Projnet_Q A.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED\\FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Bid Inquiry Contractor Report All Inquiries

Project: Underwood Creek, Wauwatosa, WI - CAP 206 Review: Underwood Creek (00001) (sorted by CommentID ) Displaying 36 inquiries.

Id Discipline Sheet Detail Spec 6624600 Civil 01 22 00 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

1. Section 01 22 00 Measurement & Payment pg. 6 Bit item 0017 Stone & Vegetation Placement Class states meeting to last no more than 1 hour. Spec section 35 31 19 Stone material and placement pg. 15 states each class is 4 hrs long. Please clarify class duration so we can quantify man hours required.

On: Aug 05 2016.

Government Response. . There is a total of two (2) classes. Each class is estimated to be one (1) hour in duration. Changes were reflected in amendment 0001. On: Aug 18 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6624643 Civil 31 10 00 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Can clearing operations be performed during low flow conditions?

On: Aug 05 2016.

Government Response. . Yes, Clearing operations can be performed during low flow conditions. On: Aug 18 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6624656 Civil 35 31 19 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Can existing riprap that is located along various locations along the creek be utilized in the stream stone layer in order to eliminate the costs associated with exporting the existing riprap?

On: Aug 05 2016.

Government Response. . The existing riprap can only be reused if the requirements of Specification Section 35 31 19 are met. On: Aug 12 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6624661 Civil 03 11 13 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Is a precast box culvert an acceptable alternate to a cast in place box culvert at 103rd St.?

On: Aug 05 2016.

Government Response. . Per spec section 02553 MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE STRUCTURES found in the "103rd Street Outfall Plans and Specifications.zip" file, "At the Contractor's option, miscellaneous concrete structures may be constructed of cast-in place concrete or precast units." On: Aug 10 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6624666 Civil 01 22 00 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

103rd St. outfall plans and specs on website – specs only, no plan set included. Please add plans.

Page 1 of 9ProjNet: Logged In User

8/23/2016https://www.projnet.org/projnet/binKornHome/index.cfm?strKornCob=BicPublicReportAl...

On: Aug 05 2016.

Government Response. . Plans will be added. On: Aug 10 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6624670 Civil 01 22 00 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Plans posted for the 104th St culvert – the plans posted are plans for the City of Wauwatosa UWM Innovation Park Improvements which is located between Swan Blvd and Watertown Plank Road. These plans do not contain anything in regards to the 104th St culvert on this project. I believe that maybe the wrong project plans were posted to the website. Please review and clarify.

On: Aug 05 2016.

Government Response. . See files located in the "104th Street GIA Files Microsation.zip" which is located in "104th Street References.zip". Additional as-built drawings will be provided via amendment. On:

Aug 11 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6624675 Civil CE506 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Reviewing the plans, it appears that Sta 2+50 to 3+00 is the only section of the project that has multiple FES Layers.

Is this correct? Please clarify.

On: Aug 05 2016.

Government Response. . That is correct. Sta 2+50 to 3+00 is the only section of the project that has multiple FES layers. On: Aug 12 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6624677 Civil CE506 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Details for the multiple FES Layers do not indicate the FES Layer thickness. Please clarify FES layer thickness.

On: Aug 05 2016.

Government Response. . The FES lift thickness is 1.33 feet per lift. The change in CE506 will be reflected in a forthcoming amendment. On: Aug 12 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6624681 Civil 35 31 19 2.3 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

10. Section 35 31 19 2.3 Field Stone - "Angular rip rap and limestone product are not acceptable." Since local gravel pit sources are up to 70% or more dolomitic, would these not be acceptable? If so, does this only apply to the field stone or all of the materials (A & C, B, D and Pit Run stone?)

On: Aug 05 2016.

Government Response. . Local dolomitic material will be acceptable for field stone; for all other material, reference specification section 35 31 19 parts 2.2.1.2, 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.3.2. Amendment 0002 forthcoming.

On: Aug 18 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6624683 Civil 35 31 19 2.3 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

If all the stone materials are from one source, will the quality testing done on one particular size be considered satisfactory for all sizes?

Page 2 of 9ProjNet: Logged In User

On: Aug 05 2016.

Government Response. . Yes, it will be considered satisfactory. On: Aug 18 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6625776 Civil CE 101-104 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Would we be able to get AutoCAD files showing all the proposed linework, retaining walls, sheeting walls, paths, culverts, alignments, etc.? Would we also be able be able to get an AutoCAD file with all the existing linework and surface files?

On: Aug 08 2016.

Government Response. . AutoCAD files cannot be provided. The required surface has been provided in .dtm and .xml formats. Microstation files will be provided to the awarded contractor. On: Aug 10 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6625927 Civil 02 41 00 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO) the existing drop structures that have to be removed are constructed with steel sheeting and concrete. is it acceptable to cut the existing sheeting off at subgrade in lieu of pulling the entire sheet(s)? Please clarify.

On: Aug 08 2016.

Government Response. . A note will be added to sheet CD101 to indicate, "SHEET PILE DROP

STRUCTURE REMOVAL IS REQUIRED UP TO 3 FEET BELOW FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION. FULL

EXTRACTION OF THE SSP IS NOT REQUIRED." An amendment is forthcoming. On: Aug 11 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6626063 Biology-Ecology n/a n/a n/a Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Can you post the list of interested parties that attended the pre-bid site meeting?

On: Aug 08 2016.

Government Response. . The list has been posted to FBO. On: Aug 12 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6626462 Civil 41 31 16 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Assuming that sheet piling gets installed on either side of pool #1 (as shown on plan sheet CE104), Does the piling get a concrete cap? Please Clarify.

On: Aug 08 2016.

Government Response. . As shown on the cross section on CE303, no concrete cap is required on the SSP at pool #1. On: Aug 10 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6626467 Civil 31 41 16 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Plan sheet CE104 indicate new sheet piling on either side of Pool #1 (just below the RR Bridge). Plan sheet CG109 Proposed Contours does not indicate any sheet piling. please clarify as to whether or not we have to install sheet piling.

On: Aug 08 2016.

Page 3 of 9ProjNet: Logged In User

Government Response. . Sheet piling is required as shown o CE104 and on the cross section on CE303. Sheets CG102 through CG109 are for proposed contours only. Walls were intentionally not shown on those plans for clarity. On: Aug 10 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6626483 Civil 3/CE502 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Detail 3 on sht. CE502 indicates that a concrete spillway is to be installed between the modular block wall and the steel sheet pile wall where a 12" CMP is penetrating the modular block wall.

Plan sheet CU101 indicates 10 different drain pipes and CMP culverts that will penetrate the modular block wall. Is detail 3/CE502 applicable to all pipes and/or culverts that penetrate the modular block walls? Please Clarify.

On: Aug 08 2016.

Government Response. . Detail 3 only applies at the location it is called out on sheet CG202. On: Aug 10 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6626531 Civil 05 50 04 metal handrailing Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO) the metal handrailing is incidental to the project. Plan shts. CG201 - CG204 indicates handrail is to be installed behind the North modular block wall and also on part of the steel sheet pile wall. Plan shts CE301 cross sections indicates handrail to be installed on both the north and south sheet pile walls and behind the north modular block walls. Could you please provide a plan view that indicates all the locations where you want the handrail installed or a total length of handrail to include in our bid. The way it is presented now does not provide enough data to accurately quantify the anticipated handrail to be included. Please Clarify.

On: Aug 08 2016.

Government Response. . All Required handrail is shown on the wall elevations on sheets CG201- CG203. Cross section CE301 will be revised to reflect this and issued in a forthcoming amendment. On:

Aug 10 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6627238 Civil 32 32 23 Segmental Block Retaining Walls

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Section 32 32 23 pg. 14 3.3.1 Aggregate Base Leveling Pad indicates that the leveling pad is aggregate. Plan sht.

CE301 indicates the leveling pad is concrete. Please clarify which type of material the leveling pad for the modular block retaining walls is to be construct of.

On: Aug 09 2016.

Government Response. . An aggregate base leveling pad is required. CE301 will be updated to reflect this in a forthcoming amendment. On: Aug 10 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6627241 Civil CE303 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Plan sht. CE303 shows a detail for Sta. 43+07 - 43+60 Required pool section between the drop structure and downstream of the railroad bridge. The detail note says the stone layer is to be fill with grout. Have not been able to find a spec for the grout. Please clarify.

On: Aug 09 2016.

Government Response. . Spec Section 35 31 19 will be amended to include grout requirements. On:

Aug 10 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Page 4 of 9ProjNet: Logged In User

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6629143 Civil 31 00 00 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

There appears to be a significant quantity of temporary shoring (approx. 25,000 sf) necessary to retain the soil from adjacent properties in order to excavate for the installation of the SRW. Under what conditions can the temporary shoring be left in place following the completion of work? typical practice is to cut the shoring 2 FT below grade.

On: Aug 10 2016.

Government Response. . Temporary shoring may be left in place or removed. All temporary shoring left in place must be cut off a minimum two(2) feet below grade. On: Aug 12 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6629632 Civil 0014 104th St Culverts Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Could the Governing agency for the existing 104th St culvert provide AS Built (Record Drawings) of the existing culvert.

On: Aug 10 2016.

Government Response. . Additional as-built drawings will be provided via amendment. On: Aug 11 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6633161 Civil 52.228-1 BID GUARANTEE Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Is there a specific bid bond form for this project, or is a standard bid bond form acceptable?

On: Aug 12 2016.

Government Response. . Standard Form (SF)24 is the acceptable form. The form can be downloaded at http://www.gsa.gov. On: Aug 12 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6633319 Civil 01 22 00 1.3.5 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Bid item 0005 Disposal of subgrade material. Is this bid item apply to the disposal of excess spoils generated from items such as the removal of the MIS sewer, modular block wall excavation, etc? Please clarify.

On: Aug 12 2016.

Government Response. . Yes, bid item 0005 disposal of subgrade material applies to the disposal of excess spoils generated from items such as the removal of the MIS sewer and modular block wall excavation. On: Aug 18 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6635619 Natural Resources CG110 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

The legend on Sheets CG110 - CG113 show to different hatchings for "Surface Fabric". Is there any difference in these areas?

On: Aug 15 2016.

Government Response. . The hatch nearest the stream and covering the floodplain just a couple of feet up the slope represents an area where both the "nonwoven coir fabric" and "woven coir fabric", as specified in section 31 05 19.10, should be used. Further up the slope, the hatching is "nonwoven coir fabric" only. On:

Aug 18 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Page 5 of 9ProjNet: Logged In User

6635634 Natural Resources 31 32 11 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Section 31 32 11 Paragraph 2.4 states "erosion control blanket products will be selected from the Wisconsin DOT prequalified Product Acceptability List (PAL)". Will USACE at least provide a Class and Type required (i.e. Class II, Type B) since it is assumed USACE has a better understanding of flow and erosion models?

On: Aug 15 2016.

Government Response. . The erosion control blanket products must be the same as those specified for "non-woven coir fabric" and "woven coir fabric". Reference Section 31 05 19.10. On: Aug 18 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6636132 Civil CD101 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Removal of the abandoned MIS 39x30 inch sewer - Are we to remove this sewer only to the extent that conflicts with the Proposed Steel Sheet Piling Wall installation? Please clarify.

On: Aug 15 2016.

Government Response. . Remove the abandoned 39"x30" sewer to the extent shown on CD101. Start and end points for demolition are shown on the Required Demolition Plan. On: Aug 18 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6638425 Environmental WDNR Exemption Letter Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

The State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) letter dated March 25, 2016 addressed to Ms.

Rebecca Specht, Senior Project Manager, Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District (MMSD) and Mr. David Scherez, SWP Properties, LLC and its accompanying Conditional Low Hazardous Waste Grant Exemption indicates the following: Page 6 of the entire document, Former Lakefield Sand and Gravel Site, 2., states; "This exemption shall be limited to the disposal of no more than 40,000 cubic yards of excess soils and dredged material from Underwood Creek unless approval by the department".

The Bid Schedule, Item 005 – Disposal of Subgrade Material indicates that 52,600 cubic yards (CY) of material are to be excavated and disposed at Former Lakefield Sand and Gravel Site property.

•Is it the contractors responsibility to find a suitable disposal location for the additional 12,600 cubic yards (52,600 CY – 40,000 CY = 12,600 CY) or can MMSD assure that an approval for the additional 12,600 will be granted by the WDNR at the Former Lakefield Sand and Gravel Site?

•In addition, can you please provide a cost for what the dump fee, per CY or tipping fee – per load will be for the dredged material at the Former Lakeside Sand and Gravel Site?

On: Aug 17 2016.

Government Response. . Changes and clarifications will be addressed in forthcoming amendment 0002 (01 99 90 Exhibit A). On: Aug 18 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6639255 Civil 31 00 00 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

1. Page 10 of Section 31 00 00 of Addenda 1 documents states that "Unacceptable material delivered to the SWP site will be removed and properly disposed of at the cost of the contractor". What if soil characteristics that are encountered are different than those which represented in the plans and determined in the Wisconsin DNR Soils Disposal Agreement and the material needs to be commercially landfilled rather than qualifying for the low hazard waste grant of exemption; will the Army COE pay for the additional expenses related to landfilling the material as extra work to the contract?

On: Aug 17 2016.

Government Response. . We do not anticipate any soil characteristics different than those which are represented in the plans and determined in the Wisconsin DNR Soils Disposal Agreement. However, reference FAR clause 52.236-2 Differing Site Conditions. On: Aug 18 2016

Page 6 of 9ProjNet: Logged In User

Current Request Status: Request Closed

6639261 Civil 31 00 00 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

2. Page 9 of Section 31 00 00 of Addenda 1 states the contractor is to pay $14.50 / cy for tipping at the Lakefield Sand and Gravel site. Please confirm that contractors do not need to perform any erosion control, sweeping, maintenance of access, and material placement at the Lake Front Sand and Gravel Site since a tipping fee is being paid. Additionally, please confirm that the access at Lake Front Sand and Gravel will be properly maintained in order to provide for an efficient and undisturbed flow of trucks.

On: Aug 17 2016.

Government Response. . The contractor does not have to perform any erosion control, sweeping, maintenance of access, and material placement at the Lake Field Sand and Gravel Site since a tipping fee is being paid. Forthcoming amendment 0002 changes the tipping fee to $14.25. Access to Lake Field Sand and Gravel Site is clarified in forthcoming amendment 0002. Reference attachments "01 99 90 Soil Disposal Agreement" and "01 99 90 Exhibit A" On: Aug 19 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6639307 Civil Bid Form & WDNR Exemption Letter Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Bid Item 0018 – Soil Disposal Oversight. What does this "oversight" consist of?

Bid Item 0005 – Disposal of Subgrade Material. What does this consist of? Simply transportation and disposal? Who is responsible for the final grading, and compacting at the Former Lakefield Sand and Gravel Site?

The State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) letter dated March 25, 2016 addressed to Ms. Rebecca Specht, Senior Project Manager, Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District (MMSD) and Mr. David Scherez, SWP Properties, LLC and its accompanying Conditional Low Hazardous Waste Grant Exemption indicates the following: Page 4 of the entire document, Former Lakefield Sand and Gravel Site, 8.b, states; "Surface protection by soil cover and vegetation at the disposal site is proposed to prevent.......". Who is responsible for installing the "soil cover and vegetation" at this site?

On: Aug 17 2016.

Government Response. . Reference specification section 31 00 00 paragraph 3.3.2 for disposal of subgrade material (Bid Item 0005) and Oversight requirements (Bid item 0018).

The contractor will not be responsible for final grading and compacting at the Lakefield Sand and Gravel Site. The contractor is not responsible for installing the soil cover and vegetation at the site. On: Aug 23 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6640795 Civil All All Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Is this project tax exempt?

On: Aug 18 2016.

Government Response. . Contractors should include all applicable cost for State and local taxes in their submission. Reference FAR clause 52.229-3 Federal, State, and Local Taxes. On: Aug 19 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6640815 Biology-Ecology Section 32 92 19 - Planting and Seeding

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

On page 6, under 2.2.3 Seed Mix Species and Seed Rates, it says "seed rate shall be provided in pounds per acre and ounces per 1000 square feet." In the seed mix tables, it only lists lbs/acre as a heading. My thought was that the lbs/acre was for the grasses and the oz/sq ft was for the sedges/rushes/forbs. This would make sense in terms of

Page 7 of 9ProjNet: Logged In User how much seed is contained in an oz or lb for the grasses vs. sedges/rushes/forbs. Am I correct in this interpretation?

On: Aug 18 2016.

Government Response. . The seeding tables list the mix in pounds for all species. This is the uncorrected total poundage for each species, before the adjustment is made per the formula provided to meet the requirement for 100% Pure Live Seed (PLS). This is done to ensure that the quantity of seed required will be viable. For instance, if 1 pound of a species is required and it has a purity of 100% and a germination rate of 50%, then two pounds must be provided. In those two pounds, one pound of viable seed will be present.

For each seed mix, once all of the corrections are made based on purity and germination, the total poundage per acre will likely increase as seed is added for each species to bring them up to 100% PLS.

Once all species are provided for a specific mix, a total weight of the seed can be calculated.

This is the weight that must be calculated in pounds per acre and pounds per 1000 square feet. On: Aug 18 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6641108 Civil W911XK-16-B-0012 pg.44

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

The contract solicitation specifies that the contract work has to be completed within 730 calendar of the notice to proceed. Furthermore, the contract documents specify the number of adverse weather days to include in the project schedule and a note on sheet CD101 restricts in stream disturbances to a maximum of 200 linear feet at any one time. Local noise ordnances prevent working a second or third shift. Given these constraints, our analysis shows there is not enough time to complete this project within the allotted contract time. We respectably request that the Army COE add additional time to the contract or allow more than 200 LF of stream channel to be exposed at any one time.

On: Aug 18 2016.

Government Response. . The contract period of performance end date will be changed from 730 calendar days to one thousand (1,000) calendar days. The change will be reflected in the forthcoming amendment 0002. On: Aug 19 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6641242 Civil CD101 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO) on 8/15/16 we asked a question about the MIS Storm Sewer Removal (see 663132). We asked if we were to remove the MIS Storm sewer to the extent that it interferes with the proposed sheet pile wall. Your reply was "Remove the abandoned MIS 39x30 sewer to the extent shown on CD101. Start and end points for demolition are shown on the required Demolition Plan."

The note on CD101 says"abandoned 39x39 MIS(Sewer) 680feet to be Removed."

The reference points for the removal are at stations 14+00 and 24+44. This amounts to 1044 LF of MIS sewer removal.

So I ask the question, Are we to remove 1044 LF, 680 LF, or just the portion of the ABANDONED MIS sewer that conflicts with the installation of the Steel Sheet Pile Wall. Please Clarify.

On: Aug 18 2016.

Government Response. . Removal of the existing abandoned 39"x30" MIS Storm Sewer shall begin as indicated on sheet CD101 of the plans (e.g. approximately station 14+00) and end 60 feet north of existing manhole at approximate channel station 24+44. Total length of existing abandoned 39"x30" MIS Storm Sewer removal is approximately 1,100 lineal feet including 2 manhole structures.

An amendment is forthcoming to clarify contract documents. On: Aug 19 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6642340 Civil CD101 33 40 00

Page 8 of 9ProjNet: Logged In User

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Plan Sht. CD101 - 104th St - says "existing 2-36"PVC to remain". In reality, they are 2-24" HDPE culvert pipes protruding through the existing concrete channel slope.

Spec section 33 40 00 1.4.4 104th St Outfall Site Specific Design Requirements states "The culvert shall extend to the SSP wall. All outfall structure components shall be made of reinforced concrete (Precast or Cast in Place). The outlet pipe culvert size shall match the existing sanitary sewer pipe. No restrictions to flow are permitted. The culvert shall be an open structure. No fully enclosed culvert pipe will be permitted within the project limits."

Please clarify if the existing 24" HDPE Culverts can remain and we must design and build some type of outlet structure at the SSP, or do we have to remove and replace the existing 24" culverts with 36" culverts, or are we required to extend the 7'x8' box culvert to the SSP and design and build some type of endwall section at the proposed SSP.

On: Aug 19 2016.

Government Response. . It is required to extend the 7'x8' box culvert to the SSP and design and build an endwall section at the proposed SSP. The existing HDPE shall be removed. Changes reflected in forthcoming amendment 0003. On: Aug 23 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

6642676 Contracting 31 41 16 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Metal sheet piling specification 314116 calls for hot-rolled steel sections. Would a cold-rolled sheet meeting the required section modulus be allowed?

On: Aug 19 2016.

Government Response. . Cold-rolled steel sheet piling is not permitted as outlined in spec section 31 41

16. On: Aug 23 2016 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

Report Complete

UNCLASSIFIED\\FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Patent 11/892,984 ProjNet property of ERDC since 2004.

Page 9 of 9ProjNet: Logged In User