MACC_PPI_-_Amend_0007.pdf

PPI#

Section of RFP or Page Number

Paragraph Reference Drawing Number Question Response

1 Amendment #5

The answers to Questions #7, 31 and 65 is “The contractor is responsible for the design installation and removal of the excavation support system in accordance with Specification section 31 50 00. The detail shown in G‐603 is for schematic purposes only”.

To begin, this specific requirement that the govt is now referring to as “schematic” shows in great detail the procedures to utilize. The detail further specifically specifies the size and location of blocks to be used, sloping requirements from the bottom of the grade beam, backfilling, sequencing, etc. in which provides the contractor the required information to formulate its bid. The government now seems to be saying that this is not the case and it is up to the contractor to design a system as part of its bid and determine the requirements. This is a design responsibility and even if wasn’t, there is inadequate performance and as built information to even formulate a price to perform this work.

Accordingly, if for any reason it cannot be accomplished as delineated on the drawings, then in that event a modification under the differing site clause is in order. It is unreasonable to put this onus on the contractor as the answer(s) to the amendment appear to do. Please confirm that this is not the case.

The answer to the prior questions remains valid. The temporary excavation support system in accordance with section 31 50 00 is the contractor’s responsibility. Details provided on the drawings are schematic and only intended to illustrate the need for a temporary support system and provide minimum requirements.

2 Amendment #5

The answers to questions 8, 21, 57, and 90 is “ It is the Government’s intent that the seawall deconstruction and reconstruction be completed in a sequential method to prevent damage to existing structures and the seawall. The contractor is required to develop a detailed construction and sequencing plan demonstrating the deconstruction and reconstruction is planned in a control manner”. The Government has already gone into great detail as to how this work is to be performed. Refer to sheets G‐601, G‐602 and G‐603. This includes a specific sequencing plan that allows only up to 25’ at a given time.

Questions on this were simply asked to fill in any blanks with the procedures determined by the government. The Government has already ostensibly gone through a design assessment to determine the 25’ maximum criteria which provides the contractor the necessary information to formulate its bid. If for any reason this cannot be done then the differing site clause can be cited or in the alternative a value incentive proposal can be provided for consideration if the contractor finds a less costly way to do the work. This inquiry is directly related and part of question #1 above. Again, the Government now appears to be putting this onus on the Contractor should for any reason the delineated procedures in the design documents not work. Please confirm that this is not the case.

The answer to the prior question remains valid. The design intent is to sequence the project to maintain stability and minimize the length of the wall that is deconstructed at any time.

The information provided is the minimum requirement.

3 Amendment #5

Questions #4 and 20 remain unanswered. Amendment #1 removed the quantity of asbestos to be abated and allowed time for the government to perform the necessary testing only. Refer to revised Section 028216, Part 1 General. Quantity of asbestos removal is not defined anywhere else in the documents. Accordingly please provide the amount of asbestos to carry in CLINN 0001F.

The answers to the prior questions remain valid. Refer to Amendment 1, Specification Section 01 11 00 item 106 which states: “For bidding purposes assume 1000LF of ACM will need to be removed from the abandoned coal vault and properly disposed of”.

4 Amendment #5 The answers to questions 11 and 29 conflict. Specifically are we required to carry the soils over the road in 55 gal drums or can the soils be transported in lined dumpsters if allowed by the State? The cost between these two methods is significantly different.

The answers to the prior questions remain valid. The method of soils transportation is not defined in the specifications. The contractor may select an appropriate method that meets the requirements of the receiving facility, laws, and regulations.

5 Amendment #5 The answer to question 23 implies that the barge is required for the length of the project even if it’s only used to locate the office trailer. Is this the Government’s intent?

That is incorrect. The response to the question only indicated that the contractor is not permitted to locate the field office within the Williams basement.

Please consider extending the bid date to provide for the additional time needed to disseminate the six pages of information and to properly include same in our proposal which in is essence just 4 working days prior to the submission of bids.

The proposal due date remains unchanged at 3/1/2017.

7 Amendment 5

The answers to questions #5 and #13 conflict. Answer five indicates that the 15CY of concrete in the unit price schedule is the same work of and to be included in CLINN 0001C. Answer 13 implies the 15 CY is in addition to this work shown for CLINN 0001C.

Which is correct?

Question 5 referred to the removal, question 13 referred to the new concrete. There is no conflict in the responses.

PRE‐PROPOSAL INQUIRY‐ AMENDMENT 0007

Solicitation Number: N40085‐16‐R‐3034