Amend_0002.pdf

ACQR5431836

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

DESIGN-BID-BUILD PROJECT P-0888 HARBOR DRIVE SWITCHING STATION AT NAVAL BASE SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

The purpose of this amendment is to provide responses to Requests For Information (RFIs).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 31-Jan-2019

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 N6247319R1209

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Jan-2019

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

31-Jan-2019

CODE

NAVFAC SOUTHWEST

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTRACTS CORE

CODE: CINAV

1220 PACIFIC HIGHWAY

SAN DIEGO CA 92132-5190

N62473 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6247319R1209

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0002

Subject: N6247319R1209, DESIGN-BID-BUILD PROJECT P-0888 HARBOR DRIVE SWITCHING

STATION AT NAVAL BASE SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

Date: 31 January 2019

The purpose of this Amendment is to:

1. Provide responses to the following Requests For Information (RFIs):

Contractor RFI #1: The Department of Defense has not had many similar major electrical utility infrastructure projects completed in the past 5 years with a minimum construction cost as currently listed in the Factor 1

Experience requirements, therefore finding projects to qualify is extremely stringent. Please consider reducing threshold on past major electrical utility infrastructure projects to $15,000,000 which will allow for increased competition on this solicitation.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The current threshold in Factor 1 – Experience for a major electrical utility infrastructure with a construction cost of $20,000,000 remains.

Contractor RFI #2: The requirement to have completed 3 projects similar in size, scope and complexity is very stringent and is going to exclude companies that are well qualified. We have performed several projects that are similar in complexity and scope but not of this magnitude. Please consider reducing the requirement of $20,000,000 down to $15,000,000 for electrical utility infrastructure projects that are similar in complexity and scope. This will allow increased competition on this solicitation.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See response to RFI #1.

Contractor RFI #3: Our team has been attempting to register our JV with the IRS in order to obtain a JV EIN to be in accordance with SAM registration, however it seems that the Government shutdown may be affecting IRS resources to complete this task. Our team has been submitting the required fax information multiple times per day for the last several weeks however when we submit our JV information, we receive a response that states “busy/no response” and the IRS helpline states “Live telephone assistance is not available at this time. Normal operations will resume as soon as possible. You may continue to use self-service tools or access the IRS.gov website.” However, the IRS self-service online portal states an error message that our request cannot be completed. If the IRS is unable to provide an EIN for our new JV, this will hinder our ability to register with SAM. Please consider a three week extension of the proposal due date in order to accommodate for the IRS not being able to respond to JV submissions.

Thank you for your consideration.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The proposal due date has been extended to February 8, 2019 by 2:00PM (local time).

Contractor RFI #4: The RFP states “Contractors must be registered in SAM prior to award of a Department of

Defense (DoD) contract. A contract cannot be awarded to a contractor that is not registered in SAM.” Please confirm that the offeror will be able to provide the JV registration information subsequent to the proposal due date.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The contractor shall provide their JV registration information no later than the proposal due date.

Contractor RFI #5: Could I get a list of plan holders or the link to the list of plan holders?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government does not provide a list of plan holders. If plan holders choose to provide their contact information, you may view it in the solicitation at either the Navy Electronic Commerce Online

(NECO) website at www.neco.navy.mil, under “plan holder list” or at the Federal Business Opportunities

(FedBizOpps) website at www.fbo.gov under “interested vendors list.”

Contractor RFI #6: Drawing EP-101 shows the ductbanks coming out of Building 3668 to the electrical manholes adjacent to the building. Each of these ductbanks is referenced to ductbank details on drawing E-504, specifically

B4, A3, & A4/E-504. Those details each have a note that states "Where installed under roadways or parking lots provide #4 rebar at each corner with lop ties 5’ 0” on center (typical)” There are no details or drawings that we are aware of that indicate the area between the building and the manholes to be within a parking lot or under a roadway.

Is rebar required for these ductbanks?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Ductbanks running to manholes located adjacent to building 3668 are located within the parking and driving area and will be subject to vehicular traffic. These ductbanks are required to have rebar.

Contractor RFI #7: Drawing E-504 has details that have a note that states “Base & Intermediate reinforced steel bracers”. We are not aware of any base or intermediate spacers that are manufactured of reinforced steel and are UL certified. Please clarify what is meant by reinforced steel. Would standard non-metallic base and intermediate spacers be acceptable?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This will be answered in a subsequent amendment.

Contractor RFI #8: Drawings EP-101 & EP-102 shows equipment that is to be mounted on the inside walls of the building. These pieces of equipment do not have any conduit or wiring information provided and we cannot find any provision for such on any of the other RFP drawings. Please advise if this equipment has a conduit and wiring schedule that we have missed.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Refer to EI-615 & EI 631 for AC/DC schematic diagram. Run all DC cable in 1” conduit.

Contractor RFI #9: Drawing EP-101 shows ductbanks from manholes EMH-373F, EMH-373G, EMH-373H, and

EMH-373J to the two switchgear lineups. These ductbanks have spare conduits only at this time but do not have any ductbank cross section details assigned to them. What ductbank cross section configurations are they to be constructed to?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Ductbanks shall be constructed in accordance with detail A4 on sheet E-504.

Contractor RFI #10: Drawing EP-101 shows a ductbank of 600v cables entering P184N. In that ductbank are two feeders identified as FB-04-CC and FB-07-291. Neither of these feeders are on the feeder schedule nor do they appear to be identified as to conduit size, conductor sizes and quantities anywhere else on the drawings. Please clarify what these feeders are to be.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: FB-04-CC and FB-07-291 feeder sizes are indicated on one-lines diagram E-603 with tag 25N and 60N respectively. These tags refer to 600V feeder schedule located on sheet E-701.

Contractor RFI #11: Drawing EP-101 shows a feeder identified as HP-293. This feeder is not on the feeder schedule nor does it appear to be identified as to conduit size, conductor sizes and quantities anywhere else on the drawings. Please clarify what this feeder is to be.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Feeder sizes are indicated on one-lines diagram E-603 with tag 22N. This tag refers to 600V feeder schedule located on sheet E-701. Feeder HP-293 shall be renamed to FB-09-HP 3668.

Contractor RFI #12: Drawing EP-101 Detail B1 is the Electrical Power Plan – Building 3668. This plan provides a layout of the ancillary equipment within the building but does not provide any information relevant to the conduit, wiring, or routing between the equipment and the substations. Please advise if this information is provided elsewhere within the RFP documents.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See response to RFI #8.

Contractor RFI #13: Drawing EP-102 Detail B1 is the Electrical Power Plan – Building 148 & 148A. This plan http://www.neco.navy.mil/ http://www.fbo.gov/ does show surface routing of conduits between junction boxes and the substation sections. This plan provides a layout of the ancillary equipment within the building but does not provide any information relevant to the conduit, wiring, or routing between the equipment and the substations. Please advise if this information is provided elsewhere within the RFP documents.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See response to RFI #8.

Contractor RFI #14: Section 10 44 16; Paragraphs 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.2.1; Page number 3. The RFP requires 30 lb carbon-dioxide fire extinguishers that are mounted by wall-hook brackets. However, the maximum weight for wall mounted carbon-dioxide fire extinguishers is 20 lbs. Please confirm that 30lb carbon-dioxide extinguishers that are wheel carried are acceptable.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Confirmed. 30lb carbon-dioxide extinguishers may be wheel carried or mounted by wall-hook brackets.

Contractor RFI #15: Section 01 57 19; Paragraph 3.3 Surface and Groundwater; Page number 20. At what depth is groundwater expected to be encountered? Is there a location on base where groundwater can be disposed of?

Contractor RFI #16: Drawing EP-101 shows feeders from P184N to the site. There is no ductbank electrical detail for this ductbank. Please advise what ductbank detail applies to these conduits. The feeders in this ductbank would be:

FB-01-PWC

FB-02-121

FB-03-119

FB-04-CC

FB-05-118

FB-06-LTS

FB-07-291

FB-08-LTS

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Ductbank directly leaving P184N consists of 11 conduits. Provide 2x6 ductbank configuration.

Contractor RFI #17: Contract drawings indicate a requirement for rebar cages for the ductbanks. Most of the new ductbanks will be below existing utilities. Recent projects with the same scope as this project have not utilized rebar in ductbanks. Would the Government consider deleting this requirement? This could result in a considerable cost savings to the project.

Contractor RFI #18: Has a CATEX been issued for this project?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, a CATEX was issued for this project. Site Approval Request #1393430, completed February 8th, 2016. See Attachment A – SAR.pdf.

Contractor RFI #19: On drawing EP-102 the feeder conduits from EMH 30D (B1/E5010) shows a feeder A-6N-

PAD93. This feeder does not exist on the feeder schedule nor can we find a definition of what conduit and wiring this feeder contains. There is a feeder on the feeder schedule designated as A-5N-PAD93. Is this supposed to be the feeder A-6N-PAD93? Was this a typo? Please confirm.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: There is a typo on the feeder schedule. Feeder schedule should read A6N-PAD93 in lieu of A-5N-PAD 93 and A5N-PAD 60A in lieu of A-6N-PAD 60A.

Contractor RFI #20: Sheet ES 101C. Are Telecomm Handholes THH373B and THH373C the same detail as the electrical handhole detail provided on A3 Sheet E-506?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, telecom handholes THH373B and THH373C shall be the same detail as the electrical handhole detail provided on A3 Sheet E-506.

Contractor RFI #21: Electrical drawings (E-504) and civil drawings (C-501) each have a detail for repair of asphalt at the ductbank cross sections. These details are different. Please confirm which detail is correct.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Civil drawings shall take precedence for asphalt repair.

Contractor RFI #22: Sheet S-103. Structural drawings include a utility bridge detail to support the conduits crossing the creek. There is no detail showing how the conduit is to transition from underground to the utility bridge.

Existing utility bridge has a ramp that slopes from top of bridge to the asphalt in order to transition the conduits with a minimum amount of bend in the conduits. Please confirm that the transition can be the same as existing.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Transition can be the same as existing.

Contractor RFI #23: At the pre-proposal conference the government indicated there were hazardous material reports as well as soils reports. Can these reports be made available for us to review?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The hazardous material report will be available after contract award.

Contractor RFI #24: Ductbank details on E-504 and E-505 call out for #4 rebar at each corner with loop ties every

5’. Are the loop ties to be #4 as well or can they be #3?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No, loop ties shall be #4 rebar.

Contractor RFI #25: Section 33 71 02 paragraph 3.1.2 calls out for concrete for electrical requirements to conform to the requirements of section 03 30 04 “Concrete for Minor Structures”. This specification section is not included in the RFP. Please add this section. We are specifically looking for testing requirements for the concrete ductbanks and the frequency of testing.

Contractor RFI #26: Key note 2 on ES-101A calls out the transition from below to above grade conduit be in

Rigid Galvanized Conduit. Is it just the transition that needs to be in Rigid Galvanized or does the entire crossing on the utility bridge need to be Rigid Galvanized.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Conduits located on bridge must be PVC. Provide expansion joint between rigid conduit transition and PVC within bridge.

Contractor RFI #27: EP-102. The exterior feed from 4 Way Load Interrupter switch LSS-P148N to electrical manhole EMH30B is labeled 148N-PAD66. There is no feeder 148N-PAD66 on the feeder schedule. Please identify the contents of what this feeder LSS-148N-PAD66 is so it may be included in our RFP proposal.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Feeder schedule should read LSS 148N-PAD66 in lieu of A-7N-PAD 66.

Contractor RFI #28: Drawing E-701 Note 1 states “Provide new end to end pilot wire connection. Route within new 4”C for fiber where new ductbank is being installed. Route through existing conduit (for fiber) where routed in existing ductbank.” Additionally, Note 2 states “All circuits currently provided with existing pilot wire shall be provided with new end to end pilot wire. Splicing into existing pilot wire is not allowed.” This is ambiguous. Please provide clarification as to what conduits and routing is required. There is no feeder schedule data provided to identify what the “existing” circuits are, where they are located and what routing to use to access the locations.

Please provide the information necessary to comply with these two notes.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Note 1 and Note 2 refer to different circuits. See ‘Remarks Column.’ Note 1 refers to the following feeders:

• NC-11 - HN-1N

• NC-12 - HS-1N

• V13 - HN-2N

• V14 - HS-2N

• HN-5N - F1

• HS-5N - F2

• HN-4N - D1

• HS-4N - D2

• HN-3N - A1N

• HS-3N - B1N

In accordance with the plans, the following circuits will be routed partially in new ductbanks and partially in existing ductbanks. These circuits are to be provided with a new end to end pilot wire. The one-line diagram shows which part of the ductbank is existing and which part is new. For the portion of the ductbank that is existing, the new pilot wire will be routed through the existing pilot wire conduit. The existing pilot wire will be pulled out and replaced with new.

• HN-5N - F1

• HS-5N - F2

• HN-4N - D1

• HS-4N - D2

In accordance with Base Item 0001 (when option items 0001 and 0002 are not exercised), circuits HN-3N-A1N and

HS-3N-B1N will also utilize portions of the existing ductbank. These circuits are to be provided with a new end to end pilot wire. The one-line diagram shows which part of the ductbank is existing and which part is new. For the portion of the ductbank that is existing, the new pilot wire will be routed through the existing pilot wire conduit. The existing pilot wire will be pulled out and replaced with new.

Note 2 does not apply to any of the previously stated circuits. Note 2 only applies to the circuits indicated in the medium voltage feeder schedule. These are existing circuits that are fed from switching stations A and B and that are to be extended to the new switching stations AN and BN. It is currently unknown which, if any, of these circuits currently contain pilot wires. The contractor shall be responsible to inspect the circuits and provide new end to end pilot wires for circuits that currently contain pilot wires. For circuits that do not contain pilot wires, no new pilot wires are required.

Contractor RFI #29: Drawing EP-102 (Building 148)-701 shows a 4” conduit labeled as “480V” between HP-148 and the junction box in the building that receives the conduits from EMH64C. This conduit is not identified on the

Feeder Schedules (E-701). The panel schedule for HP-148 shows a 4” conduit with 4 #6 and 1 #6 gnd. This is circuit

15,17 and is labeled “Heater”. Please confirm this is the circuit that should be in the 4” conduit labeled 480V.

Also, the reference 4” conduit (and wire) only exists between the junction box and HP148. There is no continuation of the circuit shown. Please confirm if there is any further continuation of this circuit and to what equipment.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: That is correct, conduit labeled 4” 480V refers to HP-148-13,15,17. This circuit is intended for heaters within LSS-P2NN and LSS-P2SN. The 480V conduit with associated circuit is to be run along with circuit A4N-LSS-2SN.

Contractor RFI #30: Will the Government be providing dump tickets for the disposal of dirt, concrete, asphalt, etc., generated by this project?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Concrete and asphalt shall be recycled. Dump tickets are not guaranteed for dirt

(dirt needs to be classified as clean fill and may require testing to prove it).

Contractor RFI #31: Are there any areas on the Base that are restricted that are within the scope of this project?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, the following areas are considered restricted: Cummings Substation, Vesta

Switching Station, Pier 1, Building 291 and Building 121 Telecomm (SCADA) room.

Contractor RFI #32: Would the Government consider the use of utility pvc conduit such as DB-60 or DB-120 since the conduits are to be encased? This could represent a considerable cost savings to the project.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: NAVFAC does not allow the use of Type DB-60 or DB-120 utility duct for concrete encasement applications. NAVFAC requires Type EB Schedule 20 PVC conduits (minimum thickness) for conduits installed in concrete encasement and Schedule 40 PVC conduit (minimum thickness) for conduits that are not installed in concrete encasement. In accordance with UFC 3-550-01, use Type EB Schedule 20 PVC conduits

(minimum thickness) for conduits installed in concrete encasement.

Contractor RFI #33: ES-403. There are no conduit designations for conduits from LSS-P2NN to Skid 5N and Skid

2N or from LSS-P2SN to Skid 5S and Skid 2S. please confirm conduit designations, conduit sizes, number of conduits, number of spares, cable sizes, quantity of cables and ground sizes for these circuits.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Refer to E-608 for conduit designations, conduit sizes, number of conduits, number of spares, cable sizes, quantity of cables and ground sizes for these circuits.

Contractor RFI #34: Section 01 14 00; Paragraph 1.2.2 Working Hours; Page number 2. Please confirm that there are no work hour restrictions relating to traffic for work taking place in the roadways, between the hours of 7am and

3:30 pm.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Contractor is required to submit traffic control plans to FEAD San Diego for review and acceptance. Work hours will need to be discussed at the Post Award Kickoff (PAK) meeting and adjusted to minimize impact to traffic.

Contractor RFI #35: Specification section 31 00 00 Earthwork paragraph 1.1 General references boring logs and groundwater elevations. Is there a geotechnical report available for the areas covered under this contract? If so, would the Government consider making them available?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The geotechnical report shall be available after contract award.

Contractor RFI #36: Specification section 01 14 00 Work Restrictions paragraph 1.2.6 indicates that utility cutovers and interruptions are to take place after normal working hours. Please confirm that none of the affected buildings operate on a 24 hour basis.

Contractor RFI #37: Specification section 01 14 00 Work Restrictions paragraph 1.2.6 indicates that utility cutovers and interruptions are to take place after normal working hours. Please confirm that none of the affected buildings will require temporary power during the cutover process.

Contractor RFI #38: Plans, Structural; Detail C1; Sheet S-103. Sheet S-103 shows piles for the support of the utility bridge. Would the government consider providing a specification section for Auger Cast Piles, including any requirements for test piles and testing?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This could be considered but as there are only 4 piles per bridge and 2 bridges for a total of 8 piles it seems that the testing required to use ACP’s would offset any savings. Testing in accordance with

ASTM D1143 would be required. Included in this response is an unedited typical ACP specification that would provide an idea of what would be required (see Attachment B – Auger Cast Piling.pdf). This is for reference only and is not the required specification for this project.

Contractor RFI #39: Specification section 01 35 26 Governmental Safety Requirements says that the SSHO may also serve as the Quality Control Manager. Please confirm that this applies only to an additional SSHO, and not the

Primary SSHO.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: For this project, there should be one dedicated SSHO, one dedicated Quality

Control Manager, and one dedicated Superintendent. All three personnel shall meet qualification requirements.

Contractor RFI #40: Specification section 01 35 26 Governmental Safety Requirements states that the Safety oversight team includes a minimum of one person at each project site to function as the SSHO. As this project includes one new building, one renovated building and a large area of ductbank, please confirm how many SSHO’s the Government will require for the project.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: In accordance with EM 385 A qualified SSHO is required when work is going on.

If work is occurring simultaneously at three different work sites, then three SSHOs are required.

Contractor RFI #41: Specification section 02 61 13 discusses sampling of known contaminated soil. There is no information in the plans or specifications indicating the presence of contaminated soil, no does there appear to be a requirement for testing of excavated soils which are not known to be contaminated. Please confirm that no testing will be required of excavated soil unless evidence of contamination is discovered upon excavation.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Testing will be required of excavated soil.

Contractor RFI #42: Specification section 01 45 00.00 20 Quality Control requires a separate QC specialist at the work site for each of the areas of responsibilities listed in the technical specification sections. Please confirm that a

QC specialist who is qualified in multiple disciplines may perform the QC specialist role for more than one discipline.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: A QC specialist who is qualified in multiple disciplines may perform the QC specialist role for more than one discipline (subject to review and approval by FEAD San Diego).

Contractor RFI #43: Specification section 26 05 13.00 40; ES-403. When reviewing medium voltage cable specification 26 05 13.00 40 we noticed four different cable constructions specified under “single conductor shielded cables” section 2.2.3. Under “Materials” section 2.4 there is a more detailed description (Conductors 2.4.1) that reflects the TS-CPE jacketed cable that NAVFAC Southwest typically uses for medium voltage underground distribution. Is it safe to assume that for the 15kV cable on this project we will be following section 2.4 for TS-CPE jacketed, EPR cable?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: All medium voltage cable shall be 15kV rated TS-CPE jacketed Ethylene

Propylene Rubber (EPR).

Contractor RFI #44: We would like a (3) three week bid extension on the project due to the fact of evaluating dewatering and excavation requirements.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See response to RFI #3

Contractor RFI #45: Section 21 13 23.00; Paragraph 5 & 6; Page number 8. Specification indicates 36F MM/SM

& 72F MM/SM, however SCADA plans (EI-001 through EI-654) indicate only singlemode fiber to be provided between equipment and total number of strands between buildings is not defined. Electrical plans (E-511 through E-

527) indicate only "fiber" with no type specified. Is only singlemode fiber required between system ends, and if so, how many strands are required?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, provide 24-strand single mode fiber between system ends.

Contractor RFI #46: Section 33 82 00; Paragraph 9; Page number 4. Specification indicates (1) 25-pair cable required from Building 291 to the new HDSS building. 25-pair copper cannot be found on electrical site plans (ES-

101A through ES-101E) or on manhole butterfly plans (E-511 through E-527).

Is 25-pair voice grade copper cable required from Building 291 to the new HDSS building? If so, please provide information on pathway and pull-points.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, provide 25-pair voice grade copper cable from Building 291 to the new

HDSS building. Find pathway and pull-points in sheet ES-101C.

Contractor RFI #47: 01 55 00 Temporary Construction Facilities and Controls; Paragraph 34.3 Rush Hour

Restrictions; Page number 5. Specification section 01 50 00 Temporary Construction Facilities and Controls appears to indicate a restriction of activity during rush hours, directing the contractor to refrain from “interfering” with peak traffic flows preceding and during normal operations. Since much of the work of this project is in the roadway, and the work hours have been identified as between 7:00 and 3:30, please confirm whether there are known peak traffic hours when the contractor will be prohibited from working in the roadway between 7am and 3:30 pm.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Rush hour generally ends by 7:30AM and begins again at 2:30PM.

Contractor RFI #48: Spec 26 05 13.00 40; ES-603. LSS P-184 in is called out as 600amp load sectionalizing switch. It is being fed by Circuits HS-6N-LSS 184AN and HN-6N-LSS 184AN. Both of these circuits are designated 1200amps with 3 sets of 500MCM conductors. These circuits exceed the rating of the switch. Please confirm the correct ampacity and sets of conductors that will be feeding the switch.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Both HS-6N-LSS 184AN and HN-6N-LSS 184AN feeders will be rated 600A in lieu of 1200A. LSS-184AN will remain 600A rated equipment.

Contractor RFI #49: EI-648 shows an SEL-3620 Ethernet Security Gateway. Diagrams on EI-616 and EI-632 do not show an SEL-3620. Please clarify.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: EI-616 and EI-632 are correct. Delete the requirement for SEL-3620 on EI-648.

Contractor RFI #50: On EI-648, is multimode or single mode FO Ethernet connection required?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Single mode fiber optic cable system is required for Ethernet connection.

Contractor RFI #51: Network diagrams on EI-616, EI-632, and EI-648 show a single SEL3530 RTAC. Panel elevations show 2 RTAC's included. Please clarify?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Each switchgear has two RTACs (i.e HS has one and HN has another one).

Contractor RFI #52: HMI requires a "Power Management" screen. Please advise what readings and software are required.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SEL-3530 software is included for HMI screens to be developed in this project by

Control System Integrator who will customized screens to be reviewed so they meet NAVFAC requirements on specs. Single line diagram (aka Power System Management) could be one of those screens.

Contractor RFI #53: The SEL relays and IEDs are located in switchgear lineups. The 3355 and RTAC will be in a separate stand alone rack. This results in significant wiring between the RTAC and the switchgear. It would be better to move the RTAC to the switchgear and take an ethernet connection to the rack. Can the RTAC's be moved to the switchgear?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, RTAC could be moved to the switchgear. Refer to EI-616, EI-632 and

EI-648 digital cable (Cat 6 or between each breaker relay to RTAC could be reduced if SCADA communication rack is located at end of 15kV switchgear lineup or if a SCADA section is added to lineup. But there is serial cable from each relay to RTAC and also digital cable from each relay to Ethernet Switch. See photos (Attachments C &

D) of 15kV switchgear with RTAC installed on a switchgear section.

Contractor RFI #54: The number and type of relays shown on the elevations conflicts with the one line diagram which conflicts with the circuit breaker three line diagrams. Please clarify relay requirements.

Contractor RFI #55: Sheet EI-647 Note 2 mentions Automatic Throw Over (ATO). This requirement is not shown anywhere else in the control diagrams and is not called out in specifications or shown elsewhere on the plans.

Is ATO required?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: ATO is not required because SEL-351S are capable of doing protection system main 1-tie-main 2 relay scheme that acts as an automatic throw over based on relay numerical and logical equations

(programming) and for safety wiring breaker auxiliary contacts as shown on breaker DC control schematic and relay DC control schematics included in set. Refer to notes on Drawings and Specs. See figure below on SEL-

351S main-tie-main protection system based on mirrored bits communication between relays.

2. Attachment(s) provided with Amendment 0002: A) SAR.pdf

B) Auger Cast Piling.pdf

C) Photo 1.pdf

D) Photo 2.pdf

(End of Summary of Changes)