N40085-18-B-9548_Amendment_1.pdf

ACQR5460168

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this Amendment is to provide government responses to RFI questions received as of 17 September 2018.

See SF30 continuation page.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-Sep-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N4008518B9548

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-Aug-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

18-Sep-2018

CODE

NAVFAC MID ATLANTIC

PWD MAINE - FEAD PORTSMOUTH

PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD

BLDG 59

PORTSMOUTH NH 03801-2032

N40085 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4008518B9548

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 1

Government Response to RFIs for N40085-18-B-9548 B72 REPLACE BLOWDOWN AND FLASH TANKS

1. Scope item 1.3.2 notes there is an unknown chemical in one of the tanks to be demoed, and the contractor is to sample/test the chemical and determine what precautions/controls are required to remediate. With this being a firm fixed price proposal, we request either:

a. The Navy sample the chemical and provide the contractor the results in order to competitively quote the proper requirements to remediate

b. Quote be based on most costly remediation of known chemicals and Navy to include a contingency or allow for a change order if sample results require a more costly means of remediation.

Government Response to Question 1: The tank in question is believed to be a spare tank, that does not have a fill port piped to the exterior of the building. That said, all four tanks are plumbed together on a common line, with isolation valves separating each tank from its neighbors. There is potential that the tank in question could have held the contents of any of the tanks at some point during its service life. That Contractors shall bid the job assuming the most costly remediation for the known chemicals from the other three tanks.

2. Scope item 1.8 notes existing conductors and conduits can be re-utilized if in good condition. Where this is a firm fixed price proposal, we request this scope item be revised to either re-utilize or replace with new to eliminate one’s interpretation as to what is considered good condition vs not.

Government Response to Question 2: The Contractors shall bid the project with the assumption that conduit and conductors shall be reutilized. This does not absolve the Contractors from the requirement to provide any new conduit or conductors necessary to operate the system with the equipment they propose to install, if the existing locations, quantities, or sizes of those conduits and conductors is not adequate.

3. Scope item 1.18.1 requires new 8” vent pipe to extend 10’ above roof line. Please advise as to whether guy wiring will be required.

Government Response to Question 3: Guy wires are not required. The vent pipe shall be braced at the penetration made at the roof.

4. Scope item 1.18.2 notes Navy will provide contact information for the existing roof installer. Please provide.

Government Response to Question 4: The roof system manufacturer is Johns Manville. The roof installer was Titan Roofing, Inc. of 70 Orange Street, Chicopee, MA 01013

5. Scope item 1.21 notes it’s unknown as to whether existing gasket materials contain asbestos, and contractor is to sample, and if results contain asbestos to apply the appropriate remediation controls. With this being a firmed fixed price proposal, we request scope item to be revised to assume materials are either

a. Asbestos containing

b. Not asbestos containing, but include set contingency or unit pricing to remediate if sample results determine materials are asbestos containing.

Government Response to Question #5: The Contractors shall assume all of the gaskets are asbestos in their proposal.

6. Scope item 1.27 notes make up water piping in vicinity of the blow down tank is believed to be BPVC. Is this a typo and should read CPVC. If so, please advise as to SCH40 or SCH80.

Government Response to Question #6: This is typo and should read CPVC. The contractor shall assume that all of the CPVC piping is Schedule 80.

7. Scope item 1.31 requires all blowdown water piping to be a minimum SCH80 or match existing if existing is a heavier wall. With this being a firm fixed price proposal, we request scope item to be revised to either

a. Require piping to be SCH80

b. Navy to include contingency if determined after contract award wall thickness are heavier than

SCH80, a modification can be issued.

Government Response to Question #7: Paragraph 1.31 addresses fittings, not piping. The Contractor’s proposal shall assume that all blowdown fittings are Schedule 80.

8. Scope item 1.32 requires all blowdown water piping to be a minimum SCH80 or match existing if existing is a heavier wall. With this being a firm fixed price proposal, we request scope item to be revised to either

c. Require piping to be SCH80

d. Navy to include contingency if determined after contract award wall thickness are heavier than

SCH80, a modification can be issued

Government Response to Question #8: The Contractor’s proposal shall assume all blowdown fittings are Schedule 80.

9. Scope item 1.33 notes make up water piping in vicinity of the blow down tank is believed to be BPVC. Is this a typo and should read CPVC. If so, please advise as to SCH40 or SCH80.

Government Response to Question #9: This is a typo and should read CPVC. While all of the piping in the vicinity of the blow down tank is 100% insulated, upstream an uninsulated segment is labeled Schedule 80.

The contractor shall assume that all of the CPVC pipe in this area is Schedule 80.

10. Scope item 3.2 indicates off-shift work and/or weekend work may be required to complete project scope.

Please clarify scopes of work related to this project that will require off-shift and/or weekend work, or can we assume all work can be performed during normal working hours.

Government Response to Question #10: The Government does not anticipate that the contractor will need to perform off-shift or weekend work unless the work the contractor will perform will cause a steam outage to the Shipyard. The contractor will coordinate his or her plans and activities with the NAVFAC CM and the Power Plant General Foreman, to ensure there is minimal or ideally zero disruption to steam production during the duration of the construction. The current arrangement of the blowdown tanks and piping does allow for temporary reconfiguration of the system to allow the existing blowdown tank and the piping for three of the four HRSGs / boilers to be removed a replaced, without affecting steam production from

HRSG #1.

11. Scope item 11.2 requires archaeological monitoring during all ground disturbing activities. Please confirm this requirement is associated to the new sanitary line per scope items 1.13, 1.14, & 1.15.

Government Response to Question #11: The requirement to have archeological monitoring relates only to the ground disturbing activities associated with the installation of the new sanitary sewer line.

12. Scope item 12.0 requires the site superintendent to be on site during working hours. Please clarify the following:

a. Is the site considered the limits of PNSY on Seavey Island, or is the site specific to building 72?

Government Response to Question #12 a.: The site is considered to Seavey Island.

b. Please clarify whether the site superintendent designated for this project is able to be designated as a site superintendent, SSHO, or QCM for other contracts being performed concurrently with this one.

Government Response to Question #12 b.: This question cannot be answered without knowing which projects the Contractor is referring to and the level of engagement of the SS, SSHO, or QCM required to support all of the projects. The Government’s primary concerns for all of the projects are to ensure the work is performed safely, correctly, and per design. If there is an opportunity make efficient use of a single individual on multiple projects, the Government will consider approving the individual to do

so. This decision will be at the sole discretion of the NAVFAC Construction Management team.

13. Scope item 13.0 & 14.0 along with the Division 1 Specifications allows the responsibilities for the SSHO and QCM to be performed by the same person and to be on site during normal working hours.

a. Is the site considered the limits of PNSY on Seavey Island, or is the site specific to building 72.

Government Response to Question #13 a: The site is considered to be Seavey Island.

b. Please clarify whether the SSHO/QCM designated for this project is able to be designated as a site superintendent, SSHO, or QCM for other contracts being performed concurrently with this one.

Government Response to Question #12 b.: This question cannot be answered without knowing which projects the Contractor is referring to and the level of engagement of the SS, SSHO, or QCM required to support all of the projects. The Government’s primary concerns for all of the projects are to ensure the work is performed safely, correctly, and per design. If there is an opportunity make efficient use of a single individual on multiple projects, the Government will consider approving the individual to do

so. This decision will be at the sole discretion of the NAVFAC Construction Management team.

14. Scope item 25.0 requires record drawings. Where P&ID’s have only been provided, are the record drawings to be provided in same format, or are complete scaled drawing required. If full scale drawings are required, will the Navy provide the most recent CADD files to modify, or is the intent to provide a new set of drawings only depicting work associated to this contract.

Government Response to Question #14: P&IDs and full scale drawings are required. The Government can provide the most recent set of CADD files to the Contractor, with the understanding that significant updates may be required.

15. There doesn’t appear to be any requirements in regards to NDT weld inspections. Please advise as to whether visual, mag particle, and/or penetrant testing is required. If required, does the inspector need to be a certified weld inspector, and will all welds need to be identified and tracked per ASME B31.1.

Government Response to Question #15: Welding and inspections shall conform with the requirements of ASME B31.1. Per Table 136.4, only a visual inspection is required for all of the welds to be made in this contract, as the temperature is less than 750°F and the pressures do not exceed 1025 psig, leading the user to follow the direction in fourth column of the chart. Note that paragraphs 1.43 and 1.44 of the SOW provide requirements for hydrostatic testing.

16. Please advise as to whether this project requires a design and PE stamped drawings. Scope of work doesn’t appear to indicate this requirement, but specification 013310.0520 has been included in the Division 1 specification indicating a design requirement. If design and PE stamped drawings are required, please clarify requirements and scope related to design.

Government Response to Question #16: All drawings of record shall be signed and stamped by a PE. The Government did not specifically identify the equipment to be provided by the Contractor, nor did the Government provide full scale drawings showing the equipment and exact location (or the location of the new sanitary line). The P&IDs and the full scale record drawings shall incorporate that information, plus any necessary changes to the arrangement of the blow down system, as dictated by the equipment to be provided to the Government.

17. Specification 01 78 23 paragraph 3.1.4 requires video training. Please clarify whether this is required for the project.

Government Response to Question #17: Per paragraph 28 of the Scope of work, training is not required.

The Scope of Work takes precedence over the Division 1 specifications.

18. Scope item 1.1 requires all existing piping to be re-utilized to be ultrasonic tested to determine integrity of piping systems. Please clarify the extent of testing for the piping to be utilized.

For example, new 6” flash steam piping to tie into existing 5 PSI steam system. To what extent do we need to test the 5 PSI steam system?

For example, where the 2” drain line from the blowdown tank ties into the existing 3” to the new blowdown separator, do we test entire piping system 2” and larger, or do we only test existing piping between the 2 tanks to valves HV200.9 & HV200.10?

For example, where the new 4” heated make up water ties into existing piping, do we test entire length from point of tie to the 60K Condensate tank?

Government Response to Question #18: Item 1.1 is intended to assess the condition of the blowdown piping within the scope of work. Portions of the blowdown piping system have been in service a very long time and the Government wants to understand the condition of that piping. All piping on the P&ID drawing (provided by the Government), of size 2” or greater, that carries blowdown water needs to be inspected.

19. Please clarify extent of new piping associated with 6” condensate/makeup water to the deaerators. Are we to re-utilize existing piping to the deaerators, or provide new to point of connection? If re-utilizing existing piping, to what extend are we testing to.

Government Response to Question #19: Currently, the deaerators can be make-up water directly from the water softeners, or be fed water from the 60K holding tank, via the condensate pumps. Those feeds need to be directed to the new heat exchanger on the new blowdown tank. The 6” line leaving the heat changer can reutilize a significant portion of the existing line feeding the deaerators. Condition testing for existing lines will only be performed on the blowdown lines.

20. Please clarify extent of new piping associated with the makeup water to the blowdown heat exchanger. Are we to re-utilize existing piping to extent possible, or provide new to point of connection to main? If re-utilizing existing piping, to what extend are we testing to. If providing new, please clarify extent of new piping.

Government Response to Question #20: Existing piping is to be reutilized. Make-up water piping is already in the vicinity of the existing blowdown tank and shall be reutilized to the extent possible.

Condition testing for existing lines will only be performed on the blowdown lines.

21. Please clarify extent of new piping associated with 6” condensate/makeup water from polishers. Are we to re-utilize existing piping to the polishers, or provide new to point of connection? If re-utilizing existing piping, to what extend are we testing to.

Government Response to Question #21: Piping from the condensate pumps will need to be brought to the blowdown tanks (it currently does not reach all the way to the blowdown tank). Existing portions of the piping from the condensate pumps / polishers shall be reutilized to the extent possible. Condition testing for existing lines will only be performed on the blowdown lines.

22. Do we need to test the existing relief vent we’re to tie into for the blowdown tank?

Government Response to Question #22: Condition testing of piping will be limited to piping containing blowdown water. The vent piping does not require testing.

23. Scope of work narrative and drawing M503 indicate new 8” vent for separator to extend through roof and route in same path as existing. Drawing M502 indicates possibly tying into existing. Please confirm whether this will be new or whether we’re to tie into existing.

Government Response to Question #23: The vent line from the new blowdown separator will be new.

24. Scope item 1.34, are we to assume painting requirements are only associated to new piping. Please provide a basis of design for preferred paint.

Government Response to Question #24: Painting is to be performed on new, uninsulated pipe. The piping shall be painted with a zinc phosphate primer with a gloss black acrylic top coat. The surface shall be prepped of all loose scale and corrosion prior to priming.

25. Scope item 1.35 requires providing supports for existing piping specifically addressed in the specification.

Please confirm whether this requirement is only associated to scope item 1.23. If other areas of existing piping that require new supports, please clarify.

Government Response to Question #25: The pipe support installed in paragraphs 1.23 / 1.25 is needed to address a formerly supported section of pipe that will become unsupported when the new valve is installed and the piping on one side of the valve is demolished. All new piping will need to be supported. Unless modified by the contractor, existing pipe supports on existing runs of pipe shall be considered adequate. If a section of existing pipe is modified, it will need to be supported in accordance with MSS-58 and ASME B31.1. If the existing supports meet those spacing and strength requirements, then may be reutilized and left in place.

26. Please advise as to whether valves 2-1/2” and larger are to be buttwelded or flanged, or up to contractor’s discretion via means and methods.

Government Response to Question #26: Valves 2” or larger may be shall buttwelded with the following exceptions or as otherwise noted in the SOW / provided P&ID. Valves mounted directly to the equipment and piping connections made to the new equipment shall be flanged to allow for servicing (e.g. removal of tube bundles, etc.). Any valves that would hamper servicing of the equipment (if they were welded and not directly mounted to the equipment) shall be flanged.

27. In discussions with the apparent basis of design manufacturer of the boiler blowdown flow control valves, it appears the original intent was to fabricate custom orifice plates to meet the specified range per scope item paragraph 1.10.1. HRSG-1 & HRSG-2 are specified to be rated for 600 pph to 3500 pph and for Boilers 3 & 4 are specified to be rated for 300 pph to 3500 pph. The manufacturer has noted that the ability to custom build orifice plates that meet the design criteria is no longer feasible, and the only option available is to utilize one of their standard orifice plates.

The manufacturer offers a standard plate with a range of 576 pph to 4480 pph, which falls within the range specified for HRSG-1 & HRSG-2. Please advise if this will be acceptable, and if not, please advise whereas it appears the specification is written around the only manufacturer that makes these types of flow control valves.

Boilers 3 & 4 design requirements are a broader range, and cannot be met. Please advise if the standard range of 576 pph to 4480 pph will be acceptable. If not, the manufacturer has offered an option to provide (2) orifice meters for each of the two boilers, one with an orifice plate range of 149 pph to 2425 pph for low load conditions, and a second with a range of 576 pph to 4480 pph for higher load conditions.

Government Response to Question #27: An orifice plate with a flow rate of 576 pph to 4480 pph is suitable for HRSG #1 and HRSG #2. The option of utilizing two orifice meters (per boiler) to address the broader blowdown down range of Boiler #3 and Boiler #4 (one providing 149 pph to 2425 pph and one providing 576 to 4480 pph) is an acceptable alternative to what was specified in the SOW. Note that for all of the blowdown metering valves, the isolation valve shall be installed as close to the metering valve as possible, allowing for easy isolation of the blowdown valves when the configuration of which valve is in service and/or a change to the valve’s settings are made.

(End of Summary of Changes)