A.07.24.AM0003_Bidder_Inquiries.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

The pupopose of this amendment is to incorporate Bidder's Inquiry summary report (see attached). Nothing follow s.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Sep-2017

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 W9123617B0014

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Aug-2017

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 is extended, X 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

13-Sep-2017

CODE

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, NORFOLK

803 FRONT STREET

NORFOLK VA 23510-1096

W91236 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

ProjNet: Logged In User Page 2 of 10 https://www.projnet.org/projnet/binKornHome/index.cfm?strKornCob=BicAdminClosedR... 9/13/2017

W9123617B0014

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:

BIDDER'S INQUIRY SUMMARY

Bid Inquiry Contracting Officers Report Closed Inquiries

Project: Ft. Eustis - Railroad Bridges 4&5 Rehabilitation Review: Solicitation W91236-17-B- 0014 (00001) (sorted by CommentID ) Displaying 30 inquiries.

Id Discipline Sheet Detail Spec 7135748 Contracting question Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO) is the PDF File adequate?

(Attachment: Questions_9-5-17.pdf) By: George Anderson; CTW; (804-725-1111). On:

Sep 05 2017. Forward request by email.

1-1 Evaluation For Information Only. Questions will be addressed separately as individual comments to follow. By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201-7254) On: Sep 06 2017

1-2 Government Response. Questions in the attachment dated 05 September 2017 will be addressed separately as individual comments to follow. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 07 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138543 Contracting Document Clarification

Listed in the solicitation under the (DRC) there are 2 Requirements for qualification to bid other than SB Set-ASide: 1.) Bidder must demonstrate experience that includes rail replacement.

2.) Bidder must meet 3 safety requirements pertaining to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in which the US Army falls under their jurisdiction and is stated as follows:

a.) Title 49 CRF Part 214 "Roadway Worker Protection" an annual base course required by all employees to complete and pass with documentation of proof, working within 50 feet of the Railroad.

b.) Title 49 CRF Part 243 "Training" which are the "Requirements" for the basic RWP c.) Title 49 CRF Part 237 "Bridge Worker Safety" which is an additional section added to the training of the basic RWP.

DC Question 1.) is it correct? that since the US armed forces, which is regulated by the FRA, shall assume that contractors or subcontractors shall be governed by Title 49 CRF Part 219 also in addition to the above, which mandates "all" contractors and subcontractors to be in compliance with Part 219 (in which the US Army falls under) by 6-12-17 and shall have in their possession an approved FRA "signed" plan, for which an approved copy shall be submitted to the owner if awarded, and shall have been in place, by the mandate if ALB was an already an existing company, established before the mandate or must have in place before, (if ALB is a "new entity") any work on the FRA controlled site is conducted, otherwise said entity shall be subject to the penalties listed in Title 49 CRF Part 219.9 "Responsibility for Compliance"

By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201-7254). On: Sep 06 2017. Forward request by http://www.projnet.org/projnet/binKornHome/index.cfm?strKornCob=BicAdminClosedR

ProjNet: Logged In User Page 3 of 10 email.

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. 49 CFR Part 219 requirements do apply; the Ft. Eustis Utility Rail

Branch does not qualify under the small railroad exception. By: Charles Sanders;

CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 07 2017

2-1 Evaluation Concurred. Concur with evaluation. JAJ By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J;

(757-201- 7254) On: Sep 08 2017

2-2 Government Response. Question #1 - 49 CFR Part 219 requirements do apply; the Ft. Eustis Utility Rail Branch does not qualify under the small railroad exception. By: MARC NGUYEN;

NAO Norfolk District;

(817-886-1028) On: Sep 08 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138547 Contracting Document Clarification

ProjNet: Logged In User Page 4 of 10

DC Question 2.) I see the AA participation goal per trade, is there an overall DBE participation goal for the project?

By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201-7254). On: Sep 06 2017. Forward request by email.

1-1 Evaluation Concurred. The overall DBE participation goal is the same as the AA participation goal per trade. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 08 2017

1-2 Government Response. The overall DBE participation goal is the same as the AA participation goal per trade. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 08 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138553 Contracting Document Clarification

DC Question 3.) With a certified "Railroad Bridge Inspector and Designer" on our team, is it posable if we were awarded the project, (which I believe is standard with Gov't projects), to submit a value engineered proposal for an alternative bridge design for review and discussion?

1-1 Evaluation For Information Only. Yes - Contract Clause 52.248-3 Value Engineering - Construction is incorporated by reference into the solicitation. By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201-7254) On: Sep 06 2017

1-2 Government Response. Yes - FAR Clause 52.248-3 Value Engineering - Construction is incorporated by reference into the solicitation. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 07 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138556 Structural Document Clarification

DC Question 4.) Is the contractor to assume that the interpreted DMT data sounding listed in the specifications and the CPT Data listed was collected along the roadway approx. 30 feet from the actual track location? And what effect does USACE feel it has on the overall outcome of the actual site conditions for the pile driving and test results required for the pilings?

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. Some of the test locations were closer to the footprint of the proposed bridge (see geotech report for details), near the wetlands area. These test results were comparable with the results of tests performed further away from the bridge up on the embankment. With piles going so deep (75-ft and 85-ft piles), the impact of the embankment fill on the strength of upper few feet of underlain material would be minimal relatively to the overall pile capacity. By: Alexander Gusev; CENAO-EC-EG Geo-Environmental Section; (7572017267) On: Sep 07 2017

2-1 Evaluation Concurred. Concur with evaluation. JAJ By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201- 7254) On: Sep 08 2017

2-2 Government Response. Answer to Question #4 - Some of the test locations were closer to the footprint of the proposed bridge (see geotech report for details), near the wetlands area. These test results were comparable with the results of tests performed further away from the bridge up on the embankment. With piles going so deep (75-ft and 85-ft piles), the impact of the embankment fill on the strength of upper few feet of underlain material would be minimal relatively to the overall pile capacity. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 08 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138559 Structural Document Clarification

DC Question 5.) Contract drawing state to cut the existing pilings at the mud line, some of the pilings are in the waterway and are under water during low tide, where is the contractor to cut the pilings off in these areas?

1-0

ProjNet: Logged In User Page 5 of 10

Evaluation Concurred. Design intention is to cut these piles off within 1' of the mud line (under water).

There is a limited amount of other underwater work required for installation of lateral bracing, as well. By:

Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 06 2017

1-1 Government Response. Design intention is to cut these piles off within 1' of the mud line (under water).

There is a limited amount of other underwater work required for installation of lateral bracing, as well. By:

MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 07 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138570 Project Management Site Clarification

While attending the site visit on 8-31-17 we were instructed that "No Questions" would be answered during this meeting (which I commend) while there a scope of work was conveyed for the project which the following clarifications need confirmed:

The solicitation references repair and replacement of 1760 TF of track between the bridges but during site visit we were told that no track was to be replaced between the bridges outside the abutment work unless Option 1 was used and the only thing the contractor was to do to the standard track was to correct a kink at the North end of bridge 4 and confirm and repair any alignment issues needing addressed.

SC Question 1.) Please confirm that no track work between the bridges is being replaced with the exception of the rail if opted?

1-1 Evaluation For Information Only. Drawing Sheet C-001 General Note 11. States, "TEST AND

CORRECT ALIGNMENT OF RAIL BETWEEN STATION 345+15 (BRIDGE 4) AND STATION 352+90

(BRIDGE 5). By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201-7254) On: Sep 06 2017

1-2 Government Response. Drawing Sheet C-001 General Note 11. States, "TEST AND CORRECT ALIGNMENT OF RAIL BETWEEN STATION 345+15 (BRIDGE 4) AND STATION 352+90 (BRIDGE 5). By:

MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 07 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138573 Project Management Site Clarification

SC Question 2.) What is the corrective measures for realigning the kink on the end of bridge 4 if option 1 is not used? (I am a certified track inspector and my observation of the kink is that when the track was constructed the proper expansion gaps were not used at the joints when laying the rail. This is causing there to be too much rail for the thermal expansion required for that amount of rail between the bridges resulting in a kink at the weakest point.) Proper correction if the rail is not replaced would be to remove the rail anchors a min. of 400 TF beyond the end of both bridges outside the work limits and loosen all the joints and reset the required thermal expansion gaps in the rail joints according to the temperature of the rail when corrected and cutting out the additional rail causing the problem.

By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201-7254). On: Sep 06 2017.

Requires Amendment.

Forward request by email.

1-1 Evaluation Concurred. Potential Scope Impact. Potential Cost Impact. The base rail unit has indicated that the kink was caused by an improperly operated excavator doing utility work next to the tracks. Neither the designer of record nor other USACE personnel were present to observe this at the time it occurred, as the damage occurred several years before this contract was planned.

I would concur that if there is an issue with the current gap size, that should be corrected if possible.

However, we might have to amend to add measurement and correction of the gaps and total rail length, to ensure that requirements is clear to the other contractors? By: Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 06 2017

1-2 Government Response. The base rail unit has indicated that the kink was caused by an improperly operated excavator doing utility work next to the tracks. Neither the designer of record nor other USACE personnel were present to observe this at the time it occurred, as the damage occurred several years before this contract was planned.

ProjNet: Logged In User Page 6 of 10

If there is an issue with the current gap size, it should be corrected. The Government will issue amendment to add measurement and correction of the gaps and total rail length, to ensure that requirements is clear.

By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 07 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138578 Structural Site Clarification

SC Question 3.) it appears we are closing the lane closest to the bridges, of the parallel roadway and utilizing the area for the construction. What is the requirements of the Base DPW to implement the MOW?

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. I'd recommend the standard closure requirements from the VDOT Virginia Work Area Protection Manual, latest editions, apply for closure and detour signage requirements. By: Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 06 2017

2-1 Evaluation For Information Only. The Base DPW (or in this case Civil Engineer Directorate) has no requirement to implement the lane closure. This is a contractor responsibility. By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201-7254) On: Sep 06 2017

2-2 Government Response. The Base DPW (or in this case Civil Engineer Directorate) has no requirement to implement the lane closure. This is a contractor responsibility. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District;

(817-886-1028) On: Sep 07 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138584 Structural Site Clarification

SC Question 4.) it appears the contractor is to install fencing in the laydown area to determine what areas the contractor may access. With a construction laydown area at the bridge location and utilizing rail access with our equipment at the bridges we would not require the area at abandoned BLDG 2602. Is the fencing a requirement or an option for the contractor?

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. Potential Cost Impact. I believe fencing should be an option - fencing required only if the contractor requires any access or use of the 2602 laydown area. That may be a big enough difference to need an amendment clarification as well. Cost impact would be a potential reduction. By:

Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 06 2017

2-1 Evaluation For Information Only. If the laydown area is not needed, then the fencing required to protect the material at that location would not be required. Material security is the requirement of the contractor at all material storage locations. By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201-7254) On: Sep 06 2017

2-2 Government Response. If the laydown area is not needed, then the fencing required to protect the material at that location would not be required. Material security is the requirement of the contractor at all material storage locations. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 07 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138587 Structural Site Clarification

SC Question 5.) it Option 1 is implemented to change out all the existing rail in the project to 115RE, who retains the used materials? If USACE is to retain what is the contractor's responsibility outside the removal at the bridge site?

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. The Government will not retain for salvage existing rail, plates, spikes and components removed as part of the replacement of rail. This material shall become property of the Contractor and shall be removed in accordance with Section 02 41 00 paragraph DISPOSITION OF MATERIAL. By: Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 08 2017

2-0 Evaluation Concurred. Concur with evaluation. JAJ By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201- 7254) On: Sep 08 2017

2-1

ProjNet: Logged In User Page 7 of 10

Government Response. Answer to SC Question #5 - The Government will not retain for salvage existing rail, plates, spikes and components removed as part of the replacement of rail. This material shall become property of the Contractor and shall be removed in accordance with Section 02 41 00 paragraph DISPOSITION OF MATERIAL. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 08 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138591 Structural C001 Drawing Clarification

DR Question 1.) Will new joint bars be 4 hole or 6 hole?

1-1 Evaluation Concurred. Recommend 6 hole joint bars if Option 1 is exercised for 115RE rail. By:

Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 06 2017 1-2 Government Response. Recommend 6 hole joint bars if Option 1 is exercised for 115RE rail. By: MARC

NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 07 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138593 Structural C001 Drawing Clarification

DR Question 2.) Will new compromise bars from 100RB to 115RE be 4 hole or 6 hole?

1-1 Evaluation Concurred. Recommend 4 hole at compromise joints, with blank joint bars drilled to match existing 100 ARA-B ends if possible. By: Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201- 7705) On: Sep 06 2017

1-2 Government Response. Recommend 4 hole at compromise joints, with blank joint bars drilled to match existing 100 ARA-B ends if possible. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 07 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138596 Structural C001 Drawing Clarification Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

DR Question 3.) Please confirm that the reference to plate punch A or B is in reference to AREMA S/S plates and is to be used only with new rail, while used plates shall be D/S?

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. Single shoulder (S/S) tie plates are acceptable if Option 1 is exercised. Tie plates for relay rail should match existing. By: john wall; CENAO-EC-EC Civil Engineering Section; ((757) 201-7648) On: Sep 07 2017

2-1 Evaluation Concurred. Concur with Evaluation. JAJ By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201- 7254) On: Sep 08 2017

2-2 Government Response. Answer to DR Question #3 - Single shoulder (S/S) tie plates are acceptable if Option 1 is exercised. Tie plates for relay rail should match existing. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 08 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138599 Structural C001 Drawing Clarification

DR Question 4.) are 7" IG ties acceptable and what species are the ties described? (mixed hardwoods of pine)

1-0 Evaluation Check and Resolve. For follow up, IG ties are probably acceptable at this location. IG are industrial grade, they're usable but not suitable quality for mainline use. This is an infrequent use spur and

ProjNet: Logged In User Page 8 of 10 is probably a typical use case for IG.

Don't have any current info on species of ties installed right now. Jack, did you have anything? By:

Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 06 2017

2-0 Evaluation Non-concurred. 7" Grade Crossties are recommended (not 7" IG ties). From the Specifications Section 34 11 00 2.8 (Wood Ties) "Species shall be Ash, Beech, Red and White Oak, Pine, Douglas Fir" By: john wall; CENAO-EC-EC Civil Engineering Section; ((757)201-7648) On: Sep 07 2017

3-0 Evaluation Concurred. Agreed. Recommended response wording: 'Provide Grade cross ties which meet the requirements of Section 34 11 00 paragraph WOOD TIES.' By: Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 08 2017

4-1 Evaluation Concurred. Concur with evaluation. JAJ By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201- 7254) On: Sep 08 2017

4-2 Government Response. Answer to DR Question #4 - 'Provide Grade cross ties which meet the requirements of Section 34 11 00 paragraph WOOD TIES. From the Specifications Section 34 11 00 2.8 (Wood Ties) "Species shall be Ash, Beech, Red and White Oak, Pine, Douglas Fir". By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 08 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138601 Structural C001 Drawing Clarification

DR Question 5.) Can the new rail be IQ?

1-0 Evaluation Check and Resolve. I've got less info on Industrial Quality rail to determine the differences.

Another check and resolve to work through with Jack. By: Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 06 2017

2-0 Evaluation Non-concurred. Only AREMA standard rail shall be allowed for new rail (not IQ). By: john wall; CENAO-EC-EC Civil Engineering Section; ((757)201-7648) On: Sep 07 2017

3-0 Evaluation Concurred. Agreed. Recommended wording: 'Rail shall be AREMA standard strength commercial grade; no industrial grade rail will be accepted.' By: Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 08 2017

4-1 Evaluation Concurred. Concur with evaluation. JAJ By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201- 7254) On: Sep 08 2017

4-2 Government Response. Answer to DR Question #5 - Rail shall be AREMA standard strength commercial grade; no industrial grade rail will be accepted. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 08 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138606 Structural C001 Drawing Clarification

DR Question 6.) How many tie plates are we to anticipate to be scrap if we reuse the 100RB?

1-1 Evaluation Check and Resolve. At a guess I would estimate 10% or less. Plates were in fairly good condition from everything I could see. However, I might not be able to see a damaged or broken plate from above. By: Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 06 2017

1-2 Government Response. Estimate 10% or less can be reused because plates were in fairly good condition By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 07 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138607 Structural C001 Drawing Clarification Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

DR Question 7.) it Option 1 is implemented to change out all the existing rail in the project to 115RE, who retains the used materials? If USACE is to retain what is the contractor's responsibility outside its initial removal at the bridge site pertaining to moving and storage out of the work area?

ProjNet: Logged In User Page 9 of 10

1-0 Evaluation Check and Resolve. Currently have a question in with base personnel on whether they want to retain this material. By: Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 06 2017

2-0 Evaluation Concurred. The Government will not retain for salvage existing rail, plates, spikes and components removed as part of the replacement of rail. This material shall become property of the Contractor and shall be removed in accordance with Section 02 41 00 paragraph DISPOSITION OF MATERIAL. By: Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 08 2017

3-1 Evaluation Concurred. Concur with evaluation. JAJ By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201- 7254) On: Sep 08 2017

3-2 Government Response. Answer to DR Question #7 - The Government will not retain for salvage existing rail, plates, spikes and components removed as part of the replacement of rail. This material shall become property of the Contractor and shall be removed in accordance with Section 02 41 00 paragraph DISPOSITION OF MATERIAL. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 08 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138610 Structural C001 Drawings Clarification Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

DR Question 8.) Gage Rods are listed in the specifications. Is the contractor to supply and gage rods and if so how many?

1-0 Evaluation Check and Resolve. There are no gage rods on this section currently. We may be able to amend and delete this requirement. Jack, thoughts? By: Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 06 2017

2-1 Evaluation Concurred. Gage rods are not required for this project. By: john wall; CENAO-EC-EC Civil Engineering Section; ((757)201-7648) On: Sep 07 2017

2-2 Government Response. Answer to Question #8 - Gage rods are not required for this project. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 08 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138613 Structural C001 Drawing Clarification Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

DR Question 9.) What is the time table speed over Bridge No. 5? On sheet C-001; Note 1; the full superelevation is shown as 4".

1-1 Evaluation For Information Only. 15mph per the previous documents we're going off of. We've designed the bridge structure itself for up to 25mph. By: Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757- 201-7705) On: Sep 06 2017

1-2 Government Response. 15mph per the previous documents we're going off of. We've designed the bridge structure itself for up to 25mph. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 07 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138615 Structural C001 Drawing Clarification Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

DR Question 10.) Only that portion of the new approach area to each bridge will require new subballast and ballast section.

Is that correct?

1-0

ProjNet: Logged In User Page 10 of 10

Evaluation For Information Only. Correct to the best of my knowledge. By: Charles Sanders; CENAO- EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 06 2017

2-1 Evaluation Concurred. That is correct. By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201-7254) On: Sep 06 2017

2-2 Government Response. DR Question #10 - Correct. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817- 886-1028) On: Sep 07 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138622 Civil C002 Drawing Clarification Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

DR Question 11.) Second paragraph under Project Description references land disturbance to include installation of new tracks. Is this only the area immediate behind the existing and new abutments and is not the track between the bridges?

1-1 Evaluation For Information Only. Only in the area behind the abutments, where ballast and subballast will be replaced or installed. By: Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 06 2017

1-2 Government Response. DR Question #11 - Only in the area behind the abutments, where ballast and subballast will be replaced or installed. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 07 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138629 Civil C002 Drawing Clarification Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

DR Question 12.) The fourth paragraph under Project Description presents that all demolition is to be completed and the site brought to rough grade prior to installation of proposed site items. May the demolition and construction of the new bridge be done simultaneously?

By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201-7254). On: Sep 06 2017.

Requires Amendment.

Forward request by email.

1-1 Evaluation Check and Resolve. There is no engineering requirement that demolition be completed before construction can begin, if the contractor is able to do a rolling demo/construction operation. In fact, this would be beneficial. Recommend we remove that requirement from the Project Description. By:

Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 06 2017

1-2 Government Response. DR Question 12 - There is no engineering requirement that demolition be completed before construction can begin, if the contractor is able to do a rolling demo/construction operation. The Government will issue an amendment to remove this requirement from the Project Description. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 07 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138633 Structural CS-100 Drawing Clarification

DR Question 13.) Is no work required between Station 345+28.82 and Station 347+75.00?

1-1 Evaluation Non-concurred. All work requirements and locations are defined in the solicitation drawings and specifications. By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201-7254) On: Sep 06 2017 1-2 Government Response. DR Question #13 - All work requirements and locations are defined in the solicitation drawings and specifications. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On:

Sep 07 2017

ProjNet: Logged In User Page 11 of 10

Current Request Status: Request Closed Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138639 Civil CS-100 Drawing Clarification Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

DR Question 14.) Just to clarify: Sheet CS 100 starts the spiral at Station 353+77.62 and Pier 11 top of rail at Station 353+81.25 is still level. Full curve elevations of top of rail begins at Pier 40.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. Superelevation begins at TS: 353+77.62. At Pier 11, the superelevation is less than 0.01 feet and thus is not shown in the Top of Rail Elevation Table. By: john wall; CENAO-EC-EC Civil Engineering Section; ((757)201-7648) On: Sep 07 2017

2-1 Evaluation Concurred. Concur with evaluation. JAJ By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201- 7254) On: Sep 08 2017

2-2 Government Response. Answer to Question 14 - Superelevation begins at TS: 353+77.62. At Pier 11, the superelevation is less than 0.01 feet and thus is not shown in the Top of Rail Elevation Table. By:

MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 08 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138644 Civil CS-102 Drawing Clarification

DR Question 15.) May existing rip rap that is to be removed be reused particularly at the south end of Bridge No. 5?

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. Remove and replace existing rip rap as needed for abutment construction and pile driving operations. By: john wall; CENAO-EC-EC Civil Engineering Section; ((757)201-7648) On: Sep 07 2017

2-1 Evaluation Concurred. Concur with evaluation. JAJ By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201- 7254) On: Sep 08 2017

2-2 Government Response. Answer to DR Question #15 - Remove and replace existing rip rap as needed for abutment construction and pile driving operations. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886- 1028) On: Sep 08 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7138647 Structural 101 Drawing Clarification Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

DR Question 16.) The longitudinal bracing chart identifies the pairs of piers where the longitudinal bracing is to be placed. The Chart Lists Piers 18-19; 21-22; 27-28; 30-31 (and others) but on the profile shown above in the schematic it shows 17-18; 20-21; 26-27; and 29-30. Which is correct?

1-1 Evaluation Concurred. If there is a conflict between the chart and the drawn elevation, the chart has the correct information included. By: Charles Sanders; CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201-7705) On: Sep 06 2017

1-2 Government Response. DR Question #16 - If there is a conflict between the chart and the drawn elevation, the chart has the correct information included. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817- 886-1028) On: Sep 07 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7143049 Materials 06 13 33

Would the USACE be specific as to the Grade of the lumber to be used for the construction of Bridge 4 & 5. This is very important in order to provide the correct pricing of the lumber materials.

By: Geoffrey Spafford; Precon Marine, Inc.; (757-545-4400). On: Sep 08 2017. Forward request by

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. Provide Southern Pine or Douglas Fir in accordance with Section 06 13 33 paragraph MATERIALS. Required material strengths are as stated on drawing S-101, Design and Construction Notes 3 and 4.

Basis of design is Select Structural Southern Pine (SPIB Grading Rules). No. 1 Dense Southern Pine, or No. 1 Dense or Select Structural Douglas Fir (WCLIB, WWPA, NLGA Grading Rules) also provide strength values which meet the requirement. By: Charles Sanders;

CENAO-EC-ES Structural Section; (757-201- 7705) On: Sep 08 2017

2-1 Evaluation Concurred. Concur with evaluation. JAJ By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J;

(757-201- 7254) On: Sep 08 2017

2-2 Government Response. Provide Southern Pine or Douglas Fir in accordance with Section 06 13 33 paragraph MATERIALS. Required material strengths are as stated on drawing S-101, Design and Construction Notes 3 and 4.

Basis of design is Select Structural Southern Pine (SPIB Grading Rules). No. 1 Dense Southern Pine, or No. 1 Dense or Select Structural Douglas Fir (WCLIB, WWPA, NLGA Grading Rules) also provide strength values which meet the requirement. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886-1028) On: Sep 08 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7143801 Contracting 52.236.1 POW by the contractor Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Page 35 of 45, Section FAR 52.236-1 has a 51 present total for Performance of Work (POW) this is a small business set-a-side and the Pile Driving Work required on this project would be hard to accomplish without a Large Business subcontractor to drive the piling since there is no Railroad SB Pile Driving Contractors. if a Small Business is to meet these requirements it will entail a lot of collusion between the contractors causing a spike in cost and efficiency. would the contracting group consider lowering the GC participation to 25%?

By: George Anderson; CTW; (804-725-1111). On: Sep 08 2017. Forward request by email.

1-1 Evaluation Concurred. Amendment #2 issued on 8 September addressed this concern and lowered the GC participation to 25%. By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201-7254) On: Sep 11 2017

1-2 Government Response. Amendment #2 issued on 8 September addressed this concern and lowered the GC participation to 25%. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817-886- 1028) On: Sep 11 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7146775 Operations CS401

Would the USACE consider the closure of both North & Southbound traffic as opposed to just the North Bound Lane in the construction areas of Bridge #4 & 5?

By: Geoffrey Spafford; Precon Marine, Inc.; (757-545-4400). On: Sep 11 2017. Forward request by

1-1 Evaluation Non-concurred. The installation must maintain one lane of traffic open on

Harrison Road adjacent to the bridges. By: Jonathan Jones; CENAO-PM-J; (757-201- 7254) On: Sep 11 2017

1-2 Government Response. The installation must maintain one lane of traffic open on Harrison Road adjacent to the bridges. By: MARC NGUYEN; NAO Norfolk District; (817- 886-1028) On: Sep 12 2017 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

Report Complete

(End of Summary of Changes)

Report Complete