W52P1J-18-R-5005_AMENDMENT_4.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

See summary of changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 4

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-Jun-2018

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 W52P1J18R5005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-May-2018

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 X is extended, 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

07-Jun-2018

CODE

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND ROCK ISLAND

ACC-RI

3055 RODMAN AVENUE

ROCK ISLAND IL 61299-8000

W52P1J 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W52P1J18R5005

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 4

The purpose of this Solicitation Amendment 0004 is to:

1. Replace the current SOW with a revised SOW dated 31 May 2018.

2. Extend the solicitation close date from 12 Jun 2018 to 19 Jun 2018.

3. Provide answers to the following Contractor questions.

Q4. There are three conduits run to the bridge, what is intended to be done with them?

A4. The 1” conduit (Bridge Span Open Sign) traverses the worksite but is not part of this scope of work. The electrical conduit is addressed in paragraph 5.4.6 and 5.4.6.1 as edited in the revised SOW dated 31 May 2018. The

2” conduit on the cantilevered sidewalk is addressed in paragraph 5.4.6 and 5.4.6.2 as edited in the revised SOW dated 31 May 2018.

Q5. One light pole on the bridge is on the city side of the bridge, confirm the intent is to refeed the light fixture and not replace (assuming on the same circuit as the rest of the lights) light pole, fixture, conduit and wire.

A5. DPW has checked. This last, southernmost of the western poles on the Rock Island – Arsenal Viaduct (City of

Rock Island owned portion) is not on the same circuit as the balance of the light poles on the U.S. Army owned portion of the Viaduct. This same last light pole will not be covered by this scope of work.

Q6. Confirm we can reference IL DOT details.

A6. IL-DOT details may be referenced where applicable in your design.

Q7. Can we be provided with the circuit for the existing light fixtures, source and voltage?

A7. Source is approximately 800ft from the near side of the Rock Island – Arsenal Viaduct, and is a 208V feed.

Drawing 2018 0526 Electric 200ft1inch.pdf has been added as an explicit drawing to reference.

Q8. What is the purpose of the communication conduit called for in the SOW?

A8. To clarify the intention paragraph 5.4.6 has been edited in the revised SOW dated 31 May 2018.

Q9. The spare conduit called for in the SOW where is it to be sourced from and run to? Is it a junction box at the beginning of the new parapet / barricade to the end of the parapet /barricade j-box before the city bridge?

A9. Paragraph 5.4.6 has been edited in the revised SOW dated 31 May 2018.

Q10. SOW states LED fixtures selected should not have a wavelength that attracts bugs. What bugs specifically are concerned with as different insects are attracted to different wavelengths? Provide the specific wavelength for the bugs you do not want to attract.

A10. Paragraph 5.4.4.7 has been edited in the revised SOW dated 31 May 2018.

Q11. Are the fixtures used on Rodman and Gillespie a preferred fixture head (to allow similar parts availability)?

A11. This is not a requirement, but several of the recent fixtures installed on post have been Lithonia DSX1.

Fixture selected shall conform to the edited Paragraph 5.4.4.7 in the revised SOW dated 31 May 2018.

Q12. Confirm that the light levels are to be per Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) recommendations.

A12. Paragraph 5.4.4 has been edited in the revised SOW dated 31 May 2018.

Q13. What light level is desired for the bridge (STR 275) and what level for the Pedestrian Bridge (STR 276)? As there no criteria such as IESNA or RP-08? As we abut to the City Bridge and our lighting will affect their lighting is there a requirement to have them review the lighting design as well as the RIA?

A13. Paragraph 5.4.4 has been edited in the revised SOW dated 31 May 2018.

Q14. Does the RIA have a lighting control system they wish to be able to interface with presently or in the future for the lighting control specified?

A14. There are no requirements for an overall or future lighting controls interface.

Q15. Will selected bidder be provided with bridge past load rating calculations and inspection reports?

A15. The successful bidder can request and will be given the load ratings calculations and most recent bridge inspection report(s).

Q16. Where will the existing conduit on the steel cantilever to be removed be located to and supported from?

A16. Paragraph 5.4.6 has been edited in the revised SOW dated 31 May 2018.

Q17. Will new bridge deck scuppers be selected from IL DOT standards?

A17. If the scuppers set forth in IL DOT standard(s) are sufficient they can be selected.

Q18. Will we need to design a transition of the City of Rock Island bridge sidewalk on to the RIA roadway or will this sidewalk dead end at the RIA/RI City property line?

A18. Paragraph 5.4.3 has been edited in revised SOW dated 31 May 2018.

Q19. SOW Paragraph 5.2.1 defines the limits of concrete removals as sidewalk, curb, and parapet. In our site visits we notice that there is significant spalling on the underside of the concrete deck slab below the sidewalk and curb.

Are we to include repair/replacement of this deteriorated portion of the deck slab as well?

A19. The underside of the concrete near the Main Girder is actually the underside of the existing curb slated for demolition. Please see Section A-A page 11 of Appendix 1.

Q20. Are there any foot-candle lighting requirements for either STR275 or STR276?

A20. Paragraph 5.4.4 has been edited in revised SOW dated 31 May 2018.

Q21. Can a copy of the two most recent STR275 Inspection Reports be provided? Can a copy of the current

STR275 Load Rating Report and associated calculations be provided? What is the critical finding that governed the

15 Ton load posted weight limit?

A21. The Government will provide the Contractor awarded the project the Inspection and Load Rating Reports upon request. The 15 ton load posted weight limit is referenced in Paragraphs 5.5.1 and subparagraphs 5.5.1.1 through 5.5.1.3 of the revised SOW dated 31 May 2018. The critical finding which necessitated the 15-ton posted weight limit is the undersized structural steel used during the original construction of the bridge's floor beams.

Q22. Any information pertaining to the existing conduits on the west (downstream) side of STR275; what type of utility, owner, contact person, size, etc.. Are there any shutdown allowances for these utility conduits to accommodate relocation?

A22. The 1” conduit (Bridge Span Open Sign) traverses the worksite but is not part of this scope of work. The electrical conduit is addressed in paragraph 5.4.6 and 5.4.6.1 as edited in the revised SOW dated 31 May 2018. The

2” conduit on the cantilevered sidewalk is addressed in paragraph 5.4.6 and 5.4.6.2 as edited in the revised SOW dated 31 May 2018.

Q23. SOW 5.4.3: Is an American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Crash-tested barrier railing required? If so, to what level (TL-1 to TL-4)? If the Owner requires the crash-tested rail, this will likely eliminate the 10" wide safety walk, per SOW item 5.4.2.

A23. The level crash rating (TL-1, TL-2, etc.) is to be selected by the designer based on the use of the structure and conditions of the structure.

Q24. Scope of Work Item 5.4.4.7 requires a light source or light fixture that will guarantee the light source will not attract bugs. Different types of insects are drawn to different color spectrums regardless of LED or non LED light sources. While some light color spectrums attract more insects then others, we are not aware of any scientific evidence or studies by light manufacturers. Can you please identify the light color spectrum desired?

A24. Paragraph 5.4.4.7 has been edited in the revised SOW dated 31 May 2018.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 12-Jun-2018 10:00 AM to 19-Jun-2018 10:00 AM.

(End of Summary of Changes)