20240730_RFI 30-39_604.pdf

RFI Response – Upgrade of Central Power Plant 604.

31 July 2024

John Duncombe/Ranee Perricone – PM

RFI: Upgrade of Central Power Plant 604.

Questions:

30. In regard to RFI Q/A # 14, it is understood that Dewberry has provided this information. Per the spec definition "The PQP and the asbestos contractor must not have an employee/employer relationship or financial relationship which could constitute a conflict of interest. The PQP must be a first-tier subcontractor." This is dictating that the firm overseeing the abatement contractor must write up the work plan that the abatement contractor must follow and does not allow the abatement contractor to construct their plan during the bid process and then make sure it is executed at time of performance. How is the abatement contractor to responsibly bid the project if their means and methods are to be dictated by someone else later down the road and the specific approach for the PQP's plan is not divulged prior to bid. If the project is being performed in accordance with ICR-56 then would it not make sense to allow the properly certified personnel from the abatement firm to construct the work plan in accordance with ICR-56 then have the PQP sign off on it upon their review?

Response: It is acceptable for the NYSDOH Certified Abatement Designer from the abatement firm to construct the work plan in accordance with ICR-56 and then have the PQP sign off on it upon their review.

31. In regard to RFI Q/A #16, the answer did not address the conflict of interest of the site-safety officer being hired on a separate contract as the monitoring firm even though they are from the same company. Will it be acceptable for the site-safety officer to oversee its own company for the monitoring of abatement work, or would this be prohibited and constituted as a conflict of interest? If a single firm is able to have both contracts, or have both duties combined into one contract, does that not cause a conflict of interest?

Response: The Site Safety Officer cannot be hired by or have any financial connection with the firm doing the abatement.

32. Section 1.5 c. Windborne Debris Impact Resistance Performance: (1) references exterior face sheets other than what is called out in section 2.4.2 Face Sheets c 2.

Please clarify which is to be used.

Reference: 08 63 73

Manufacturer recommendation is to utilize the face sheet specified at 2.4.2 Face Sheets c2. Further to this recommendation if the face sheet specified in section 1.5 c is to be utilized the following requirements are not attainable and will result in exceptions see

1.8 Warranty a. b. 2.4 components 2.4.2 Face Sheets c2 and 2.4 d. Appearance (1) Exterior Face Sheet.

Response: Regarding spec section 08 63 73, the intent is to utilize the face sheets specified at 2.4.2 Face Sheets c2.

33. In the “Notes” section, in note 2, can you confirm what this part is - “WS-1/2 IN LEAD-LAG

REDUNDANT CONFIGURATION”

Response: It is presumed this question references the water softener schedule on drawing M-603. The intent is for a twin alternating system. Only one softener tank operates at a time with the second tank in standby for use during regeneration or in the event of a service outage of the other tank.

34. In note 4, there is a callout for a side access manway. A manway is generally 11x15 or larger. The written specification says 4x6 in paragraph 2.2.2. Can you please confirm if that is the right size.

Response: It is presumed this question references the water softener schedule on drawing M-603 and specification 22 31 00. A manway (11 x 15 min.) shall be located on the softener vessel such that the vessel can be serviced given the available space and field conditions. A side access manway for servicing the bed inside the tank was specified as the design basis since overhead clearance is limited in the location where they will be installed. The available overhead clearance to the mezzanine above the softeners is approximately 9’ - 6”. The 4x6 handhole mentioned in specification 22 31 00 2.2.2 is intended for accessing the lower side shell.

35. In note 4 they also mention a relief valve on each tank. This was not quoted. Also, we are having a problem staying under 96” so adding a relief valve at the top is going to push us over.

Response: It is presumed this question references the water softener schedule on drawing M-603. A relief valve is required for each tank. The total height to the top of the softener tanks (with legs) was specified as 96” maximum to provide reasonable clearance between the tank and structure above and is not inclusive of the relief valve.

The relief valve may project above this height if installed after the water softener is installed in place and remains serviceable within the overhead clearance constraints (see response to #34 above). Alternately, a side relief valve may be used.

36. For lower distribution, Paragraph 2.2.3 says polyvinyl chloride is acceptable but also talks about SS strainer heads. Please confirm which one to use.

Response: It is presumed this question references specification 22 31 00. Lower distribution headers and laterals may be of either red brass or PVC. Strainers/strainer heads may be of PVC, stainless steel or another suitable material as long as it is compatible with the header-lateral system materials.

37. In 2.2.4 there is various grades of gravel for the under bedding. The manufacturers standard design is one grade that covers the laterals. It is a #20 flint product. Will this be acceptable?

Response: It is presumed this question references specification 22 31 00. #20 flint gravel (irregularly shaped stone between 1/8” – 1/4”) is an acceptable material for the gravel bed.

38. In 2.3.1 there is a callout for brine tanks made of steel or fiberglass. Manufacturer makes the tank of HDPE. Is it acceptable?

Response: It is presumed this question references specification 22 31 00. HDPE (high-density polyethylene) is an acceptable material for the brine tank.

39. The side shell of the tank is 60”. Each 54” diameter ASME tank head is 15.5” so overall height for just the tank and heads is 91”. After leaving 3” under the tank plus whatever the 1” coupling sticks out, we are at about 95”. The top spud sticks out a little so we have less than 1” at the top of tank. The manufacturer is concerned about the placement of the relief valve. Please advise.

Response: It is presumed this question references specification the water softener WS- 1/2. See response to question #35 above.