W912DR23Q0021 RFQ Amendment 02.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 purpose of this amendment is to provide anu pdated response to questions submitted by firms. See "Sumary of Changes" for details

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-May-2023

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 W912DR23Q0021

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Mar-2023

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 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

10-May-2023

CODE

USACE, BALTIMORE

2 HOPKINS PLAZA

BALTIMORE MD 21201

W912DR 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DR23Q0021

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:

QUESTIONS FOR AMENDMENT 0002

Updated Questions and Responses for FJS Emergency Gate Replacement Spec section 09 97 02, paragraph 1.4.2 states a SSPC QP3 paint facility is required. Would an SSPC QP2 qualified painter be accepted so long as all QC requirements are followed?

No, the painting contractor must hold certification in accordance with AISC 420-10 or SSPC-QP3. QP2 is a certification standard for removing hazardous paint.

Paint Specification Section 09 97 02 has a number of environmental, health, and safety submittals which are generally not required when shop painting is required. Will the owner consider waiving these submittals which include Certified EHS professional certificate, medical surveillance plan/reports, air monitoring plan/report, safety plan, environmental plan, etc.?

Work performed in a painting or fabrication shop off USACE property or leased lands, will not require an

Accident Prevention Plan or environmental, health, and safety submittals.

Please clarify if the government will operate the onsite crane of if the contractor will be authorized to operate the crane. If the contractor is authorized to operate the crane, are any qualifications required.

Responsibility for crane operation will be discussed between the Government and the Contractor during development of the Lift Plan and is highly dependent on the Contractor’s proposed methods of rigging, lifting, and loading. The Government will perform crane operations within the normal operations of the project, while the Contractor will be required to perform operations deemed outside the normal operations of the project.

Contractor employees responsible for crane operations must have been trained in overhead crane safety covering OSHA/ASME B30. The Government will provide site specific training for operation of the government furnished crane.

Can as-builts of the concrete structure be provided?

Yes. Concrete and reinforcement drawings are available and will be provided at request.

Notes 4.1 and 4.2 on S-001 states that as-builts are for reference only and contractor is responsible for ensuring bulkhead will fit and seal as intended. Please confirm if the existing bulkhead fits and seals as intended.

Yes, the existing emergency gate fits and seals as intended. However, if desired the Contractor may be permitted to witness a fit and seal test prior to measuring the existing gate for dimension.

Spec section 35 20 14, paragraph 3.3 states the contractor is to ensure that the gate seats uniformly.

Is this a visual inspection from the crane platform or will there be inspections required with in confined spaces?

This will require visual inspection of the gate from within the conduit to ensure that the gate is seated properly and seals adequately. Access to the wet wells and outlet tunnel will require permit required confined space procedures.

Are there any leakage tests that are required to be performed to determine if the gate seats uniformly? If so, what quantity of allowable leakage is acceptable?

After the new emergency gate is seated the service gate can be raised, if there is no significant flow of water from the outlet the gate may then be inspected by walking up the conduit. The Specifications require the gate to be tested three times, the gate should be tested at least once in each slot. Acceptable leakage will be determined in accordance with AWWA C561, which allows leakage of 0.1 gallons per minute, per foot of perimeter of the gate.

Please confirm the contractor is not required to perform remedial work to the surfaces that the bulkhead seals against.

Remedial work to the existing emergency gate slots and guides is currently outside the scope of this contract.

Note 6.5 on S-001 states the bulkhead is to be transported and offloaded at a location specified by the contracting officer after onsite testing. Won’t the bulkhead be left in the tower? If not, will the storage location be onsite?

The new emergency gate will be stored in 1 of 2 approved locations at the intake tower as directed by the head dam operator

What are the liquidated damages for this contract?

Still being calculated

Will the lifting beam require a load test/certification from third party?

No, load testing can be performed at the fabricator’s shop with 125% of the posted load and inspection.

Would a one week bid extension be granted?

Not at this time

Reference Sheet S-503, View 2, Wheel. The drawing and the specification seem to be contradictory.

The material callout is carbon steel and the drawing indicates that the tread crown is to be hardened:

But the spec says there’s a stainless steel overlay (like the axle hub):

But there is no indication of stainless steel type – martensitic (400 series) can be hardened, while austenitic (300 series) cannot.

If there’s an overlay, please indicate thickness and material.

Level of hardness is also not indicated; if “R=16’ “ is supposed to indicate hardness, it’s one I’ve never seen before, please clarify.

o The specification section for the wheel (35 20 14, section 2.2.2) is incorrect. The wheels should not have a stainless steel overlay. (the axles do have a stainless steel overlay) o The wheels are to be hardened as specified by ASTM A504 Class C.

o o R=16’ refers to the radius of the crown of the wheel tread

MDS asks the USACE if all submittals in section 09 97 02 are necessary since no on site blasting or coating will be performed. All blasting and coating will be done at a certified shop with certified applicators, all certifications will be submitted. Work performed in a painting or fabrication shop off USACE property or leased lands, will not require an Accident Prevention Plan or environmental, health, and safety submittals.

MDS asks to remove the following submittals from section 01 35 26: 1.3 Dive Operations Plan (no diving operations will be taking place on this project) Section 01 35 26 will remain in the specifications; however, a Dive Operations Plan will only be required if the Contractor intends to dive as part of their work plan.

MDS would like to ask the USACE if there is a known or approximate weight for the emergency gate as well as the leaf gates. The leaf gates are approximately 4,500 lbs. each for the 7 full gates and 2,500 lbs.

for the 1 half gate. The emergency gate is approximately 11,900 lbs.

MDS would like to ask if the USACE could provide a measurement of how much upward clearance remains on the crane when the existing emergency gate is hoisted into the top position where it is free of the channel.

I apologize if that is confusing, in hopes of clarifying I will ask the same question a different way, with the existing emergency gate in the raised position where it is out of the track and clear of the floor grating, how much further can the crane move upwards? With the current lifting beam and rigging, the height above the lifting beam when the gate is clear of the floor is around 1 foot.

What is the material for the roller gate supposed to be rated to? The specifications say zone 1, but being this project is in PA, we would assume zone 2 or 3.

o Zone 1 is acceptable Sheet S-502, view 1, Top Seal – can we assume the ID and OD of the stainless steel spacer are simply flipped?

o Yes, the ID and OD of the space should be switched. it should be 0.560” ID, 0.651” OD

Sheet S-503, View 4, Axle – the material is called out as a forging of carbon steel with the 5” OD overlayed with stainless steel:

As an alternative, can the entire axle be made from stainless steel?

The axle may not be made from stainless steel. Carbon steel was chosen for the axle to minimize the use of dissimilar metals and the corresponding potential for galvanic corrosion

DWG S-503 detail (2) wheel, and detail (4) Axle conflict with Specification 35 20 14

2.2.2 Wheels

Provide short hub or long hub, rigid type, heavy duty steel wheels fabricated with forged steel conforming to ASTM A504/A504M, Class C.

Wheels shall be of the size and load capacity shown. Wheel shall be provided with lubrication fittings, roller bearings, and removable axle or shaft. Wheel treads shall be machined-finished with a stainless steel overlay as shown. Provide axles for the wheels made of forged steel conforming to ASTM A668/A668M Class N.

1. Wheel material call out is ASTM A504:

ASTM A504 indicates peening of wheels, but refers to geometries that exist in railroad applications.

i. Is peening required for any surfaces of the wheels shown on S-503?

o Peening of the wheels is not required

2. Wheel and/or Axel overlay:

In the USACE specification 35 20 14, section 2.2.2 Wheels, it states: “Wheel treads shall be machined-finished with a stainless, steel overlay as shown”.

i. Per drawing S-503,

a. The wheel is specified to have a hardened tread crown

b. The axle is specified to have a stainless, steel overlay.

ii. Please confirm which parts are required to have the stainless, steel overlay.

o The axle should have a stainless steel overlay as shown on the drawings. The wheels do not have a stainless steel overlay

Sheet S-503, View 1, Roller Assembly – what is the material for the shaft/bushing seal? Section 35 05

40.17, paragraph 2.4.1 appears to offer some information o Dimensions are also not provided, but can be obtained by looking at the mating parts

Section 35 05 40.17, paragraph 2.4.1 is the correct reference for the shaft/bushing seal material.

It should be a carbon filled PTFE seal with energizing springs fabricated from stainless steel or elastomeric O-rings

Specification, Section 35 05 40.17, paragraph 2.2.1 references paragraph 2.2.2 for the location of self-lubricated bushings, but there is no paragraph 2.2.2. Paragraph 2.2.1 should read as follows: “The self-lubricating bushings and bearing plate provided for each application shown on the contract drawings shall be selected from the following list of approved materials:”The size of the channel in the lifting beams is not called out. The channel size is C6x13.

Sheet S-502 detail 1 calls for the seal backing bars to be stainless steel. Are these meant to be carbon steel like the vertical seal backing bars? The horizontal top seal backing bar in Sheet S-502 Detail 1 is intended to be carbon steel, like the vertical seal backing bars.

The wheel axle is called out to being ASTM A668 Grade C with an overlay on a portion of it. After the axle is overlayed it is to be stress relieved. If the A668 Grade C is stress relieved the shaft will no longer have the properties that were specified and stress relieving stainless steel is not usually recommended. Can the entire shaft be made of 304 Series stainless steel? It is my understanding that stress relieving temperatures are usually lower than for tempering so that stress relieving shouldn’t result in a significant change in material properties. ASTM A668 Class C is a low carbon steel that is not quenched and tempered; so stress relieving should not result in significant change in material properties. The specified stainless steel weld overlay material was selected to be compatible with post weld stress relieving

Specifications 35 20 14 2.3.1 states the axle is to be ASTM A668 Class N, the drawings state the axle is to be ASTM A668 Class C. Please clarify what the axle is to be. The axle should be ASTM A668 Class C

Specifications 35 20 14 2.3.1 states the wheel is to have a stainless-steel overlay as shown. An overlay on the wheel tread is not shown. Please clarify. There is no stainless steel overlay on the wheel tread.

Will the top WT that the Lifting Lug welds to be considered a Fracture Critical Member? The base metal of the top WT in the area where the Lifting lugs will be welded should be considered a Fracture Critical Member.

Are resumes and the schedule excluded from the page count limit of 10 pages for Volume 1?

o EResumes and schedule are excluded from the 10 pages.

p. 6 says “The Offeror shall provide (3) Past Performance Questionnaires from references for similar work completed in the last five (5) years.” If our projects have CPARs, should we include those instead?

o EI don’t see a problem with allowing CPARS to be included instead as long as firms understand the evaluation will be the same regardless of whether CPARS or PPQ are submitted for Factor II Past Performance

Multiple firms requested an extension to the schedule:

o We are interested in bidding this project, but due to current market conditions 180 days to produce shop drawings, procure materials and fabricate this gate is extremely aggressive. We would like to request a minimum of 365 days to complete this project.

o I have a question regarding the subject project. Multiple fabricators have informed us that they will need 365 days to complete the new emergency gate and lifting beam. Can the project period of performance be extended to 420 days to account for the long lead time items?

o Please consider increasing the duration of the project form 180 days to 300 days. All major gate fabricators in the country are declining to bid this project currently due to the schedule. They cannot meet a 180 day schedule. Without a fabricator, no Prime contract will be able to bid the project, and we all typically use the same fabricators across the country for these projects.

o After speaking with multiple gate fabricators our understanding is that the current 180-day period of performance is not sufficient to complete the project. Most, maybe all, gate fabricators are very busy. The shop drawing, material procurement, and fabrication process will likely require about one year. Please consider extending the period of performance to at least one year if possible. We would likely be able to get better pricing if the duration was extended to 15 months.

o The contract duration of 180 days is fast with field investigation, submittals, procurement, fabrication availability/fabrication, testing, painting, machine work, and onsite work. Would 270 calendar days be acceptable for a contract duration for the bulkhead. The lifting beam could be provided earlier.

The schedule will be extended to 365 days from the issuance of the second Notice to Proceed, after all submittals are approved. See next question.

Please consider changing the start of the duration of the project to “from NTP” in lieu of “From award”.

From NTP is typical, and provides the time for P&P bonds to be issued. Typically, once bonds are secured, NTP is provided.

o There will be two Notices to Proceed issued. The first NTP from the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) will initiate the preconstruction submittals and general project coordination. The second NTP will be issued once the submittals are approved. The second NTP is the beginning of the 365 days to complete the work. (Solicitation amended)

Can the Government provide more details/summary of what is being replaced regarding the hoist/wire rope on the crane? We are not clear on what is being replaced on these items, if anything. Nothing on the crane will be replaced at this time with the exception of new marks for lifting and lowering the emergency gate. Any changes required for differing site conditions will be made via contract modification.

Please confirm that we will need two dedicated positions to cover the three roles of SSHO/Superintendent/QC Manager. It isn’t quite clear to us, but appears the Superintendent can be the SSHO, but can’t be the QC Manager. The QC Manager cannot have any other duties. Making two roles for the three positions.

o A dual role for Super and SSHO is acceptable, providing qualifications for both positions are met by the single person. The QCSM role shall be filled by a single individual without other roles assigned. No change to the solicitation.

There is language of the Philadelphia District and the Baltimore District in the solicitation, which district does this project fall under?

o The reference to Philadelphia District has been removed. The project falls under the Baltimore District Susquehanna River Project. (Solicitation amended)

Under Special Inspections, section 01 45 35, it discusses qualifications for concrete, PT .. and other items that don’t seem applicable to this project. We assume this is just a copy/paste and we don’t need inspectors for non-applicable items?

o While the referenced Special Inspections are not anticipated to be required for this project, the specification is not amended in case a change to the anticipated work necessitates a special inspection(s).

Would the Government consider allowing a fabricator that has and follows the qualifications under ASME NQA-1 Quality Assurance Program in lieu of the AISC requirement?

o AISC is required; no change to the solicitation.

QUESTIONS FROM AMENDMENT 0001

Questions from interested firms (Amendment 0001):

Would a one week bid extension be granted?

The closing will be extended until 11 May 2023, at 6:00 ET; solicitation amended.

Are resumes and the schedule excluded from the page count limit of 10 pages for Volume 1?

The resumes and schedule will not be included in the page limit for volume 1; solicitation amended.

p. 6 says “The Offeror shall provide (3) Past Performance Questionnaires from references for similar work completed in the last five (5) years.” If our projects have CPARs, should we include those instead?

CPARS assessments may be submitted if they meet the same criteria as the PPQ for recency and relevancy; solicitation amended.

Multiple firms requested an extension to the schedule:

o We are interested in bidding this project, but due to current market conditions 180 days to produce shop drawings, procure materials and fabricate this gate is extremely aggressive. We would like to request a minimum of 365 days to complete this project.

o I have a question regarding the subject project. Multiple fabricators have informed us that they will need 365 days to complete the new emergency gate and lifting beam. Can the project period of performance be extended to 420 days to account for the long lead time items?

o Please consider increasing the duration of the project form 180 days to 300 days. All major gate fabricators in the country are declining to bid this project currently due to the schedule. They cannot meet a 180 day schedule. Without a fabricator, no Prime contract will be able to bid the project, and we all typically use the same fabricators across the country for these projects.

o After speaking with multiple gate fabricators our understanding is that the current 180-day period of performance is not sufficient to complete the project. Most, maybe all, gate fabricators are very busy. The shop drawing, material procurement, and fabrication process will likely require about one year. Please consider extending the period of performance to at least one year if possible.

We would likely be able to get better pricing if the duration was extended to 15 months.

o The contract duration of 180 days is fast with field investigation, submittals, procurement, fabrication availability/fabrication, testing, painting, machine work, and onsite work. Would 270 calendar days be acceptable for a contract duration for the bulkhead. The lifting beam could be provided earlier.

The schedule will be extended to 365 days from the issuance of the second Notice to Proceed, after all submittals are approved; solicitation amended. See next question.

Please consider changing the start of the duration of the project to “from NTP” in lieu of “From award”.

From NTP is typical, and provides the time for P&P bonds to be issued. Typically, once bonds are secured, NTP is provided.

There will be two Notices to Proceed issued. The first NTP from the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) will initiate the preconstruction submittals and general project coordination. The second NTP will be issued once the submittals are approved. The second NTP is the beginning of the 365 days to complete the work; Solicitation amended.

Please confirm that we will need two dedicated positions to cover the three roles of

SSHO/Superintendent/QC Manager. It isn’t quite clear to us, but appears the Superintendent can be the SSHO, but can’t be the QC Manager. The QC Manager cannot have any other duties. Making two roles for the three positions.

A dual role for Super and SSHO is acceptable, providing qualifications for both positions are met by the single person. The QCSM role shall be filled by a single individual without other roles assigned. No change to the solicitation.

There is language of the Philadelphia District and the Baltimore District in the solicitation, which district does this project fall under?

The reference to Philadelphia District has been removed. The project falls under the Baltimore District Susquehanna River Project. (Solicitation amended) Under Special Inspections, section 01 45 35, it discusses qualifications for concrete, PT .. and other items that don’t seem applicable to this project. We assume this is just a copy/paste and we don’t need inspectors for non-applicable items?

While the referenced Special Inspections are not anticipated to be required for this project, the specification is not amended in case a change to the anticipated work necessitates a special inspection(s).

Would the Government consider allowing a fabricator that has and follows the qualifications under

ASME NQA-1 Quality Assurance Program in lieu of the AISC requirement?

AISC is required; no change to the solicitation.

Reference Division 09 – Finishes, paragraph 3.5: what do the V-numbers indicate (VZ-108d and V-

766e)?

The finishes are specified in the Unified Facilities Guide Specification 09 97 02 Part 2 Products. See https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/UFGS/UFGS%2009%2097%2002.pdf

The following have been deleted:

QUESTIONS FROM OFFERORS

(End of Summary of Changes)