PPIs Continued.pdf

PPI Gov't

Tracking#

Govt Response:

1) Spec Section, Spec Title, para 3, page

2) Drawing #

RFI In response to Section 31 62 16.19 Steel Pipe Piles

Section 2.1.7 Testing Requirements

Is Ultrasonic testing per ASTM A53 an acceptable method based on the information provided below?

1. AWS D1.1 sec 6 is a hand held ultrasonic test that is calibrated to an IIW Block standard. This process is performed after the pipe is produced and is substantially slower than the pile production. The information gained by ultrasonically testing after the production of the pipe is of very little value to the actual production of the pipe as it relates to the quality control of the weld. Due to the duration a 100% weld test would take, the AWS D1.1 ultrasonic test is designed for statistical weld analysis i.e.

5%, 10% or 25% of the welds. By testing using AWS

D1.1 it will take longer than a day to inspect each pile due to the labor involved.

2. API 5L sec. E5 describes the equipment, sample standard, reference indicators and acceptance limits of the “real time” “inline” ultrasonic test. This test is designed to find indications (flaws) that would not be acceptable for the pipes end use as it relates to the transportation of petroleum products which is pressurized. This is an ultrasonic test that is routinely performed by API monogrammed certified production facilities and not by a structural pipe production facilities.

3. ASTM A53 sec. 9 describes the equipment, sample standard, reference indicators and acceptance limits of the “real time” “inline” ultrasonic test. The test is designed to find indications (flaws) that would not be acceptable for the pipes end use as it relates to the conveyance of liquids. This is an ultrasonic test that is routinely performed by structural steel pipe producers.

ASTM A53 differs from API 5L in that the calibration sample is prepared by setting up for a 1/32 x 1/32 x 2” long flaw rather that the 1/16 or 1/8” pin hole flaw used to calibrate to the API 5L requirement. This broader

See revision to spec section 31 62 16.19, see solicitation amendment #006 calibration indication is a closer resemblance of the actual flaws encountered in DSAW spiral welds. Every indication found utilizing the API 5L ultrasonic method would also be found utilizing the ASTM A53 ultrasonic method.

Ultrasonic Testing is conducted to detect flaws and determine their magnitude so that they can be repaired.

Regardless of what in-line method is used for ultrasonic testing is performed; once a flaw is detected the magnitude of that flaw will be determined by the methods of AWS D1.1. Once the magnitude is determined the repair procedure for both inline testing procedures is exactly the same and in accordance with specifications.

In summary, the current spec limits the production of the piling to API monogrammed mills and a UT handheld method that cannot be integrated into the in-line / real time structural pipe manufacturing process which is not industry standard.

It is our belief that a comparable specification in line with ASTM A53 will find the indications required to assure a structural product that will perform as an ASTM

A252 grade 50 pipe pile with the additional assurances listed above. It is also our belief that every indication found utilizing the API ultrasonic method would also be found utilizing the ASTM A53 ultrasonic method. Given this additional information, will the owner consider accepting inline ultrasonic testing in accordance to

ASTM A53, section 9?

Previous projects where ASTM A53 Inline UT has been accepted through RFI process.

Service Pier Seawolf

EHW 1 Design Pile Replacement, Phase 4/5 of 9

FY15 MCON P-993 TPS Port Angeles

FY13 MCON P-983

P-857 Floating Laboratory Mooring Dolphins

FY14 EHW Pile Replacement

MCON P990 – Explosive Handling Wharf #2

Govt Response:

1) Spec Section, Spec Title, para 3, page

2) Drawing #

Reference Specification Section 31 62 16.19 Steel Pipe

Piles Section 2.1.7 Testing Requirements Is Ultrasonic testing per ASTM A53 an acceptable method based on the information provided below?

1. AWS D1.1 sec 6 is a hand held ultrasonic test that is calibrated to an IIW Block standard. This process is performed after the pipe is produced and is substantially slower than the pile production. The information gained by ultrasonically testing after the production of the pipe is of very little value to the actual production of the pipe as it relates to the quality control of the weld. Due to the duration a 100% weld test would take, the AWS

D1.1 ultrasonic test is designed for statistical weld analysis i.e. 5%, 10% or 25% of the welds. By testing using AWS D1.1 it will take longer than a day to inspect each pile due to the labor involved.

2. API 5L sec. E5 describes the equipment, sample standard, reference indicators and acceptance limits of the “real time” “inline” ultrasonic test. This test is designed to find indications (flaws) that would not be acceptable for the pipes end use as it relates to the transportation of petroleum products which is pressurized. This is an ultrasonic test that is routinely performed by API monogrammed certified production facilities and not by a structural pipe production facilities.

3. ASTM A53 sec. 9 describes the equipment, sample standard, reference indicators and acceptance limits of the “real time” “inline” ultrasonic test. The test is designed to find indications (flaws) that would not be acceptable for the pipes end use as it relates to the conveyance of liquids. This is an ultrasonic test that is routinely performed by structural steel pipe producers.

ASTM A53 differs from API 5L in that the calibration sample is prepared by setting up for a 1/32 x 1/32 x

2” long flaw rather that the 1/16 or 1/8” pin hole flaw used to calibrate to the API 5L requirement. This broader calibration indication is a closer resemblance of the actual flaws encountered in DSAW spiral welds.

Every indication found utilizing the API 5L ultrasonic method would also be found utilizing the ASTM A53

46 See revision to spec section 31 62 16.19, see solicitation amendment #006.

ultrasonic method. Ultrasonic Testing is conducted to detect flaws and determine their magnitude so that they can be repaired. Regardless of what in-line method is used for ultrasonic testing is performed; once a flaw is detected the magnitude of that flaw will be determined by the methods of AWS D1.1. Once the magnitude is determined the repair procedure for both inline testing procedures is exactly the same and in accordance with specifications. In summary, the current spec limits the production of the piling to API monogrammed mills and a UT handheld method that cannot be integrated into the in-line / real time structural pipe manufacturing process which is not industry standard.

It is our belief that a comparable specification in line with ASTM A53 will find the indications required to assure a structural product that will perform as an ASTM

A252 grade 50 pipe pile with the additional assurances listed above. It is also our belief that every indication found utilizing the API ultrasonic method would also be found utilizing the ASTM A53 ultrasonic method. Given this additional information, will the owner consider accepting inline ultrasonic testing in accordance to ASTM A53, section 9? Previous projects where ASTM A53 Inline UT has been accepted through

RFI process.

Service Pier Seawolf

EHW 1 Design Pile Replacement, Phase 4/5 of 9

FY15 MCON P-993 TPS Port Angeles

FY13 MCON P-983

P-857 Floating Laboratory Mooring Dolphins

FY14 EHW Pile Replacement

MCON P990 – Explosive Handling Wharf #2

Govt Response:

1) Spec Section, Spec Title, para 3, page

2) Drawing #

1.2.1 DESIGNER OF RECORD (DOR)

Professional Registered members of the Contractor's

Design-Build team that check, approve, sign, date, and certify, prior to submitting the deliverables to the

Government, that the D-B design submittals comply with the contract requirements. The DOR's stamp, sign, and date each design drawing and other design deliverables under their responsible discipline at each

161 A registered Professional Engineer in Civil Engineering or Naval Architecture with the relevant structural design experience as listed in the specification is acceptable in lieu of a structural engineer. See update to 35 51 25.00

20. See solicitation amendment #006.

design submittal stage. The DOR(s) are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the design and for compliance with the contract requirements through construction and documentation of the as-built condition by coordination, review and approval of extensions of design, material, equipment and other construction submittals, review and approval or disapproval of requested deviations to the accepted design or to the contract, coordination with the Government of the above activities, and by performing other typical professional design responsibilities. The following members of the

Contractor's design team are considered DORs:

a. Structural Engineer

b. Coastal Engineer

c. Naval Architect

The DORs above may be one individual if he/she meets the requirements herein. 1.8.1.2 Designers of Record

The DORs shall have a minimum of 10 years of experience demonstrating progressive responsibility in the design of floating structures. Submit resume and proof of registration for structural, coastal engineering and naval architecture fields. Each DOR shall have design experience on a minimum of five similar floating marine structures.

Question: These paragraphs indicate DOR’s are required for structural, costal engineering, and naval architecture. Paragraph 1.2.1 states a single DOR may be used provided the individual meets the requirements stated in the remainder of the Section. Washington State does not require a Licensed Structural Engineer to design and certificate structures similar to this camel.

Professional Engineers in licensed in disciplines Naval

Architects or Civil Engineers are able to design and certify (stamp) these types of structures. Please advise if a Naval Architect for Civil Engineer with structural design experience is acceptable to the Navy.

Govt Response:

1) Spec Section, Spec Title, para 3, page

2) Drawing #

) Per the Endangered Species Act / Marine Mammal

Protection Act Monitoring and Construction Restriction

Requirements 3.2.3.1 MONITORING (pg 334 of 1997), "the Injury Monitoring Zone will extend to a radius of

173 Q1) See revised Endangered Species Act (ESA)/Marine

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Monitoring and

Construction Restriction Requirements provided in amendment 0006

1,000 meters (m) for cetaceans, primarily monitoring for harbor porpoise, and 220m for harbor seals and for sea lions during impact pile driving of steel piles (Table A-

1)." However, per Table A-1, the monitoring zone is established as 750m for cetaceans and harbor porpoises and 15m for sea lions during impact steel pile driving.

Additionally, per the Endangered Species Act / Marine

Mammal Protection Act Monitoring and Construction

Restriction Requirements 3.2.3.1 MONITORING, "The monitoring zones for vibratory pile driving of steel piles will extend to a radius of 1,000m for cetaceans, primarily monitoring for harbor porpoise, and 220m for harbor seals and sea lions during vibratory pile driving

(Table A-2)." However, per Table A-2, the monitoring zone is established as 100m for cetaceans and harbor porpoises, 30m for harbor seals, and 15m for sea lions during vibratory pile driving.

Please confirm monitoring zone distances.

2) Per the Endangered Species Act / Marine Mammal

Protection Act Monitoring and Construction Restriction

Requirements 3.2.4.1 MONITORING (pg 33 of 1997), "Two USFWS qualified marbled murrelet monitors shall monitor the disturbance zone and shutdown zone for the presence of marbled murrelets." However, no number of monitors is specified for marine mammals in Section

3.2.3.1 (page 334 of 1997). Please specify number of marine mammal monitors required.

3) Additionally, per Table A-2, a behavioral threshold is established as 11,700m for cetaceans, harbor porpoises, harbor seals, and sea lions. Please confirm if the

11,700m behavior threshold zone is to be monitored, and if so how many monitors will be required for this area per Question 2 above.

4) In addition, please confirm Contracting Officer's compensation plan for lost work days due to incidents of marine mammals within shutdown zones. Alternatively, please confirm expected number of lost work days due to marine mammals.

5) Per the Endangered Species Act / Marine Mammal

Protection Act Monitoring and Construction Restriction

Requirements 5.1.1 SURVEY BOATS (page 342 of

1997), "Survey boats used for marine mammal, marbled murrelet, or acoustic monitoring shall meet the following minimum specifications..." Also, per Section 3.2.4.1

MONITORING (page 338 of 1997) for marbled murrelets, "Each observer can cover a 180º arc over a

Q2) See revised Endangered Species Act (ESA)/Marine

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Monitoring and

Construction Restriction Requirements provided in amendment 0006

Q3) No, the contractor shall monitor the shutdown zones. See revised Endangered Species Act

(ESA)/Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

Monitoring and Construction Restriction Requirements provided in amendment 0006.

Q4) See revised specification section 01 32 17.00 20 paragraph 1.10.2.9 provided in amendment 0006.

Q5) Contractor is required to monitor the specified shutdown zones. Contractor is responsible for means and methods required to meet contract requirements.

50m area." Please confirm that the use of boats is optional for marbled murrelet and marine mammal monitoring.

Govt Response:

1) Spec Section, Spec Title, para 3, page

2) Drawing #

Reference: Plan Sheets EB602, EB502

Please provide sizes, quantity, and type of cables from

F412 VMFJC to VMFMVT and F410

VMFJC to VMFMVT.

EB502 shows Padmount Transformer Pad Detail. Please provide Padmount Terminating Cabinet Pad Detail.

Section 01 57 19 01 3.1.10.4 states “Contractor-generated dangerous or industrial waste must be disposed of by the Government at the Contractor’s expense”. It is expected that contractors will create some industrial waste (oil, lubricants, excess coatings, etc…) during the execution of the work. Please provide pricing information for this disposal so that the contractors can include this cost their offers, or confirm that contractors can be responsible for disposing of their own industrial waste. Background: SF1442 Box 11 states: “The

Contractor shall begin performance within 15 calendar days and complete it within 785 calendar days after receiving award.” Section 52.211-10 on page 74 of the RFP states: “The Contractor shall be required to (a) commence work under this contract within 15 calendar days after the date the Contractor receives the notice to proceed, (b) prosecute the work diligently, and (c) complete the entire work ready for use not later than 785 days.”

Question 1: Is the Contractor expected to complete the work within 785 days after Award per the SF1442 or within 785 days after Notice to Proceed per Section

52.211-10?

Question 2: Please indicate how many days you expect between Award and Notice to

Proceed? RFP Section: SF 1442

Page #: 1

Paragraph: Block 13 Question: Please identify what time the proposal is due on Sept 10. SF 1442

269 See revised Sheets EB111, EB605 and EB607. See amendment #006.

Block 13

Question: Please identify what time the proposal is due on Sept 10.

RFP Section: Section 00100 and Attachment E

Page #: page 12 of RFP, Factor 4 – Safety and

Attachment E

Paragraph: (i) and Attachment E

Question: The RFP asks that “the follow data shall be completed on or attached to the worksheet”. It also states the “technical approach to safety narrative shall be limited to one

(1) double sided page or two (2) single sided pages.

However, Attachment E, Block 9 reads

“provide the safety narrative using this form” and also states we should “not exceed page limitation specified in the RFP”

Our questions are:

1)Please confirm you will accept the safety narrative as an attachment to Attachment E.

2)If you require the safety narrative in Attachment E

(rather than as an attachment in support of the worksheet), please revise Attachment E to 2 pages.

Govt Response:

1) Spec Section, Spec Title, para 3, page

2) Drawing #

Project Award Dat Solicitation N4425520R0003 Form

1442 states the Following:BLOCK 13 D, OFFERS

SHALL BE VALID THORUGH 28 FEBRUARY 2021.

Section 01 14 00 1.2 SPECIAL SCHEDULING

REQUIREMENTS, Paragraph a. a. Pile driving shall only occur between 16 July and 15 January. Tree removal shall not occur between April 1 and

September 23. See section 01 57 19.01 20

SUPPLEMENTAL TEMPORARY

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS for further restrictions. Section 01 57 19, 1.6 Quality Assurance, Paragraph 1.6.1 Preconstruction Survey and Protection of Features This paragraph supplements the Contract

Clause PROTECTION OF EXISTING VEGETATION, STRUCTURES, EQUIPMENT, UTILITIES, AND

309 Perform as stated in contract.

IMPROVEMENTS. Prior to start of any onsite construction activities, perform a Preconstruction Survey of the project site with the Contracting Officer, and take photographs showing existing environmental conditions in and adjacent to the site. Submit a report for the record.

Include in the report a plan describing the features requiring protection under the provisions of the Contract

Clauses, which are not specifically identified on the drawings as environmental features requiring protection along with the condition of trees, shrubs and grassed areas immediately adjacent to the site of work and adjacent to the Contractor's assigned storage area and access route(s), as applicable. The Contractor and the Contracting Officer will sign this survey report upon mutual agreement regarding its accuracy and completeness. Protect those environmental features included in the survey report and any indicated on the drawings, regardless of interference that their preservation may cause to the work under the Contract

In the event the Government awards the above referenced project later than the first week of December

2020, the logging operation in the spring of 2021 cannot occur, due to general Pre-Construction submittals, but in particular the Preconstruction Survey that is required as noted above. An award beyond early December will force logging activities after September 23rd, 2021. In addition follow on site activities, including mass excavations and backfills will be started at the beginning of the wet season which could significantly increase cost and reduce productivity.