13-B-0002-0002.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

Reference project Location: Perryville Launch Ramp Perryville, Alaska

a. The subject amendment incorporates clarif ications and revision to the subject IFB. A summary of the amendment changes are located on page 2, Summary of Changes

b. Perryville Launch Ramp IFB is extended to Monday, January 7, 2013, No Later Than 2:00p.m. (Alaska Time)

c. Notice to Offeror: Please mark outside of envelope w hich offer is submitted to show acknow ledgement of subject matter. Reference block 13D of subject SF1442. Period of Government acceptance is from the latest offer date in Block 20C.

d. The Point of Contact for the subject amendment is Yolanda M. Ikner at (907) 753-2553 or yolanda.m.ikner@usace.army.mil

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Nov-2012

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 W911KB-13-B-0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Nov-2012

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 1 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

27-Nov-2012

CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA

ATTN: CEPOA-CT( W911KB)

PO BOX 6898

JBER AK 99506-0898

W911KB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911KB-13-B-0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SF 30 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Project Title: Perryville Launch Ramp, Perryville Alaska

Solicitation: W911KB-12-B-0002

This Amendment provides changes to the solicitation as indicated on the continuation page of this document.

NOTICE TO BIDDERS: Please mark outside of envelope in which bid is submitted to show amendments acknowledged. Acknowledge receipt of this amendment by signing and returning a copy of SF30 with your bid.

Amend 0002

a. Construction completion date

270 days from NTP

b. The following Division 01 – General Requirements

01 19 40.00 29 Special Items (Civil Works) is substituted for the superseded Section 01 19 40.00

29 Special Items (Civil Works)

c. The following Division 31 – Earthwork

31 00 00 Earthwork has been amended

d. The following Division 35 – Waterway and Marine Construction

35 31 19 Armor Rock has been amended

e. The following sections are substituted for the superseded documents

Plans sheets

f. The following documents are added

Submittal Register

Design Analysis

Pre-Proposal Conference Meeting Minutes dated November 20, 2012

Amendment 0002 Questions and Answers

Pictures

g. The following FAR Clause is incorporated

FAR Clause52.214-29 Order of Precedence- Seal Bidding

h. Proposal Due Date

Extended to January 7, 2013 2:00p.m. Alaska Time

Bid Opening January 8, 2013 2:00p.m. Alaska Time

i. SUBMIT BIDS: To hand deliver a bid use the following address

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District

CEPOA-CT-SP (Contracting Division), Attn: Yolanda M. Ikner

2204 3 rd

Street

JBER, Alaska 99506

AMENDMENT 0002

Perryville Launch Ramp

Pre-Proposal Conference

Solicitation No. W911KB-13-B-0002

20 November 2012

Room 184

Attendee List

Contractors Organization Mike Noe Granite Petroleum Inc

Robert Noe Granite Petroleum Inc

Cory Smith Ridge Construction

Robin Sage

Gary Harris GMC Contracting

Patrick Lamay GMC Contracting

Tony Nelson Brice Environmental

Beverly Brice Environmental

Reynolds Holliman Twin Peaks

James Kelly Ryan

Government

Yolanda Ikner USACE

Dale Berry USACE

Melanie Peterson USACE

Al Arruda USACE

Nathan Epps USACE

Meeting Notes:

The purpose of the meeting was the pre-proposal conference for the Perryville Launch Ramp. A review of the requirements of solicitation was provided. Then Contractors were invited to provide any comments or questions on the solicitation and specifications that were issued on www.fbo.gov on October15, 2012 and Amendment 0001 posted November 9, 2012.

Introductions were made as each person introduced themselves with the company or organization they are from.

List of attendees is listed above.

Melanie Peterson went over the project, Perryville Launch Ramp. Yolanda Ikner reminded everyone to provide all questions asked today to during the meeting by e-mail to her at yolanda.m.ikner@usace.army.mil

To deliver proposals, please follow the instruction in Section 00 21 00 Instructions, Conditions and Notices to

Offerors and Section 00 21 00 – Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors “Offerors must mail or deliver proposals “No arrangements will be made by the Government to assist in proposal delivery. Day-Pass procedures will not be used for proposal delivery purposes nor are there proposal pick-up services. No escort services will be provided.”

The following are the minutes and questions and answers based off the questions asked during the meeting:

mailto:yolanda.m.ikner@usace.army.mil

Bid Due Date is extended to January 7, 2012. 2:00p.m. Alaska Standard Time (AST)

Bid opening has been extended. Bid Opening is January 8, 2012

Call in date and time:

January 8, 2012 at 2:00p.m.AST

Dial-In Number:

1-888-675-2535

Access Code:

1328458

Participant passcode: 4554

Bid bonds are required. Email and fax bids will be accepted at time of bid opening; however, originals will be required for the apparent low bidder after bid opening.

It is the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure all pages are received if bid is faxed or e-mailed to the Contracting

Office.

Contractor needs to ensure SAM website is current.

AMENDMENT 0002

Questions from Lakloey, Inc, 15 NOV 2012

1. FAR 52.214-29 is not incorporated into the contract document. What is the order of precedence of the documents?

FAR 52.214-29 has been incorporated into the solicitation.

2. Tech Specs Section 35.31.19 Part 3.4 Tolerances. It appears that the tolerance for rock placement elevation is 0” (no minus tolerance allowed and no plus tolerance allowed.

How is this to be measured? To what tolerance or number of significant figures is this dimension to be measured? What is the purpose of this exacting standard?

Ammended spec will allow minus 2 inch tolerance for C-Rock placed within the footprint of the planks. Otherwise tolerances are minus zero and plus six inches for each layer of material with the provision that no material protrude above the top surface of the planks.

This requires a plus or minus tolerance of 0 inches at the edges of the planks. Tolerances are necessary to ensure minimum material thickness is met and landing hazards are not created by protruding rocks.

3. Section 31.00.00 Part 3.4 calls for a vibratory compactor having 74,000 pounds or greater of centrifugal force. This is an extremely large compactor for a project with only a couple thousand cubic yards of embankment to compact. The project requirements do not require a compactor this large. Can you reduce this requirement to a more reasonable

20,000 pounds of centrifugal energy?

The language in 31 00 00 will be amended to “Place backfill adjacent to any and all types of structures. Level and uniformly compact with a minimum eight passes of a self-propelled vibratory compactor having a minimum static weight of 20,000 pounds and a minimum centrifugal force of 40,000 pounds or greater. The moisture content of the subgrade soils should be adjusted to facilitate compaction. Prepare ground surface on which backfill is to be placed in conformance with the applicable portions of paragraphs

GROUND SURFACE PREPARATION and SUBGRADE PREPARATION. Finish compaction with a minimum eight passes of a self-propelled vibratory compactor having a minimum static weight of 20,000 pounds and a minimum centrifugal force of 40,000 pounds or greater. The moisture content of the subgrade soils should be adjusted to facilitate compaction.”

4. On Sheet S-301, what does the line above most if not all of the rebar dimensions signify?

Line denotes straight bar. Note dimensions on each leg of the bend bars in detail N/S-

103.

5. Section 03.31.29 Part 1.6.1 calls for Precast plants to be certified by PCI plant certification program for Category C1 work. NPCA (National Precast Concrete

Association also has an ANSI approved plant certification program. Would a plant certified to ANSI approved standards by the NPCA be acceptable?

No, the plant must be certified by PCI for Category C1 work.

6. Armor stone from the quarry at Sandpoint, Alaska has been accepted by the Corps of

Engineers on previous projects. This material may not fully meet Tech Spec 35.31.19

Part 2.2.1.1. Particularly subpart f. Would the COE accept armor stone of similar quality to stone from the Sandpoint Quarry that has been accepted on previous COE projects?

Section 2.2.1.1 subpart f specifications required to ensure that 900 lb rock does not break apart during freeze-thaw cycles.

7. On Sheet C-102, the graphic scale on the Ramp Profile does not agree with the written scale (1” = 200’ on 22” x 34” paper size). On Sheet C-102, the written scale does not agree with the dimensions given. In both cases this is after adjusting the scale for reduced paper size. Can you clarify the horizontal distance between the MLLW elevations on the ramp to the end of the ramp? Does the elevation scale referenced on the left side of Ramp Profile detail reference MLLW?

Graphic scales and called out dimensions are correct. The vertical scale of the profile is approximately Mean Lower Low Water. No site survey or tide gaging was performed at this site, so elevations are not tied to a tidal datum. See Sheet C-101note 4 for basis of project elevations. This note will be changed in Ammendment 2 to clarify that elevations are approximations of MLLW. That said, elevation 0 occurs at the top edge of the 12 th plank from the toe of the ramp.

8. A note on detail R on S-301 refers to detail L/S-103. There is no detail L on Sheet S-103.

Revised to refer to detail N/S-103. This will be changed in Ammendment 2.

Questions from HEKO Services, Inc, 20 NOV 2012

1) The surveying requirements are a bit vague, please elaborate on what the approval process for the acceptance of a finished layer of rock prior to placing the next layer on top of it. If an RTK equipped excavator is used, can its data suffice to verify the slopes and grades? If significant wave action is encountered between when a rock layer is accepted and prior to it being covered will a resurvey be required?

Spec section 01 19 40.00 29 will be amended to include survey requirements. RTK telemetry from machinery does not meet the survey requirements; separate ground and hydro surveys will be needed to show plaRequirements for resurvey will be determined on site after damage to the project can be assessed.

2) Can we get the historical wave data used for the design of the site?

The design wave was determined as a fetch limited condition described in the Design

Analysis (attached). Note that the Design Analysis does not contain contract requirements and should be considered For Information Only.

3) In the event that bedrock is encountered will it need to be removed or will the cross section be adjusted to account for the bedrock?

Any bedrock encountered in the cut section is to remain per Section 31 00 00 Paragraph

3.5.1. Rock layers will fill to the elevations indicated on the plan. Adjustments to the section can be made over bedrock as needed for constructability.

4) If the low tides in June are missed it is likely that the planks at the end of the ramp will usually be in more than 5' of water, will a dive plan be required if we have a snorkeler in the water assisting in the setting and bolting of the planks?

Yes, snorkeling is considered a diving activity under EM 385-1-1, section 30 and will require a dive plan.

Questions from Granite Petroleum, Inc. 20 NOV 2012

What is the length of the runway next to the project, and what size aircraft can use it?

Airport data can be found on the Airport Layout Plan at:

http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdav/documents/ALP/Perryville_ALP.pdf The airport is listed as 3300 feet long, 75 feet wide. Determination of specific aircraft usage should be made by the pilot.

If the bids exceed the budget would Value Engineering proposals be evaluated?

Most likely, the funding entities would be consulted and de-scoping of the project considered. –

Check with Melanie before sending this response.

Question from Brice Environmental Services 14 NOV 2012

Reference is made to Section 05 of the specifications:

2.4 GALVANIZING

ASTM A 123/A 123M or ASTM A 153/A 153M, as applicable, galvanize after fabrication unless noted otherwise.

Per the attached (below) correspondence other galvanizing methods then the "hot dipped" one specified has been utilized in the past by the AK COE. Is this possible for this project?

Thermal spray metalizing is not an acceptable substitute for hot dip galvanizing on this project.

Please have the bidder only consider galvanizing as specified in their estimates.

Question from Brice Environmental, 15 NOV 2012

Is the ramp work within the ocean to be done in the dry or in the water?

The plan sections, DD/C-102/C301, indicates temporary excavation limits of

4:1 consistent with work being done underwater, however spec. Section 310000, 3.4, indicates all backfill is to be compacted with rollers

(likewise 3.2.1, 3.5, etc.). A cofferdam program would be very expensive and require more geotechnical information. Working in the seawater needs some other kind of performance specification then the compactor coverage.

The section below the steel frame will be changed in AM#2 to replace all subbase material with

C-Rock eliminating the need to operate compactors in the tide zone. This is expected to be in-water work performed without the use of cofferdams.

Questions from Granite Petroleum Inc., 16 NOV 2012

The Earthwork section of the contract spells out standards for suitable sub base material.

How does the government expect the contractor to quantify this for bid?

http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdav/documents/ALP/Perryville_ALP.pdf

Given that the local pit sources are not approved per a previous answered question, does the government expect the contractor to be liable for unknown sub surface conditions and soils?

Are there geotechnical reports taken on site to verify or sample the sub base materials in the ramp, road and pad areas?

Quantities of material should be determined using the plans, profiles and sections provided in the solicitation. It is expected that the local pit will not be able to produce materials that meet the requirements set forth in the specifications. This project does not designate an approved material source for the job and the Contractor is free to use any source that produces materials that meet the requirements of the job.

A geotechnical memo will be attached to Section 31 00 00 in AM#2 which characterizes the beach material. This memo describes the project site conditions.