Contractor_Question_Responses_6-19-15.docx

NGWSP Reach 22a Amendment #006 Contractor Questions and Answers

Moltz Constructors, Inc.

1) Is there a boat ramp available somewhere on the reservoir to launch a barge?

Response: There is a boat ramp on the northwest side of the reservoir; however the access road to the boat ramp is not maintained and may not currently be passable for truck and trailer. Turnaround capability is limited at the boat ramp as well. Offerors will need to evaluate means and methods for the underwater work and bid accordingly if a boat launch is deemed necessary.

2) What will the fill process be once construction is complete? Will divers be required to be onsite during the pipe fill process, and how long is that process expected to take?

Response: Intake Bulkhead Gate section 35 21 30-3.04 provides guidance for filling the upstream river outlet works conduit. Divers are not required to be onsite during the filling process. Filling time was anticipated to be calculated by the contractor.

3) Drawing D-332 shows a 3” valve on the bulkhead gate. Is it the Government’s intent to open this valve via the supplied rope in order to fill the piping after the completion of the pipe work? Is the rope required during construction? This would seem to pose a safety concern and be a potential vandalism concern.

Response: Yes, the intent was for opening the valve with the rope. The contractor is responsible for determining how to stage the use of the rope to allow for opening of the valve to fill the line and provide protection of the line during construction.

4) Will the pipe be filled before completion of the project? Will the line be charged in order to provide water to the new forebay tank for testing?

Response: Yes, the pipeline will be filled to the new forebay tank to allow for testing as described in Pipeline General Requirements section 33 11 00-3.04 and 3.05

5) Please confirm (Section) 055000-2.06.A.1 should read class 35 B not 358

Response: Section 05 50 00-2.06.A.1 should read class 35 B (not 358) and has been revised per pen and ink change in this Amendment.

6) Would the Bureau consider removing the QP1, 2 & 3 cert requirements in (section) 099620? Coating applicators with QP1, 2 and 3 certs are very limited in the project vicinity.

Response: QP1, 2, & 3 certification requirements will be removed from Section 09 96 20 with a pen and ink change in this Amendment. Inspection during fabrication will be performed to ensure the proper coating application.

7) Would it be acceptable to directional drill the HDPE pipe required at Cutter Wash (see D-336)?

Response: Similar to the response in Amendment #003 regarding an alternate pipe material, alternate proposals (including installation methods) may be considered. If an Offeror would like to propose alternate methods, they should prepare a baseline technical proposal and price proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation. The alternate method should be included in an alternate technical proposal and price proposal for consideration by the Government.

8) While dewatering Cutter Wash, can the ground water leave the 100’ right of way?

Response: The groundwater dewatering may not be discharged directly into a wetland or flowing or dry watercourse and must be kept within the Reach 22a right-of-way (ROW). All BMPs to mitigate turbidity and erosive velocities must be placed within the ROW, but the mitigated discharge may run off the ROW provided that it complies with the stipulations of the Construction General Permit (CGP).

9) Can work be performed inside the right of way in Largo Wash? If needed, can the contractor drill vertical vent holes in Largo Wash during the drilling operations?

Response: No vehicular access will be allowed in Largo Wash between the entry and exit holes, unless approved by the CO.

10) The SIDE CLEARANCE FOR CLSM EMBEDMENT table shown on drawing D-341 references HDPE 24DR9 pipe. Is it the Government’s intent that the HDD piping be embedded with CLSM? Is it the intent of the Government that the HDD piping be embedded, backfilled, pressure grouted or other?

Response: The Side Clearance for CLSM Embedment detail on drawing 1695-D-341 is not referencing the 24DR9 HDPE called-out for the HDD, but is included as an additional thicker-walled pipe option for typical trench installation which allows for greater cover depth. CLSM is not required within the HDD bore, but will be required for any 24DR9 HDPE installed in an open trench installation.

11) Contradictory to (section) 330522-3.03.K, can drilling spoils and cuttings remain onsite?

Response: Reference Part I. RSN 33 05 22-8, Drill Fluid And Cuttings Disposal Plan. This will set forth a plan and approval process for how the spoils and cuttings will be handled and disposed.

12) Would it be possible to extend the proposal due date 1 week?

Response: Amendment #004 extended the proposal due date to June 30, 2015 at 1700 Mountain Daylight Time.

13) A large unknown in the project is the magnitude of dewatering that will be required. In an effort to aid the contractor in reducing the costs associated with the dewatering risk, would the Government consider changing the two “removal of water” bid items from lump sums to unit prices? Much of the boring information in the solicitation was produced in the January-March time frame, which is usually when water levels are at their lowest.

Response: Lump sum was selected as the unit of measurement to allow the contractor to analyze the groundwater data and design a dewatering system accordingly. The groundwater data tables generally include data from January 2014 to January 2015 which can be found in section 53 20 00 of Amendment #3. Additionally, the Reach 22 – Cutter Wash Exploration Aquifer Test report has been provided in this Amendment to aid the offerors in estimating dewatering efforts. The report includes an analysis of the dewatering test results; however, Offerors are responsible for performing their own analysis of the dewatering test results.

14) In what condition is the interior of the existing 36” pipe? Will the contractor be responsible to clean and remove moss/buildup if encountered in order to perform the scheduled work? Should it be anticipated that the interior of the pipe will need to be water-jetted? If so, will the cleaning water and resulting debris need to be removed from the site, or can it remain in the existing collection pond at the base of the spillway?

Response: A travel report of the existing 36" pipe is provided in section 51 00 20. Moss was not significant during the site visit; nuisance water was present from the slide gate. Existing coal tar coating will need to be removed in sections for installation of the buttstraps as described in section 35 21 94. Removal of this coating is subject to section 02 83 30 - Removal and Disposal of Coatings Containing Coal Tar Products.

15) Please confirm whether or not the contractor will be able to use reservoir water for construction activities including dust abatement, grouting, testing, etc. If so will there be permitting requirements and associated fees?

Response: Water for construction may be available from Cutter Reservoir through permits with NAPI and the Navajo Nation Water Code Administration (NNWCA). Per section 01 51 00-1.04A, Contractor shall provide water required for construction purposes. Obtain required permits, including payment of fees, from NAPI and the NNWCA (see section 51 00 30 for a sample NAPI Water Carriage Use Permit application).

16) Please confirm section 036225 referenced in note #3 on sheet D-380 should be section 036220. Please confirm section 036225 does not exist.

Response: Confirmed, note #3 on sheet D-380 should reference section 03 62 20.

17) (Section) 036220-3.01.2.b requires the contractor to use solvent to degrease the inside of the two 3” vent pipes before filling them with grout. The 3” vent pipes are roughly 65’ long. Solvent cleaning the inside of a 65’ long 3” pipe in their given locations does not seem feasible. Please clarify the required cleaning procedures on the inside of the two 3” vent pipes prior to grouting. Can the Government provide a description of what the contractor should anticipate the condition of the inside of the 3” vent pipes will be? Will the inside of the 3” vent pipes need to be water-jetted?

Response: Although grease is not expected, removal is needed to ensure grout will bond with the vent pipe. It is anticipated that degreasing will consist of swabbing the interior of the pipe using a method approved by the COR. Particular care should be anticipated to degrease the ends of the vent pipe. This cleaning would occur after the top of the pipe and the 12"x12"x24" header has been removed. Filling and flushing of the entire pipe with large amounts of solvent is not anticipated. Water-jetting of the pipe is not anticipated.

18) Drawing D-380 requires the 12”x12”x24” header to be saw cut full depth. Given the location and the round pipe behind the header, this approach does not seem feasible. Please confirm the contractor could use a hand saw and provide a 1” saw cut around the perimeter and use 30 lb hammers to demo the concrete header. A ring saw could then be used to clean up the final concrete surface to provide a smooth finish. (Section) 038110-3.05.B would seem to allow for this approach.

Response: The contractor may remove the 12"x12"x24" header using alternate methods provided the resulting surface is smooth.

19) (Section) 038110-1.03.B.1 requires methods and equipment to be used to locate embedded metalwork and reinforcement within concrete to be removed. Is the contractor required to locate such items in the 12”x12”x24” header and concrete encasement prior to concrete demo? By reference, would this require x-ray or GPR to locate metal items embedded in concrete prior to demo in these locations? Given its location, this would not be feasible for the 12”x12”x24” header. Given its mass size, it also may not be feasible for the 36” pipe encasement.

Response: The contractor is not required to locate embedded metalwork and reinforcement for the 12"x12"x24" header and 36" concrete pipe encasement near the bifurcation. The intent of the reinforcement locate is to avoid doweling into the existing reinforcement of the gate structure. The general location of the doweling work is shown on drawing 1695-D-380, section AA-AA.

20) Can the Government provide a copy of the 404 permit for the project?

Response: Reclamation is in the process of obtaining a 404 Nationwide Permit 12 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for Reach 22a, which will be made available to the selected contractor prior to Notice to Proceed. Anticipated stipulations of the 404 permit have been incorporated into the Reach 22a solicitation.

21) Drawing 529-2206 shows the pipe laydown passing over CR 4450. Since that road cannot be closed, is it acceptable to bore under CR 4450 in order to be able to utilize that area as shown? The encasement could be filled with CLSM and abandoned after completion of the work.

Response: All temporary road crossing methods, including boring, for the HDD pipe pullback are subject to the approval of San Juan County Roads and the COR. Any San Juan County roadway permits should be submitted by the contractor per section 01 55 20. The method for crossing CR 4450 with the HDD pullback operation should be included in the offeror’s technical proposal.

22) Given the location of the project would the Government consider removing or reducing the qualification required under (section) 330915-1.03?

Response: Section 33 09 15, sub-paragraph 1.03 A is for "Manufacturer's Qualifications". The intent is to get a quality product that has been successfully installed and put into operation at multiple projects.

23) Tabulation 5 in section 099620 outlines the desired coating requirements for the duplex strainer. Eaton has confirmed that their standard coating is the only option available. Will the Government accept the specified Eaton duplex strainer with the manufacturer’s standard coatings/colors?

Response: If the standard coating is the only coating option available for the duplex strainer, then it is acceptable. A pen and ink change has been made in this Amendment to allow the Eaton standard coatings/colors.

24) Per (section) 352130-3.02.B how much silt and debris should the contractor assume will need to be removed by diving operations?

Response: In the “Underwater Examination of Outlet Works Intake Structure and Bulkhead Gate Seats – Cutter Dam” (dive travel report), available per section 01 35 27-1.04.D, and included in Amendment #3, "The silt level was about 6-12 inches above the invert of the intake pipe."

25) If the work performed under (section) 352130-3.02.C indicates the need to perform work described in (section) 352130-3.02.D, will that additional diving work constitute a change to the contract price/time, or should the contractor include pricing to perform work identified in 352130-3.02.D in the initial proposal?

Response: Section 35 21 30-3.02D is contract work and should be bid accordingly by the Offeror.

26) Will the storage facility referenced in 352130-3.04.C be local to the project site?

Response: Section 35 21 30-3.04C has been revised per a pen and ink change in this Amendment for the anticipated storage site to be within 50 miles from Cutter Dam.

27) (Section) 352130-3.02 references existing gate seat and guides, but not an existing bulkhead gate. 809-D-338 shows existing guard and regulating gates, but not an existing bulkhead gate. 352210-1.07.A.6 states that the existing guard gate is normally fully open. Please confirm there is not an existing bulkhead gate that will need to be removed, the guard gate is fully open, and the regulating gate is fully closed and holding back the reservoir water, and everything upstream of the closed regulating gate is currently under water.

Response: There is not an existing bulkhead gate that will need to be removed per the dive report and the regulating gate is closed and holding reservoir water per section 05 00 20. The guard gate is assumed to be fully open. The river outlet works features upstream of the regulating gate are assumed to be underwater.

Meridian Contracting, Inc.

1) In recent communications with local concrete suppliers (Four Corner’s Materials) the following question came up regarding Type V Cement, “Per our recent conversation, we do not have the capability to provide Type V Cement in our concrete mixes. We use Type I/II LA cement with Class F Fly Ash, if this will work please let me know and I’ll send a material quote.” Will the BOR make an exception to allow Type I/II LA cement with Type F Fly Ash in lieu of Type V Cement for concrete required on this project?

Response: Twenty percent of the soil sulfate tests values performed for the project were in the severe range which necessitated Type V cement. Therefore, Type V cement is required.

However, many Type I/II LA cements qualify as Type V under ASTM C452. Additional data and/or testing would be needed.

2) Can the thickness of the stainless orifice plates be increased from 11/16” and 5/8” to ¾”, in other words is the stated thickness only the minimum?

Response: Thicker orifice plates will be considered; however, the Contractor will be responsible for adjusting the lay length of the bypass piping to match the current configuration.

3) On page 43 the FxF joint couplings are most likely flanged but in the notes on the same page a ¾” gap is written. Please clarify.

Response: The F X F joint (fixed by fixed) is a restrained flexible coupling joint such as a victaulic type 232 or similar. The 3/4 inch gap is the distance between the ends of the steel pipes joined with the coupling

4) Is there any information regarding the manufacturer of the original slide gates? Since we are replacing one of the gates in “like kind” so it will fit the in-place construction it would be beneficial to utilize the same supplier if they are still around.

Response: Drawing #65 in the specification is an informational drawing from the original slide gate installation. The gate manufacturer on the drawing is Armco Metal Products Division which may have been purchased by Hydro Gate.

5) Would the BOR consider a relaxed specification, alternate specification in respect to the qualifications related to the Coating specifications? As it is now we are having to seek multiple states away for Coating professionals that meet the pre-qualification requirements and we would really like to use a Coating sub that is more localized to the project.

Response: See previous response regarding QP 1, 2, and 3 qualification requirements.

6) Usually we end up using standard thickness elbows on the thinner schedule pipe. Can standard wall 0.375” wall elbows be used on 16” and 12” 0.250” pipe?

Response: Please bid these items as shown. An RFI can be submitted after the project has been awarded.

7) Can standard wall pipe 0.375” be used for the 36” diameter steel pipe fabrications?

Response: Please bid these items as shown. An RFI can be submitted after the project has been awarded.

8) From a potential subcontractor: (Can in-ditch Butt fusion be utilized to attach the Miter bends at each end of the bore? Are there any specific qualifications that the mud engineer / technician is required to have? Please let me know if you have any questions.

Response: The method of in-ditch butt fusion would be an acceptable alternative if the fusion procedure meets section 33 11 18 or as directed by COR.

Under section 33 05 02-1.04, Qualifications, the contractor shall have a minimum of 5-years' experience on similar, size, scope, and nature of HDD projects. A pen and ink change has been added by this Amendment to clarify Contractor, including key personnel.

Redpoint Contracting

1) Can we use the water on the reservoir for construction water?

Response: Please see the response to Moltz question #15 earlier in this Amendment.

2) Do you have any information on the flow of the outlet pipe? Is it active and continuously flowing? If not, when was the last time it got activated?

Response: The flow discharge curve of river outlet works conduit is shown on drawing 809-D-370. The river outlet works is closed downstream of the regulating gate. Section 51 00 20 is a travel report that discusses the downstream river outlet works conduit. It is unknown when the river outlet works was last used, but our understanding is that it has been operated less than a handful of times since it was constructed.

3) Is the Bureau going to supply the bulkheads and the trash racks?

Response: No, the bulkhead and trash racks will be supplied by the contractor.

HD Supply

1) Spec section 331110, 3.01, C, 1: requires 2 thicknesses of 6-mil sheet polyethylene plastic on applied to pipe ends prior to delivery. Pipe manufacturers have responded strongly against this requirement. Will this requirement be absolute? Is there any possibility it could be waived?

Response: Section 33 11 10-3.01.C.1 has been revised in this amendment with a pen and ink change to remove the requirement for plastic on the pipe ends, and replaced with a requirement that the contractor protect the pipe from contamination, damage, and the elements with a tarp during storage on site.