N4019220R1300_Amendment 0008_13AUG2020.pdf

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

FY21 SPECIAL PROJECT RM 14-1420, Repair Lima Wharf, Naval Base Guam

See Continuation Page.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Aug-2020

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 N4019220R1300

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Jun-2020

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

13-Aug-2020

CODE

COMMANDING OFFICER - NAVFAC MARIANAS

MAR MCON

PSC 455, BOX 195

FPO AP 96540-2937

N40192 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4019220R1300

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 0008

A. Notice 8 is provided in response to requests for information and is provided herein as Enclosure (1). Notice 8 is provided for INFORMATION ONLY. The solicitation remains unchanged unless it is amended in writing.

B. The date for receipt of proposals remains unchanged at August 31, 2020 at 4:30pm local time.

C. Offerors shall acknowledge this amendment in Block 19 of the Standard Form 1442 with their proposals.

(End of Summary of Changes)

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND MARIANAS

PSC 455, BOX 195

FPO AP 96540-2937

N4019220R1300 Notice 8

13 August 2020

NOTICE 8

REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION AND RESPONSES

SOLICITATION N4019220R1300 FY21 SPECIAL PROJECT RM 14-1420

REPAIR LIMA WHARF, NAVAL BASE GUAM

QUESTION (Q) 112: Existing Junction Box – Reference RFP Part C, Drawing No. C-109 (BOWTS Site Plan - 2):

On the North side of the new BOWTS building there is a note indicating to "Adjust existing junction box to finish grade". This box is not indicated on any other drawing. Please provide existing information for the pedestal (and elevation to adjust), type of box and what services are in the box.

Answer (A) 112: Recent field investigation determined that the junction box does not exist, only steel plate over gravel. Junction box adjustment not required as indicated, only removal and disposal of the existing steel plate.

Q113: Coating System – Reference RFP Part B, Specification Section 09 97 13.26 Coating of Steel Waterfront Structures, Zero VOC, (SZC) Splash Zone Coating, Subsection 3.6.2 Application of SZC System, Joint Sealant and Stripe Coat:

We have received feedback from a specialty coatings subcontractor that the current specification for coatings 09 97 13.26 is not the ideal choice for the Lima wharf project.

Subsection 3.6.2 calls out a finished product that will result in approximately 100 - 120 mills or 1/8" coating thickness that is susceptible to failure during pile handling & driving due to its brittle nature.

• An excessive number of coating applications will be needed to achieve the coating thickness.

• The potential for fouling the interlock of the piles is far greater. This equates to potential troubles for the installation contractor during the driving process which can equate to sticking or jammed piles causing time loss.

• The product cost of the specified coatings system is 20 times greater than a coal tar coatings system adopted on previous wharf repair projects.

Coatings systems of this type require precision coatings application to keep from fouling the pile interlocking surfaces prior to the driving operations. Because of the thickness or (DFT) of the coatings system, the system often leaves uncoated areas of the pile in the interlock area of the pile along the entire length of the pile because of the interphase between the 100 plus mil requirement in the current system and the requirement to not coat the interlock. The interphase of coatings goes from 0 mils to >than 100 mils along the entire length of the interlock.

Previous similar projects have used a different coatings specification in the past for projects of this type specifically, specifications required 16 mils of coal tar epoxy. This system eliminated the above-mentioned potential issues for the interlock area of the pile as well as potential coatings failures due to stresses created during the handling and driving process. This included Sierra wharf, Tango Wharf, Uniform Wharf and Victor Wharf.

Will the Government consider an alternate coatings system (e.g., a coal tar coatings system) in place of the current SZC System?

A113: Coating system must be bid in accordance with the specifications.

Q114: Additional Pre-drilling for King Piles – Reference RFI Notice 4 Response to Question 63:

Please advise what the criteria is for determining when pre-drilling is required.

A114: Per Specification Section 31 41 16 METAL SHEET PILING Paragraph 3.3.2.2 k-l (refer to specification replacement sheets AMENDMENT 22 JUL 2020 included in RFP Amendment 0003), the Contractor is required to perform a probing investigation and WEAP analysis to evaluate appropriate driving operations (which includes pre-drilling). Contractor shall use available geotechnical data and the probing information in their WEAP analysis to determine if pre-drilling is required.

Q115: King Piles Specification:

(a) Please clarify if the King piles shall conform to section 31 41 16 or section 31 62 16.16. If neither, please provide the relevant section.

(b) Please confirm that King Piles are per ASTM A572 GR 60 per Sheet S-002 note E.

A115: (a) King piles shall conform to Specification Section 31 41 16 METAL SHEET PILING.

(b) Confirmed.

Q116: H-Piles – Reference RFP Part B, Specification Section 31 62 16.16 Steel H-Piles and Pipe Piles and Drawing No. S-002 (Structural Notes - 2):

Section 31 62 16.16 shows H-piles to conform to ASTM A572 GR50 while drawing sheet S-002 note E shows ASTM A992 GR 50. Please clarify.

A116: H-Piles shall conform to specifications. An amendment will be issued to clarify material specification shown on the drawings.

Q117: Dredging – Reference RFP Part B, Specification Section 01 57 19.01 20 Supplemental Temporary Environmental Controls Lima Mike November Wharves Apra Harbor, Naval Base Guam, Water Areas Explosives Safety Submission (ESS), Paragraph 3.5.3 Mechanical Screening Operations in the Screening Area:

(a) Can the dredged confined disposal facility shown on drawing G-101 be used as the screening area for the less than 3” dredge material?

(b) Are there any restrictions for transporting the less than 3” dredge material during normal working hours?

A117: (a) No.

(b) Yes. Bid assuming that transporting 3" dredge material will not be permitted during normal working hours due to impacts to adjacent Government operations.

Q118: Dredging:

For utility manholes that are pre-cast, please clarify the type of rebar that is required. Should the rebar be plain or epoxy coated, and what type of epoxy is required?

A118: Reinforcing shall conform to specification Section 03 30 00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE.

Q119: Compensation for Down Time – Reference RFP Part B, Specification Section 01 57 19.02 Supplemental Temporary Environmental Controls, Paragraph 3.1.3 Marine Resources Monitoring for In- Water Construction Activities:

Please clarify if and how the contractor will be compensated for any down time incurred should sea turtles be or other protected marine wildlife be encountered within the safety zones during in water construction activities.

A119: Downtime incurred will not be compensated. Turtles and other endangered species are known to frequent Apra Harbor and Contractor should account for periodic downtime. Downtime is not considered to be significant, just short periods when a marine animal is encountered.

Q122: In-Water UXO Support – Reference RFP Part B, Specification Section 35 20 23 Dredging, Paragraph 1.7 Munitions and Explosives:

In accordance with Amendment 0003; Paragraph 1.7: “Prior to start of dredging work, detect unexploded ordnance by towing a magnetic probe throughout the entire dredging areas.” was removed. Is any in-water UXO support required in advance of sheet pile driving if the dredging has been completed prior to sheet pile installation?

A122: No.

Q123: Pre-Draft Water Areas ESS – Reference RFP Part B, Specification Section 01 57 19.01 20 SUPPLEMENTAL TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS Lima Mike November Wharves Apra Harbor, Naval Base Guam, Water Areas Explosives Safety Submission (ESS):

Figure 1.1: Regional Location Map included in the Water Areas Explosive Safety Submission show the locations of USSA #1 and USSA #2.

(a) Are these USSA locations final or is there leeway to expand and/or shift the boundaries at all?

(b) Have these locations been previously cleared for potential MEC/MPPEH?

(c) Will the contractor be responsible for building containment around the USSA’s to contain sediment and water from the dredging operation?

(d) Is the contractor expected to maintain separation between the existing ground surface and dredge materials placed in these areas for drying?

(e) Can debris caught by the 3-inch screen on the Scow/Barge can be unloaded and staged for investi-gation between the east side of USSA #1 and the small berth area immediately to the east of USSA #1?

(f) Section 6.1.1, Paragraph #2, lines 13-17 states “The construction dredge material that passes through the Scow/Barge fabricated grizzly/screen will be transferred to the USSA and left to dry out until the material is suitable and dried enough to be mechanically screened for MEC/MPPEH to ¾-inch minus, removing all MEC/MPPEH down to a 20 mm Projectile.” Can the contractor conduct the second phase of screening with the ¾ inch screen using wet dredge material as opposed to letting the material dry. Wet screening is currently being successful conducted at Naval Base San Diego.

(g) Is vegetation removal required for clearing the disposal area for the dredge material?

(h) Section 6.1.5, Alternative 2 (Phase 1) references the Primary 1 MGFD (5-in Mk 41 projectile) for armoring but cites K24 and K18 distances that are far less than those associated with the 5-in Mk 41 projectile. Should the K24 and K18 distances in this section be revised to match the 5-in Mk 41 projectile as presented in Table 6-1?

(i) Page 8-2, lines 13 and 14 indicated that “The SUXOS and UXOQCS must have received company and project specific QC training and work under the supervision of a certified quality professional.”

What quality certifications/certifying entities are acceptable to meet the requirements for a certified quality professional? Can a corporate QC manager with a Professional Engineer or Professional Geologist certification be substituted as a certified quality professional?

A123: (a) For bidding purposes, the contractor shall assume the locations are final.

(b) No. The locations are considered Unlikely.

(c) Yes.

(d) No.

(e) The contractor shall use the project site and laydown limits for staging.

(f) Yes, the contractor assumes all risks associated with means and methods.

(g) No.

(h) Yes. The final draft of the Water Areas ESS will be revised to match the 5-in Mk 41 projectile as presented in Table 6-1. The K40 will be changed to 44 feet and K18 will be changed to 33 feet.

(i) Response: Yes, the quality certifications include: Professional Engineer, Professional Geologist, Certified Quality Auditor (CQA), Certified Quality Engineer (CQE) or Certified Manager of Quality/Organizational Excellence (CMQ/OE).

Q124: King Piles:

Please advise if splicing of king piles is allowed.

A124: King piles shall be fabricated full length as indicated in Section 21 41 16 METAL SHEET PILING Paragraph 2.1.2. Splicing is only permitted in situations stated in Paragraph 3.3.3.

Q125: UHMWPE Face Panel – Reference RFP Part C, Drawing No. S-527 (Corner Fendering Details - 2), Detail B4:

We noted that the bottom of the panel is at elevation -4.0. Please advise what the top elevation of the panel is.

A125: UHMWPE face panel top elevation is 2'-1" from the top of pile as shown on Drawing S-527 Detail B4.

Q126: Dredging – Reference RFP Part B, Specification Section 02 61 13 Excavation and Handling of Contaminated Material, Paragraph 1.2.2.1 Assumptions for Soil Contamination and Disposal, Item c:

Paragraph 1.2.2.1 item c. states, “Excavate and dispose of the contaminated soil at an off-island disposal facility on the mainland U.S. Assume the soil is non-hazardous waste. The estimated amount for disposal is 130 cubic yards in-situ volume.”

Would the Government allow an on-site repository for this 130 cy of contaminated soil in lieu of off-island disposal? NAVFAC guidelines currently allow for chlordane contaminated soil to remain on-site with certain mitigation measures in place. This would provide a significant cost savings to the owner.

A126: No.

Q127: MEC – Reference RFP Amendment 0005, Pre-Draft Water Area ESS, Table 3-1:

Given the standoff distances in Table 3-1, would NAVFAC consider allowing dredging to take place at night? The current exclusion zone and standoff distances will require large sections of the project to be shut down so that MEC clearance work can take place during dredging operations. For recent maintenance dredging projects at Naval Bases San Diego and Pearl Harbor that required similar MEC clearance exclusion zones and standoff distances, the contracts actually required the dredging to be performed during nighttime hours to minimize impacts to surrounding facilities. Allowing for dredging at night greatly improves safety and minimizes schedule impacts and costs.

A127: Bid in accordance with the contract documents.

Q128: DFARS Clause 252.247-7023 – Reference RFP Part A, SF1442 Section 00 70 00 Conditions of Contract (Contract Clauses), DFARS Clause 252.247-7023 Transportation of Supplies by Sea FEB 2019:

Section 00 70 00 – Conditions of Contract includes Clause 252.247-7023 Transportation of Supplies by Sea FEB 2019. Paragraph (b)(1) states: “The Contractor shall use U.S.-flag vessels when transporting any supplies by sea under this contract.” The specified king pile/sheet pile steel materials for the new bulkhead are manufactured in Europe and will require transportation by sea from a European port to Guam. The cost to ship the steel materials from Europe to Guam using a U.S.-flag vessel will be “inordinately excessive” when compared to the cost to ship the materials on a non-U.S.-flag vessel.

The Transportation of Supplies by Sea clause includes the following instruction: “The Contractor and its subcontractors may request that the Contracting Officer authorize shipment in foreign-flag vessels, or designate available U.S.-flag vessels, if the Contractor or a subcontractor believes that –

(1) U.S.-flag vessels are not available for timely shipment.

(2) The freight charges are inordinately excessive or unreasonable, or

(3) Freight charges are higher than charges for private persons for transportation of goods.”

Given the significant additional cost for transportation of the steel bulkhead materials from Europe to Guam using a U.S.-flag vessel, will the Government via the Contracting Officer allow the use of a foreign-flag vessel to transport these materials to Guam. Without confirmation prior to the proposal due date that a foreign-flag vessel will be allowable, the prudent Offerors will need to include the additional cost for using a U.S.-flag vessel in their respective pricing.

A128: Deferred

Q129: Dredging Debris Quantity – Reference RFP Part B, Specification Section 35 20 23 Dredging, Paragraph 1.5 Artificial Obstructions:

Specification Section 35 20 23, paragraph 1.5 – Artificial Obstructions states: “The Government has knowledge of debris such as, but not limited to, metal cables, wood fragments, pieces of broken cable, rope, metal pipe, ship fenders, oil booms, ladders broken piles, and other miscellaneous debris.” and “Debris removed from the dredged area shall be removed from the water.” For bidding purposes, please provide the quantity of debris to be removed in cubic yards that the Offerors should include in their proposals. It is impossible for the Offerors to determine this quantity so the Government should provide a basis for the proposal pricing.

A129: Deferred

Q130: Small Business Subcontracting Targets:

Please provide the Small Business Subcontracting Targets for this bid.

A130: Subcontracting targets are:

Small Business - 40% Historically Underutilized Business Zone - 3% Small Disadvantaged Business - 5% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business - 3% Women-Owned Small Business - 5%

Q131: Exhibit C – Reference RFP Part A, Exhibit C – Small Business Participation & Commitment Strategy and Contract Level Performance Summary:

Please clarify if the Total Contract Value of Exhibit C - Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy is Base Bid and all options; OR Base Bid plus Options 1 & 2 only per the Contract Level Performance Summary Form.

A131: Total Contract Value is the Base Bid and all Options. Contract Level Performance Summary Form can be expanded for additional options.

Q132: Alternative Identification Markings – Reference RFI Notice 3 Response to Question 44 and RFP Part B, Specification Section 31 41 16 Metal Sheet Piling, Paragraph 1.6 Delivery, Storage, and Handling:

It is requested that the requirement for engraving of the king piles and sheet piles be reconsidered to allow alternative identifications markings to the king pile and sheet pile system. Any engraving process to the steel would be done by the steel manufacturer prior to the application of the required coating system. The coating process would both damage and cover up the engraved markings making the engraving a costly and unnecessary process that would provide little to no identifiable information on the end product.

A132: Deferred

Q133: – Reference RFP Part B, Specification Section 03 31 29 Marine Concrete with Service Life Modeling, Paragraph 1.7.6.2 Hardened Concrete Properties, Item a(3), and Section 03 31 30 Marine Concrete, Paragraph 1.7.4.2 Hardened Concrete Properties, Item a(3):

Specification Section 03 31 29, Paragraph 1.7.6.2 a. (3) states: "The required average compressive strength may not exceed the specified strength at the same age by more than 25 percent unless approved by the Engineer of Record." Specification Section 03 31 30, , Paragraph 1.7.4.2.a. (3) states: "The average compressive strength may not exceed the specified strength at the same age by more than 20 percent unless approved by the Engineer of Record."

(a) The statement of "at the same age" within the referenced specification sections does not make it clear on when the comparison of concrete strength would occur. Please clarify at what concrete sampling age (i.e 28 days) would the comparison of concrete strength occur?

(b) Specification Section 03 31 30, Paragraph 1.7.4.2.a. (3) states that standard marine concrete may not exceed strength at the same age by more than 20 percent. Please clarify if the not to exceed strength percentage for both types of marine concrete is 25% or 20%?

A133: Deferred

Q134: Crane Rail System – Reference RFP Part B, Specification Section 02 41 00 Demolition and Deconstruction, Paragraph 3.3.2.1 Crane Rails, and RFP Part C, Drawing No. S-533 (Miscellaneous Details), Detail C1 Crane Rail Foundation:

The existing crane rail that is planned to be cleaned and re-installed for use is anticipated to require at least 200 linear feet of new rail. The only reference to rail size is in Drawing S-533 and the rail is shown as "110#". 110lb/yd rail is no longer rolled by any mill globally. Can you please provide the dimensions of the rail, or the specified rail profile to use.

(a) Can you please clarify the means in which the rail is to be connected together? Is the existing rail welded at the splices or are they bolted together using mechanical splice bars?

(b) Drawing S-533 (Detail C1 - Crane Rail Foundation) is the only detail on the crane rail system. Is there a specification for what type of finish (bare steel, hot dip galvanized, or primed) is required on the rail sole plates (ref. 3/4"x8"x1'2")? Is the same finish specified for the anchor bolts (ref. 1" BOLTS W/8" EMBED @6'-0" O.C.) and associated fasteners, i.e. bearing plate, shims, lock washer, hex nut?

(c) Drawing S-533 (Detail C1-Crane Rail Foundation) shows the anchor bolts for the rail sole plates at 6'- 0" centers. Is that consistent for the entire approximate 2000 linear feet of rail that will be removed and re-installed?

(d) Drawing S-533 (Detail C1-Crane Rail Foundation) shows a rail clip (ref. 3/4"X3"X5" CLAMP) is a rigid non-engineered clip that is not rated for lateral side force on the rail. Can the anticipated lateral side force on the rail be provided so that a load rated rail clip can be used?

A134: Deferred

Q135: Existing Tie Beam – Reference RFP Part C, Drawing No. SD301 (Typical Demolition Section - 1), Detail A1:

Existing tie beam is shown at 18’-0” O.C. with 2’-0” height and 32’-0” length. Enlarged demolition plans indicate what appears to be 9’-0” width tie-beams. Please confirm or provide width of tie beam.

A135: Deferred

Q136: Air Barrier – Reference RFP Part B, Specification Section 07 05 23 Pressure Testing an Air Barrier System for Air Tightness and Section 07 05 23 Building Air Barrier System:

Please verify that air barrier submittal review, commissioning, air blower testing is not required on the transformer building. An air barrier is not shown.

A136: Deferred