keep submissions to 20 pages or less.

Questions in response to the RFI are welcome and should be submitted by August 28, 2026.

The Government reserves the right to respond to Contractor questions directly or provide responses as part of this Notice.

Any Questions as well as Responses to this RFI shall be submitted via email to:

o Stephanie Lindner (Stephanie_Lindner@ios.doi.gov)

The Government reserves the right to contact Contractors directly if more information is needed for market research and planning purposes.

7. DISCLAIMER:

This announcement is not a solicitation and is issued solely for information and planning purposes. The Government will not reimburse respondents for any information or administrative costs incurred in responding to this RFI. The Government is under no obligation to issue a solicitation or award based on this notice. No proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should be included in responses.