Sandy_Hook_WWTP_RFI_doc.docx

RFI – SANDY HOOK WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT

Q10: On page 12 of the Geotechnical Report, 'Table 3' provides recommended excavation and fill requirements at specific structures. When comparing the bearing elevations indicated in this table, to sheet C0.5, we find a discrepancy for both the Chlorine Contact Tank and the Sludge Pumping Station. The Chlorine Contact Tank on the hydraulic profile is showing a bearing elevation of around 7', versus the 11' indicated in Table 3. The Sludge Pumping Station on the hydraulic profile is showing a bearing elevation of around 4.5', versus the 0' indicated in Table 3. Table 3 recommends extensive work beneath the Sludge Pumping Station. It is assumed these recommendations were based on the estimated bearing elevations in Table 3. Please clarify if the recommendation for the Chlorine Contact Tank & Sludge Pumping Station should be budgeted, or if they will change based on the drawing elevations indicated.

A10: Answer: The attached addendum to the geotechnical report includes a revised table in response to this question.

Q11: Structural drawing S1.1 calls for an 8" SOG at the Headworks foundation. Civil drawing C6.1 seems to indicate a 2' thick mat slab. Please clarify which is to be followed.

A11: Refer to Structural drawings for slab thickness and reinforcing details.

Q12: Where is the discharge point for site dewatering?

A12: Per Specification Section 31 23 19, the dewatering system design & permitting is the responsibility of the contractor.

Q13: Is treatment of the dewatering discharge required?

A13: Per Specification Section 31 23 19, the water removed by dewatering must be disposed of in accordance with local and State criteria in a manner in which avoids endangering public health, property, waters of State interest, and portions of work under construction or completed. It is the responsibility of the contractor to determine if treatment is required in order to meet these requirements as part of the system design and permitting.

Q14: Sheets C4.0 and C4.1 looks to not have all the information regarding the profiles. Looks to be an incomplete drawing.

A14: Revised sheets are provided to include the missing profiles.

Q15: Are there any noise ordinance's we need to know about? This in regard of the diesel engine powered pumps.

A15: There are no noise ordinances.

Q16: Is there and contaminated soils known to be on site that may need to be quarantined, tested, and removed?

A16: NPS is not aware of the presence of contaminated soil at the project site.

Q17: Is there a designated spoils stock pile location on site?

A17: Available construction staging areas are identified on Sheet C1.2.

Q18: What is the exact physical address of the WWTP? This is needed for logistics for freight and delivery pricing.

A18: Atlantic Drive, Sandy Hook, NJ 07732 Q19: Are there any water allocation and/or discharge permits for site dewatering in place?

A19: No.

Q20: The electricians proposing on the project are requesting a bid extension in order to submit a proposal. Due to the electrical design requirements, the vendors for the electrical items need more time to coordinate with manufacturers to accurately price the project.

A20: Amendment 00002 provides an extension of August 05, 2016, in order to keep the schedule to have the plant fully operational by Memorial Day weekend, this date is the latest the responses to this solicitation can be due.

Q21: Was any material testing of onsite items performed to determine if any lead, asbestos, etc. were present at the facility?

A21: No. The original plant was constructed in the 1970s with a major overhaul and expansion in the 1990s.

Q22: Please provide as-built information, including foundations, for the trickling filters being removed.

A22: As-builts for the trickling filters are not available. The trickling filters were constructed in the 1970s.

Q23: We have contacted the equipment vendors (Huber & Westech) listed in specification, and they have both indicated that time to produce submittals would be around 6 weeks. The lead time AFTER submittal review and approval for delivery to site is -

Huber Equipment 20-24 Weeks Westech 22-26 Weeks

I have attached a copy of our procurement schedule showing the anticipated delivery dates-based on NTP/Award within 30 days of proposal submittal (the 1442 allows 120 days for award).

Based on these timelines the CRITICAL equipment would not arrive on site until April. Please advise.

A23: The lead times provided by the headworks and package plant manufacturers in writing during the design phase were a maximum of 28 weeks, inclusive of submittals. Please re-confirm with the manufacturers. NPS will commit to a 7-day submittal review period for the headworks and package plant to assist with the procurement timeline.

Q24: Would it be possible to obtain a sample copy of the contract form that will be used on this contract?

A24: See pages 1 and 2 of the solicitation; the SF 1442 form is the form that will be used for the resulting contract.

Q25: An offer guarantee will be required – but the amount of said security is not provided, Is this 10%, 100%? I could not find the amount stipulated. Can we use any commercially acceptable forms?

A25: The bonding is 20% of the total cost or $3 million which ever is less. See solicitation provision 52.228-1(c) - Bid Guarantee; solicitation page 132.

Q26: Mentions completion time of 180 days. This seems to be a bit aggressive, with contracts, shop drawings on process equipment, manufacturing of equipment, and delivery of equipment, then there is the possibility of winter weather, plus the project does have a bit of staging required. Is there any chance of extending contract time? I realize timing will be everything in the project, but is it possible to get any additional contract time?

A26: See Amendment 00003, which extends the period of performance by phases.

Q27: Can the performance and payment bond forms be provided?

A27: See solicitation page 81, FAR clause 52.228-15 – Standard Form 25 and 25A examples are provided through hyperlink.

Q28: We saw no requirement for contractor to provide flood or builders risk insurance, wouldn’t that be advisable due to the location and scope of the project? Even if the Builders risk was 100% and the flood sub limit was say 30-50% of the contract amount.

A28: Section H (page 16 – 17) of the solicitation and clause 52.228-5 (page 77) covers special contract requirements and liability insurance requirements. These requirements are the bare minimum required. Once the contract is awarded the successful contractor is responsible for obtaining appropriate amounts and types of insurance as deemed necessary by the Contractor as the site will be fully controlled by the contractor.

Q29: As this is a somewhat involved project, and we need to provide both technical and pricing proposals, is there any chance of a bid date extension of say 2 weeks? And if so, would it be possible to not have the bids due on a Monday? It is easier to overnight a package on a Monday (Or Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday for that matter) afternoon than on a Friday afternoon, when you are trying to finalize the bid.

A29: As of this date, the contract proposal time will not be extended past 5 Aug 2016 (see Amendment 00002).

Q30: Would it be possible to E-mail the proposals by the bid time and then Overnight the original and copies? Process equipment vendors don’t seem to understand when we need to turn our bid prior to the advertised bid time.

A30: As of this date, the contract proposal time will not be extended past 5 Aug 2016 (Amendment 00002).

Q31: Can you please advise whether NPS will consider alternate activated sludge wastewater treatment technologies to meet the effluent requirements of the specifications? Do all solutions providers have to bid the specific hybrid (IFAS) technology specified?

A31: The Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge technology is a contract requirement. Alternate treatment technologies are not allowable. Any IFAS equipment that meets the contract requirements may be considered.

Q32: Section -01 31 00, 1.9.C States that contractor may be responsible for the dewatering permit. Typically in New Jersey this permit, which can take close to six months to obtain, is obtained by the Owner in an effort to expedite the project. This would bring about two questions. Are you sure you want the contractor obtaining this permit, and if so, do delays caused by getting delays qualify for an extension of contract time?

A32: The Contractor will be responsible for obtaining the dewatering permit, if required. If delays are encountered due to delays in NJDEP review and through no fault of the Contractor, a contract extension would be granted.

Q33: For permitting costs, is there any chance that the contractor could carry say a $20,000 allowance for permit fees, in lieu or requiring the contractor to attempt to guess at this cost pre-bid. It is next to impossible to get an accurate cost on these costs pre-bid for local construction permits, as well as other permit fees.

A33: Due to the difficulty in estimating fees for dewatering permits in advance, bidders shall exclude these costs. The selected Contractor will be responsible for assessing the need for a dewatering permit, producing the required documentation for application to the NJDEP, and applying / obtaining the permit. When accurate fee amount is determined, the contract will be modified to include the cost of the dewatering fees.

Q34: Will NJGSA (General Services Administration) be the governing body on permits? If so have documents been furnished to them for Engineering review?

A34: No, NJGSA is not involved in permitting for this project. NJDEP has completed engineering review for this project and issued a Treatment Works Authorization permit.