The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRY ATTACHMENT (5.3)
Solicitation Number: N40085-19-R-9103
| Contractor Name: |
| MASTER LIST |
Contractor POC (Name and email):
Instructions: DO NOT submit in PDF format. DO submit as a word document
| Contractor PPI# |
| Section of RFP or Page Number |
| Paragraph Reference |
| Drawing Number |
| Question |
| RESPONSE |
| The due date for the RFP is showing 15th May 2020. Please revise the due date. |
| Proposals are due on 30 June 2020. |
| The RFP says to submit one original & 4 copies of bid proposal but the note on page 71 of the RFP says Electronic Submission. Please clarify which mode of submission is acceptable of both. |
| Please provide electronic submission only. |
| 3 |
| 27 |
| Construction Experience |
| Please define New Building Construction as it relates to the Construction Experience requirements on page 27. |
| Propose in accordance with the RFP. |
| 4 |
| 27 |
| Construction Experience |
| Since the seed project is a Repair by Replacement of a Wastewater Treatment Plant, will a new utility construction project, such as an electrical switch house, suffice for the New Building Construction requirement on page 27? |
| Propose in accordance with the RFP. |
| 5 |
| Pgs 17 & 34 |
| Clause 52.236-27 and (5) Basis of Evaluation/Section 5.1, respectively |
| -- |
| When will the site visit be held? Where should Offeror’s meet for the site visit? |
| The site visit will be held at NWS Earle on 25 June 2020 at 10:00 AM. Visitors will leave from the parking lot on the west side of the Pass and ID office and travel to the WWTP. Directions from the parking lot to the WWTP will be provided. Offerors will need to arrive by 9:00 AM to ensure they receive their access credentials from the Pass & ID office. Social distancing will be required |
| 6 |
| Pgs 27 & 29 |
| Factor 1 – Project Experience, (1)(c) Construction Experience and (2)(c) Design Experience |
| -- |
| As fewer construction projects have been funded in recent years and consistent with other DoD solicitations (e.g., USACE New England District 2000 solicitation for similar construction services), we request that Project Data Sheets be for projects completed within the last 10 years rather than the last 5 years. |
| Propose in accordance with the RFP. |
| 7 |
| Pg 29 |
| (1) Design Experience |
| -- |
| Since the seed project is Design-Bid-Build construction and the design provided in the solicitation is detailed, there should be no need for a Designer on the seed project. Accordingly, we request eliminating the requirement to provide Design Experience Project Data Sheets and Past Performance Information for design on 1-2 water or wastewater treatment projects. It’s not relevant to the seed project. |
| Offerors are not required to submit projects demonstrating design experience for the seed task order. That requirement is only for the construction experience. The requirement for design experience only requests offerors to meet the size, scope and complexity requirements outlined on page 29. |
| 8 |
| Pgs 28 & 30 |
| 9th and 3rd paragraphs, respectively |
| -- |
| Consistent with prior solicitations, will photos only be allowed to be submitted as a 3rd page on Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheets? |
| Propose in accordance with the RFP. |
| 9 |
| Bottom of Pg 30/Top of Pg 31 |
| (ii) Basis of Evaluation |
| -- |
| Consistent with NAVFAC and other Department of Defense (DoD) solicitations, will Project Data Sheets and Past Performance Information for projects performed for DoD or other Federal Government projects may receive a higher rating during evaluation, which would be in NAVFAC’s interest? |
| Propose in accordance with the RFP. |
| 10 |
| Pg 34 & 35 |
| 5.2.1 & 5.2.3 Proposal Submittal Instructions |
| -- |
| Please clarify whether proposals need to be submitted in hard copy and CDs or via DoD SAFE. The instructions appear to indicate both which is redundant. Submittal via DoD SAFE would minimize COVID-19 risk. |
| Please provide electronic submission only. |
| 11 |
| Pg 2 of Attachment B |
| Attachment B |
| -- |
| As an alternative, can Offerors use the more recent version of the NAVFAC/USACE PPQ-0 Past Performance Questionnaire form in place of the older version provided in the Solicitation? |
| Yes. |
| 12 |
| Pg 29 |
| (2) Design Experience, (a) experience as the prime contractor, and (c) design-build |
| -- |
| Subpart (a) would appear to require that designers of record be the prime contractor on Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheets for projects demonstrating design experience, yet Subpart (c) requires Design-Build experience on at least 1 project. Few AE firms are the prime contractor on Design-Build projects. Typically they are subcontractors to a construction prime contractor. It is reasonable to require that Designers of Record be the 1st tier AE firm on projects, but it is not reasonable to require them to be the prime contractor on Design-Build projects. We request NAVFAC consider changing this requirement accordingly. |
| Page 29 stipulates that projects performed as the Designer of Record will be considered “Prime Contractors” and satisfy the requirements of the RFP. |
| 13 |
| See question |
| See question |
| N/A |
| Proposal Requirements (page 34 of 85, paragraph 5.1 reference Section 00 70 00 for site visit information. |
Section 00 70 00 does not provide any site visit information.
Section 01 00 00 – General Requirements for Seed Project, Page 71 of 85 states the Site Visit for the Seed Project “To be determined”
Will there be a formal site visit scheduled for the Seed Project Please reference Amendment 0001.
| 14 |
| Pg-29 of 85 of RFP |
| (2) Design Experience |
| The design requirements ask to address the design firm that the Prime contractor is going to use for the seed project and the future task orders. What will be the role of the design firm on the seed project, as it was already designed? Please confirm. |
| Offerors are not required to submit projects demonstrating design experience for the seed task order. That requirement is only for the construction experience. The requirement for design experience only requests offerors to meet the size, scope and complexity requirements outlined on page 29. |
| 15 |
| Pgs 1 and 71 |
| SF1442 and 10th paragraph on pg 71 |
| A 2-week extension to the June 30 due date is requested as (a) answers haven’t been published for previously-submitted RFIs; (b) the site visit hasn’t yet occurred (nor its date published) and contractors need time after to price the seed project (especially a complex project like this); (c) the COVID-19 pandemic is impacting contractor operations, slowing subcontractor bids for work; and (d) there is a holiday weekend July 3-5. |
| Government will evaluate for consideration. |
| 16 |
| Pg 35 |
| Section 5.3, 2nd paragraph |
| With the answers to previously-submitted RFIs not issued to date, the site visit having not yet occurred and needing to ask additional RFIs afterward, we request the deadline for submitting RFIs be extended to 1 week after the pre-bid site visit. With the June 30 proposal due date, the RFI deadline is currently June 16. |
| Government will evaluate for consideration. |
| 17 |
| Amendment #0001, pages 1 and 2 |
| Bid Date |
| -- |
| The front page of the amendment (Box #11) states that the solicitation is NOT extended; however, in Box #14, it states, “The new Bid Opening Date will be 2 July 2020” – while the second page still states that the response date changed from 15 May to 30 June. PLEASE CLARIFY. |
| Proposal due date is 30 June 2020. |
| 18 |
| Instructions |
| Proposal Delivery |
| -- |
| The solicitation states that both electronic submittal via DOD SAFE and hard copies of the proposal are required. Given delivery issues due to COVID-19, would the Government consider accepting electronic copies for the volumes and receipt of the Bid Bond via mail? Or would you consider accepting electronic copies with hard copies being due a few days later? This would alleviate the need for hand delivery by personnel. Thank you. |
| Please provide electronic submission only. |
| 19 |
| 27 |
| Last sentence on page 27 |
| Do construction projects submitted for the offeror need to be 100% complete? Would projects that are mostly complete (i.e., >85% complete) be acceptable? |
| Projects are required to be 100% complete. |
| 20 |
| 33 |
| Last paragraph on page 33 |
| Can an interim CPARS evaluation be used if there is no final CPARS evaluation? |
| Yes. |
| 21 |
| 30 |
| First paragraph in (ii) Basis of Evaluation |
| Please confirm that a maximum of 5 projects are required for design experience. Since it is a DBB seed, there is no requirement for the design team to provide seed experience, correct? |
| Confirmed. |
| 22 |
| 33 |
| Last paragraph on page 33 |
| If a design firm was a subcontractor on a DB project, can the design firm use the prime contractor’s CPARS evaluation for that DB project to satisfy the requirements of Factor 4? |
| No. |
| Per paragraph 5.3 below, PPIs have to be submitted 14 days prior to the proposal due date, which would be June 16. Since the site visit is scheduled for June 25, this does not allow any time for additional PPIs that may be generated from the site walk. Please consider extending both the PPI deadline and the proposal due date to allow time for RFIs generated from the site visit to be submitted and answered before seed project prices are due. |
| Government will evaluate for consideration. |
| 24 |
| 34 |
| 5.2 Proposal Submission Instructions |
| In light of COVID-19, are hard copy proposals required? Please clarify. |
| Please provide electronic submission only. |
| Will an electronic version of the bid bond be acceptable, or is a hard copy required? |
| Please provide electronic submission only. |
| In light of COVID-19, we are still not in physical contact and are still teleworking. Is an electronically signed version of the Bid Bond acceptable? (We utilize the DocuSign system.) |
| Please provide electronic submission only. |
| Box 10 states that this will be a Design-Bid-Build IDIQ, but the RFP calls for design experience and states that both “may be contemplated under this MACC”. Will this be a Design-Build/Design-Bid-Build IDIQ? |
| It will be Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build. |
| 28 |
| 30 |
| Basis of Evaluation |
| Here (7) projects for Design Experience (Five projects for MACC experience and two projects for seed experience) are referenced. However, in the Design Experience Section, there is no reference to including projects relevant to the seed project. Are these two seed project-relevant projects a requirement for the designer? |
| Offerors are not required to submit projects demonstrating design experience for the seed task order. That requirement is only for the construction experience. The requirement for design experience only requests offerors to meet the size, scope and complexity requirements outlined on page 29. |
| Is there a form on which the government would like offerors to provide the EMR, DART, and TRC information (and Technical Approach for Safety) or are we to provide copies of the actual reports? |
| No forms are required. Simply provide the data. |
| 30 |
| 33 |
| Factor 3-Management Approach |
| The requirements for the Management Plan seem to call for writing about how the offeror will manage the overall IDIQ, with a five page limit. Is there no technical approach or work plan required for the seed project? |
| Propose according to the RFP. |
| 31 |
| Page 29 |
| 7th paragraph in Design Experience subsection |
| In the Design Experience subsection, the first paragraph suggests that the Navy expects that A-E firms (different from the prime offeror company) will be used as the DORs for MACC task orders. Later on page 29, the RFP says that “submitted relevant projects shall demonstrate the following characteristics: a) Experience as the prime contractor on submitted projects. Experience as a Subcontractor will not be considered.” This is unusual because a typical arrangement for NAVFAC Design-Build MACCs is to have a construction firm prime and an A-E subcontractor. If a design firm’s design-build experience comes design-build projects where they were a subcontractor (i.e., serving in the same role for which they are proposed), these projects cannot be used in Factors 1 and 4 because they were not the prime contractor. In the instructions for design projects (not construction projects), please consider removing the text that reads: “a) Experience as the prime contractor on submitted projects. Experience as a Subcontractor will not be considered.” |
| Page 29 stipulates that projects performed as the Designer of Record will be considered “Prime Contractors” and satisfy the requirements of the RFP. |
| The RFP requires electronic copies to be provided both on CD and through DoD SAFE site upload. Is that correct? |
| Provide electronic submission only. |
| Can proposals be hand-delivered? |
| No. |
| Please confirm that offerors will need to email the NAVFAC POC for an upload code in order to transmit their proposal files via DoD SAFE. |
| Offerors will email Scott Schulz at scott.c.schulz1@navy.mil for a dropoff code. |
| What is the average wait time for entering NWS Earle security checkpoints on a daily basis for construction personnel & their vehicles? |
| Access requirements to NWS Earle shall be in accordance with Specification Section 01 14 00, Work Restrictions, and related solicitation Addenda provided to contractors. Contractors and delivery personnel shall submit security documentation for access to NWS Earle fourteen (14) days prior to their planned arrival at NWS Earle. In addition to having been vetted to enter NWS Earle, individuals must present to security personnel at the Pass & ID office a valid driver’s license for the vehicle they operate, proof of current vehicle insurance, current vehicle registration and be subject to a vehicle inspection. If all credentials are in order it will take approximately ten minutes to access NWS Earle. |
| Please identify training specific to working at NWS Earle (safety, security, etc.) required of on-site craft labor and on-site supervisory personnel performing construction, excluding Level 1 anti-terrorism awareness training and minimum NAVFAC requirements for MACC key personnel |
| The Contractors shall review all the General Requirements Specification Sections, and related solicitation Addenda provided to contractors. Information regarding requirements to work on NWS Earle can be found in, but are not limited to, the following Sections: |
Specification Section 01 14 00, Work Restrictions
Specification Section 01 30 00 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Specification Section 01 31 23.13 20 ELECTRONIC CONSTRUCTION AND FACILITY SUPPORT CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Specification Section 01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES & SUPPLEMENT, SUBMITTAL REGISTER
Specification Section 01 33 29 SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING
Specification Section 01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
Specification Section 01 42 00 SOURCES FOR REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS
Specification Section 01 45 00.00 20 QUALITY CONTROL
Specification Section 01 45 35 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS
Specification Section SUPPLEMENT, SCHEDULE OF SPECIAL INSPECTION
Specification Section SUPPLEMENT, STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTION
Specification Section 01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS
Specification Section 01 57 19 TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
Specification Section 01 57 28 TEMPORARY FLOW CONTROL
Specification Section 01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA
| 37 |
| Pg-29 of 85 of RFP |
| (2) Design Experience |
| The design requirements ask to address the design firm that the Prime contractor is going to use for the seed project and the future task orders. What will be the role of the design firm on the seed project, as it was already designed? Please confirm. |
| This first project is designed and a design firm would not be needed however, there are sections in the solicitation that require the contractor to hire consultants to perform design work for specialized systems. It is intended that future solicitations will be design build projects. |
| 38 |
| RFP page 35 of 85 |
| 5.2.2 – 5.2.4 |
| Do the hard copies need to be received on the same day as the electronic copy up loaded to the Safe Site? Or can they be deliver by courier service within 2 days? |
| Can be delivered as long as they are not late. You can also use email vice using safe for the electronic version. |
| 39 |
| See question |
| See question |
| N/A |
| Instructions to Offerors, page 27 of 85, Factor 1 – Experience, paragraph (1).c) the completion look back period is stated as 5 years from the date of issuance of the RFP. For the relevant project to the proposed WWTP project please consider expanding this look back period to 7 years due to the specialized nature of this type of construction. Maintaining the 5 year look back will unfairly limit competition on this Small Business MACC |
| Must comply with the 5yr requirement. |
| 40 |
| 23 and 70 |
| 2.1, 3rd para. |
| The SEED project is noted to provide a new water treatment system at 60,000 GPD (page 23 and 70 of SF1442) yet the relevant SEED project experience (page 28) to be demonstrated requires 500,000 GPD past performance. Please consider amending the past performance requirements to 60,000 GPD to match the SEED project and to increase relevant experience opportunity. |
| In the future there may be projects that involve greater capacity than within the solicitation. |
| 41 |
| 46 07 53.16 |
| 2.1.1.2 |
| n/a |
| In reference to “The SBR system shall be capable of reliably meeting the following monthly average effluent limits with only one SBR basin in service”. Is the intent to operate with only one of the two SBR basins in service? ie, a fully redundant SBR basin. Or is the intent to operate with two SBR basins in service, with the system capable of operating with only one SBR basin online? ie, two duty basins? This has a significant impact on the SBR basin size, and therefore cost. |
| In accordance with the Contract Documents, the basis of design is to have two SBR basins, each with the ability to reliably treat 100% of the design flow to design effluent limits under design conditions. |
| 42 |
| 46 07 53.16 |
| 3.4.3.3 |
| n/a |
| Will the demonstration require that one or two SBR basins are operating? |
| The demonstration shall be performed with one SBR basin out of service. |
The Contract Specifications have been amended accordingly for clarification.
| 43 |
| RFP page 29 |
| Design Experience |
| Design Experience – The RFP defines a project as “a complete design effort”. The RFP also requires that a “project” be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of the RFP. We interpret that language to require that the complete design effort for a project to be complete within the past five years for a Design-Bid-Build project. In other words, construction is not required to be complete for a project design to be considered relevant. Please confirm that this is the correct interpretation. |
| Please follow requirements within the RFP. |
| After asking ground improvement contractors to review and submit bids, a concern came back the RIC won’t achieve the criteria and suggested dynamic compaction. Please advise. |
| Dynamic compaction is not acceptable due to potential for excessive vibrations that could damage the existing near structures. |
Rapid impact compaction is the basis of design.
| 0600-P-101 |
| Key Note 5 indicates to install a ½” Reduced Backflow Preventer on ½” W1 & ½” HW. This will cause nuisance leakage of the RPBP, and serves no practical purpose. Please advise if they are required. |
| Yes, they are required. They protect the tepid water line. |
| 0600-P-101 |
| General Sheet Note 2 requires a water hammer arrestor at each fast closing valve. This is ambiguous and can be subjected to interpretation as to the exact definition of what a fast-closing valve is. Please provide exact locations where any water hammer arrestor is to be located. |
| Place water hammer arrestor at safety shower, which is considered to be fast closing. If a fast closing valve is utilized for the hose valve or utility sink faucet, they will also require water hammer arrestors. |
| 0600-M-301 |
| Detail A4 shows gas pressure is 2 psi. Please confirm as there will need to be a pressure regulator upstream of the water heater and MAU if this is the case. |
| Refer to Contract Drawing 0000-M-601 and 0000-M-602 for pressure regulator requirements. |
| 0600-P-101 |
| The Specifications nor drawings provide for the storage volume or first hour rating of the water heater. Please advise. |
| Refer to Contract Drawing 0000-M-602 for plumbing schedules. |
| 49 |
| 01 00 00 & Attachment D – Price Proposal Form |
| The referenced specification states that the contract duration is 450 calendar days after award (and includes 15 days for the submission and approval of bonds and insurance), which Attachment D states the duration is 465 days. Please clarify which is correct. |
| 450 days after the “Notice to proceed”. When adding in the 15 days for bonds it is 465 days. |
| 50 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Given the number of new questions and the fact that the site visit is only 14 days before the bid date, is it possible to push the bid back to allow more time to better prepare proposals? |
| RFP due date was already pushed to 09 July 2020 1400EST. |
| 0000-G-002 |
| Sheet G-002 references additional drawings that are incorporated. Please provide drawings as stated or remove reference to drawings . These will be needed for pricing of Demolition Alternate Bid items |
UV DISINFECTION 2010
TRICKLING FILTER REPAIR (1998)
RAPID SAND FILTER (JUL 1994)
SLUDGE TANK REPLACEMENT (APR 1993)
PLANT IMPROVEMENTS (JAN 1993)
COMMINUTOR REPLACEMENT 1992
ST PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 1990
ORIGINAL CONST (1944
MISCELLANEOUS UPGRADES 2015
The subject reference drawings are provided as part of Amendment 0003.
| Please provide the location of work for specification section 30 01 00 and required bid units for this work. |
| The referenced section 30 01 00 does not appear in bid specifications. |
| 53 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| The Project duration is very tight. 450 days is not a reasonable length of time give many of construction restrains and complexity of critical path submittals. Please consider lengthening contract term to 600 days. |
| No plans to adjust days at this point. |
| Specification section 02 41 10 refences the “Construction Manager at Risk”. Define who has this role in this contract. |
| The term “Construction Manager at Risk” shall be replaced with “Contracting Officer”. |
The Contract Specifications have been amended accordingly.
| 0900-D-808 |
| Detail B3 is for a typical trench detail for pipe but does not provide enough dimensional data. Please provide depth for pipe bedding material. |
| Pipe bedding dimensions are provided in Contract Specification section 31 23 00.00 3.5.3. |
| The process pipe shows copper pipe for all potable water (W1) piping. There are 6” W1 lines supplying the chemical building, SBRs, and hydrants. W1 is scheduled as copper at all sizes; however, 6” copper is highly unusual at this size and application. Water lines of this size are typically provided as ductile iron. Please confirm the Ductile iron will be acceptable for 6” W1 piping. |
| Cement-lined ductile iron piping is required for the 6” diameter W1 line. |
The Piping Schedule in the Contract Specifications has been amended accordingly.
| 57 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Will Restoration of grass be allowed by seeding, or will sodding be required for disturbed areas? |
| Sodding is not required. Provide restoration of disturbed areas in accordance with Contract Specification 32 92 13 and the requirements of the Standard for Permanent Vegetative Cover for Soil |
Stabilization, Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey and the Freehold Conservation District.
| 58 |
| 31 23 00.00 20 |
| 3.8.2 |
| 0100-C-501 |
| Specification section 31 23 00.00 20 3.8.2 calls for 95% compaction of the top 12” below asphalt, while contract drawing 0100-C-501 detail C3 calls for 95% compaction of the top 6”. Please clarify which is correct. |
| 95% compaction of the top 6” under asphalt is correct as shown in the Contract Drawings. |
Contract Specification Section 31 23 00.00 3.8 has been amended accordingly.
| 59 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Will The concrete surface in the SBRT tank receive a coating? |
| No special coating of tank slab required, cure slab in accordance with Contract Specification Section 03 30 00. |
| Specification section 09 90 00 part 3.2 calls for the resealing of existing joints. Please clarify the location of joints that are to receive this treatment |
| No existing joints are scheduled to be resealed. |
Existing joints to be resealed include new joints that require resealing due to non-conformance with the Contract Documents or existing joints that are disturbed by the Contractor during the course of the work and require resealing as a result.
| Specification section 09 90 00 part 1.10.1.1 calls for the painting of existing coated surfaces of the building and appurtenances. Please confirm that not all existing surfaces are to receive a new coating. If so, please clarify these locations. |
| No existing surfaces are scheduled for repainting. |
Existing coated surfaces to be repainted in include new surfaces that require repainting due to non-conformance with the Contract Documents or existing surfaces that are disturbed by the Contractor during the course of the work and require repainting as a result.
| Please advise if an alternate method to specification section 02 41 10 - Ground Improvement Using Rapid Impact Compaction will be accepted at bid time for the ground improvement scope of work. |
| No, Rapid Impact Compaction is the basis of design. |
See response to comment 63.
| If no alternate to specification section 02 41 10 Ground Improvement Using Rapid Impact Compaction Impact Compaction will be accepted, please clarify the decision to improve soils via rapid impact compaction. The target depth exceeds the industry standard typical depth of improvement for rapid impact compaction. |
| Based on the FHWA Ground Modification Methods Reference Manual GEC 013 as well as in the technical references including, but not limited to, Kristiansen and Davies 2004, SAICE 2006, and M. Sams et al. 2018, a target depth equal to 20 ft is adequate based on the in-situ clean sandy soils and soils relative density. |
| Please advise if the Owner will retain responsibility for improved grounds affected by rising water level post rapid impact compaction and post dewatering. |
| By densifying the soil, Rapid Impact Compaction increases the bearing capacity of the soil and minimizes settlement, but is not known to change the soil permeability significantly to impact the ground water table permanently. Therefore, significant changes in ground water elevations are not expected. |
| 65 |
| Sheet 2 of 134 |
| -- |
| 2 |
| Sheet 2 of 134) includes a note that states “In addition the following existing WWTP drawings are being included for reference only: |
1.
ORIGINAL CONSTR (1944)
2.
ST PLANT IMPROVEMENTS (1990)
3.
COMMINUTOR REPLACEMENT (1992)
4.
PLANT IMPROVEMENTS (JAN 1993)
5.
SLUDGE TANK REPLACEMENT (APR 1993)
6.
RAPID SAND FILTER (JUL 1994)
7.
TRICKLING FILTER REPAIR (1998)
8.
UV DISINFECTION 2010
9. MISCELLANEOUS UPGRADES 2015”
Please provide these referenced “existing WWTP drawings,” which were not provided with the Solicitation, so Offerors can accurately price the optional demolition bid item.
The subject reference drawings are provided as part of Amendment 0003.
