W912DS-16-B-0014-0003.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 modification is to a) respond to Requests for Information submitted by contractors, and b) extend the Bid Opening date.

Questions that may be of general interest to all Offerors and/or the Government w ill appear below . These questions may have been paraphrased or altered to represent several questions regarding the same subject and/or simply revised to clarify and simplify the question(s). Questions and answ ers are issued to the Offerors “for information only” and do not revise the solicitation, plans or specifications.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Sep-2016

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 W912DS-16-B-0014

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Aug-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

14-Sep-2016

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NEW YORK

26 FEDERAL PLAZA, RM 1843

NEW YORK NY 10278-0090

W912DS 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DS-16-B-0014

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

1. BID OPENING: The Bid Opening date is hereby changed from 21 September 2016 to 4 October 2016. The time of the Bid Opening remains unchanged at 2:00PM EST.

2. The following are responses to questions received from bidders (FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES

ONLY):

Question No. 1: Please confirm the contractor is to supply 3 full size steel lift gates on this project. 2 for the actual structure, and one spare? Clarify what the contractor is supposed to do with the spare. Should it be delivered to the site and unloaded there? Please provide details regarding the storage of this spare lift gate.

Response: The contractor shall supply 3 full size steel lift gates, 2 for the structure and one spare. The spare gate will be stored on the concrete Stop Log Storage Pad shown on S-505. The spare gate shall be separated into two leafs and stored on top of each other. The stop log storage pad was designed to provide sufficient storage for the stoplog racks and the spare gate.

Question No. 2: Drawing S-705, and S-706 have details for Mark MK S-705-1, MK 705-2, and MK S-706-5. For all those details they require either 3 units, or 6 units. Please explain where this quantity of units will be used? Do these quantities include extra for the spare lift gate? Since these are embedded in concrete, we don't see a need for any spares? If the quantities do include spares, please confirm we are just to supply these units to the Owner, and Owner will put in storage?

Response: Drawing S-705 and S-706 have been revised as part of Amendment 0001. Seal Plate MK. S-705-1 (2 Req’d); Gate Slot MK. S-705-2 (2 Lefthand Req’d, 2 Righthand Req’d); Gate Slot MK. S-706-5 (2 Lefthand Req’d, 2 Righthand Req’d).

Question No. 3: Plan sheet C301 shows a 6" sand filter layer under the rip rap on the levee sides. Spec section 35 31 19 section 2.2.3 calls for #357 bedding stone. Please clarify which is to be placed under the levee rip rap.

Response: Drawing C-301 has been revised as part of Amendment 0001. The revised C-301 drawing shows 6” Bedding Stone under the riprap.

Question No. 4: Can you confirm the type of debris that the screen will have to handle. This is a storm water application so we assume it will be primarily vegetation, trash on the shoreline, occasional tree limbs and root balls.

Is there any expectations of real large heavy debris as there is a lift requirement of 1000lbs. We just want to make sure we design the screen for the exact debris conditions.

Response: The contract requirements regarding the debris to be handled are provided in Section 11 82 15, primarily in paragraph 1.4.1.

Question No. 5: The water I would expect is brackish with a potential large concentration of ocean water.

Response: The structure will be in a saltwater environment.

Question No. 6: What is the design flow and peak flow that each channel will see? Based on 3 pumps operating it appears the ps should handle about 80mgd. Would 50 mgd per channel be a safe design parameter or should each channel be able to handle 80 mgd.

Response: The total station flow is 120 cfs (approximately 80 MGD), with each pump capable of 40 cfs (approximately 26 MGD).

Question No. 7: The structural drawings show horizontal construction joints in the walls of the Pump Station at Elevation +1.0. Since these horizontal joints do not appear to be critical, please clarify whether or not these horizontal construction joints may be regarded as Optional by the Contractor.

Response: Construction joints shall be placed as indicated on drawings. The contractor can submit alternative construction joint locations for approval. There are also horizontal construction joints required at Elevation -10.0 for the Pump Station Foundation and Elevation -11.5 for the Tide Gate Foundation.

Question No. 8: Please reference Drawing C101a Sequence of Construction Note 1.) in where the Contractor is required to obtain a certification from the Freehold Soil Conservation District. Please confirm if there any fees with this certification and if so will the USACE reimburse the Contractor for the fees or in the alternative will the USACE add an allowance item that can used to reimburse the contractor for the fees?

Response: See Sheet C-101b, Note 9 which requires the Contractor to submit fees to the Freehold Soil Conservation District and also provides contact information for that office. The contract bid amount should cover any required fees. An allowance amount will not be provided.

Question No. 9: Dwg. S-101 calls-out a Pump Support Beam, and Note #1 on Dwg S-101 states that the Pump Support Beam is to be designed by the Pump Manufacturer. However, these Beams also support the adjacent Grating and these Beams are supported by the concrete floor. Since these Beams support the Gratings as well as the Pumps, we request that details be provided on the structural drawings that show how these Beams are supported by the concrete floor, as well as details that show how the Beams are to support the adjacent Gratings, and we request that specifications and sizing of the Beams be provided for bidding purposes. Please provide this missing information.

Response: The beam does not support the adjacent grating it only supports the Pump. The Beam is supported by the concrete pump station, however the opening for the pump casing and the blockout for the pump support beam shall be coordinated with pump supplier. The size of the opening will be sized by the pump supplier.

Question No. 10: Please reference S-000, “Embedded Metals and Anchor Bolts”. Please confirm if Reinforcing Steel is to be Stainless Steel Type 316.

Response: Reinforcing steel shall not be type 316. See specification 03 20 00 Section 2.3 for reinforcing steel requirements.

Question No. 11: Please reference Bid Item 19 and 20 in where the bid amount is a fixed amount. Please also reference Page 13 of Section 00 10 00 Solicitation/Contract Form in where Note 3 and 4 indicate that the amount paid is “based” on actual costs. Please provide the “fee” the Contractor is permitted to charge for the handling and payment of the Utility costs.

Response: The allowance amounts for Bid Items 0019 and 0020 are Not to Exceed (NTE) amounts. No Contractor’s fee is permitted for these bid items.

Question No. 12: Please reference Bid Item 22 in where the item is an Option to the USACE. Please also reference Page 13 of Section 00 10 00 Solicitation/Contract Form in where Note 10 states that the USACE has the option “up to” 920 calendar days after Notice to Proceed. In order to “hold” a bid price for disposal of material up to almost 3 years from Notice to Proceed is unreasonable. Please confirm if the USACE will consider a price adjustment based on the increase in price at the time of disposal as to compared to the bid price.

Response: A price adjustment based on the increase in price at the time of disposal compared to the bid price for the option will not be considered.

Question No. 13: Please reference Bid Item 23 through 26 in where the Government Field Office is an option to the USACE for up to a total of 24 months. Please also reference Section 00 10 00 Solicitation/Contract Form Page 13 and 14 Notes 11 through 14 in where the option to the USACE is stated to be up to 1,012 Calendar days after Notice to Proceed. Therefore the USACE could extend the Government Field Office up 17 months after substantial completion (1,222 Days (41 MTHS)-(1012 Days (33 MTHS)= 210 Days (7 MTHS). Option 3 through 6 = 24 Months. Therefore 17 Months past substantial completion. Please confirm if the intent of the USACE is to extend the contract 17 months. Please also confirm if it would also include the vehicle that is to be provided on Page 67 of the 00 73 00 Special Contract Requirements.

Response: No, the intent is not to extend the contract for 17 months. As stated in Section 00 10 00, Notes 11 through 14, no additional time will be added to the contract performance period if any of these options are exercised.

As part of the basic contract, the vehicle specified in Section 00 73 00, paragraph 53 is to be provided for the entire contract performance period.

Question No. 14: Please reference 01 00 00 Page 9, Subsection 1.4.9, the 3rd line in where it states, “Gate storage pad”. The current contract documents do not include a location nor details for a “gate storage pad”. Please clarify.

Response: The spare gate will be stored on the concrete Stop Log Storage Pad shown on S-505. The spare gate shall be separated into two leafs and stored on top of each other. The stop log storage pad was designed to provide sufficient storage for the stop log racks and the spare gate.

Question No. 15: Please reference Specification Section 01 30 00 Subsection Page5 1.6.1 in where Partnering sessions are specified and required. Please provide an allowance for partnering.

Response: An allowance amount for partnering sessions will not be provided.

Question No. 16: Please reference Specification Section 01 35 26 Page 11, Subsection 1.6.1.1. Please confirm a full time Site Safety and Health Officer is needed at all times. Please also confirm this person cannot perform any other duties, i.e. Superintendent or Project Manager.

Response: A full time Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) is needed at all times. The SSHO cannot perform any other duties, i.e. Superintendent or Project Manager.

Question No. 17: Please reference Specification Section 01 22 00 Page 6 Subsection 1.4.9 In where a spare gate is required. The same Subsection also references Specification sections 35 01 42 and 35 20 17. Please provide a list of spare materials required from these two specification sections.

Response: Any spare parts provided under Section 35 01 42 will be determined by the contractor/suppliers as indicated in SD-03 of paragraph 1.3 of Section 35 01 42. A list of the spare parts provided with the hoisting equipment shall be generated. At a minimum, a list of recommended spare parts shall be provided. The spare gate is the spare part under Section 35 20 17.

Question No. 18: We are respectfully requesting a minimum three (3) week postponement to the bid date due to the above clarifications/ambiguities, complexity of the project and the Labor Holiday that falls within the bid period.

Response: Consideration was given to your request and the bid opening date was further extended to 21 Sep 2016 as part of Amendment 0002.

Question No. 19: Since this project is located in area that has endured historical flooding during storm events, the Cofferdam should be designed to prevent overtopping during storm events since the whole purpose of providing the Cofferdam is to allow the work to be performed "in the dry". Yet, the top elevation for the Type 1, 2, & 3 Cofferdam Walls is currently designed to be Elev. 9.0, which is 3 feet lower than the FEMA Base Flood Elevation of Elev 12.0, as stated in Note #5 on Dwg. C-104. Also, in order to provide some freeboard during flood events, the Cofferdam should have a top elevation of at least Elev. 14.0. We request that this issue be reviewed as soon as possible so that an Amendment can be issued that raises the top of the three Cofferdam Walls to Elev. 14.0.

Response: The cofferdam is intended for dewater purposes and to provide a safe work environment up to elevations

9.0 NAVD 88. An elevation of 9.0 NAVD 88 will provide protection from a 10 year storm event frequency.

Specification 01 53 00 Emergency Protection Measures requires that the contractor develop an Emergency Protection Plan. As part of the plan the contractor shall indicate the method, equipment, materials, and personnel required to activate controlled flooding of the cofferdam. See specification 01 53 00 for Emergency Protection Measures. The top of the cofferdam will remain at elevations 9.0 NAVD.

Question No. 20: We do not understand why the tip elevation of Elev. -64.0 is specified for the Levee Shoring Sheet Pile wall when the other three sides of the Cofferdam are specified to have tip elevations of Elev. -75.0. In order to create a properly functioning Cofferdam the tip elevation of all four sides should be the same. Even though the Levee Shoring has been designed as a permanent feature it will perform an important role during construction as the fourth wall of the temporary Cofferdam. We request that this issue be reviewed as soon as possible so that an Amendment can be issued that lowers the tip elevation of the Levee Shoring Wall to Elev. -75.0.

Response: For Cofferdam Type 1 & Type 2, pipe piles tip elevations are -75.0 NAVD 88, the PZC 26 tip elevation is -55.0 NAVD 88. The type III tip elevations is -64.0 NAVD 88. The elevation for Type III cofferdam wall will not be lowered to EL -75.0.

Question No. 21: Please clarify the risks to be assumed by the USACE and the Contractor in the event that the Cofferdam is overtopped during a storm event. We do not see this specific risk addressed in the bid documents for this project, yet it is customary practice by the USACE to address this risk in an equitable fashion on other USACE water projects that involve the use of temporary cofferdams such the USACE Lock and Dam projects.

Response: Please see Specification Section 00 73 00 Special Contract Clauses , paragraph 22 and Section 01 53 00 Emergency Protection Measures which specifies responsibilities for damage to work.

Question No. 22: Note #2 on Dwg. S-901 states that the Diversion Canal Sheet Pile Wall us based on the use of PZC26 sheet piles driven to a tip elevation of Elev. -55.0. However, the Notes for Section "A" - Temporary Diversion Channel on Dwg. C-102 specify PZC18 sheet piles driven to a tip elevation of Elev. -26.0 and to have a top of wall Elev. +4.0 for the Diversion Canal Sheet Pile Wall. Please clarify which sheet pile notes are the correct notes that should be used for bidding purposes.

Response: Drawing S-901 and C-102 have been amended as part of Amendment 0001. The diversion channel sheeting shall be PCZ-26 with a top elevation of +4.0 and a tip elevations of -45.0.

Question No. 23: We kindly request a bid extension of (2) two weeks due to the observance of the Labor Day Holiday Sept. 5th 2016. We have been receiving feedback from our subcontractor(s) and supplier(s) that they will not have adequate time to prepare accurate and competitive proposals due to the holiday and holiday week as many companies take off. We feel it would be in the owner’s best interest to extend the bid date by (2) weeks.

Response: Consideration was given to your request and the bid opening date was further extended to 21Sep 2016 as part of Amendment 0002.

Question No. 24: Please confirm that there is no preliminary schedule that needs to be submitted with the bid.

Response: No schedule needs to be submitted with the bid.

Question No. 25: Can you please provide planting schedule for permanent vegetation low marsh areas.

Response: See Sheet C-802 and Specification Section 32 93 00.

Question No. 26: Please confirm that there is no DBE participation plan that needs to be provided with the bid.

Response: No DBE participation plan needs to be provided with the bid.

Question No. 27: Please confirm the correct dimension of width for the lift gate structure. Drawing S-704 detail TOP CLAMP BAR MK. S-704-5 depicts 26’-9 5/8”, BOTTOM CLAMP BAR MK. S-704-4 depicts 26’-71/4” and TOP GATE SEAL MK. S-704-1 depicts 26’-8 ½”.

Response: Drawing S-704 have been revised as part of Amendment 0001. The correct dimensions are shown on the amended S-704 drawing.

Question No. 28: 18" x .625" steel pipe piles are specified for the foundation support system for the tide gate and pump station structures. However, not only does the specified wall thickness appear to be excessive, the specified wall thickness of .625" does not appear on standard steel pipe charts. The heaviest wall shown on the standard steel pipe charts is .500". Please clarify the wall thickness to be used for the 18" pipe piles.

Response: The 18" x .625 steel pipe piles are the required diameter and thickness.

Question No. 29: Paragraph 1.2.10 of Spec Section 35 01 42 states that the hoist design for the Tide Gates is the responsibility of the Contractor, and the paragraph provides various performance criteria. Since there is no time for bidders to perform any design work during the bidding phase of this project please confirm that the bidders can rely upon the design information provided on the drawings as the basis of their bid and that the design information on the drawings provides for a properly functioning tide gate.

Response: The design for the hoist equipment is the responsibility of the contractor and is to be performed by a licensed Professional Engineer. As indicated in paragraph 1.2 of Section 35 01 42, the dimensions shown on the drawings are estimated. Note that Note 5 on Dwg. No. M-200 indicates that the gate weights are estimated.

Question No. 30: Paragraphs 1.2, 1.3 & 3.5.2 of Spec Section 35 01 42 requires the Contractor to identify the spare parts that are to be provided for the Tide Gate equipment, but the spec section fails to identify the spare parts that should be included for bidding purposes. Please provide this missing information as soon as possible.

Response: Any spare parts provided will be determined by the contractor/suppliers as indicated in SD-03 of paragraph 1.3 of Section 35 01 42. A list of the spare parts provided with the hoisting equipment shall be generated.

At a minimum, a list of recommended spare parts shall be provided.

Question No. 31: General Note #1 on Dwg. S-700 states that three Tide Gates are to be provided. Since the tide gates are very large, robust and have a very long design life, we wish to receive confirmation that three tide gates are, in fact, to be included in the pricing for this contract.

Response: Three (3) Tide Gates are to be provided.

Question No. 32: If a third (spare) tide gate is to be provided, please confirm our assumption that a third (spare) set of tide gate lifting apparatus will not be required.

Response: A third set of tide gate lifting apparatus will not be required.

Question No. 33: If a spare tide gate is to be provided, there does not appear to be a location at the site for placing the storing the spare tide gate. Where is the spare gate to be delivered and stored?

Response: The spare gate will be stored on the concrete Stop Log Storage Pad shown on S-505. The spare gate shall be separated into two leafs and stored on top of each other. The stop log storage pad was designed to provide sufficient storage for the stoplog racks and the spare gate.

Question No. 34: The Tide Gate drawings provide General Welding Notes that provide important explanations regarding the interpretation of the welding symbols used on this set of drawings. However, the Tide Gate drawings do not provide any Fabrication Tolerance Notes, which are just as important for bidders and fabricators to use for properly interpreting the fabrication and installation tolerances that are indicated by the symbols on the drawings.

Please provide this missing information as quickly as possible so that all bidders and all fabricators can properly interpret the Tide Gate drawings.

Response: See specification section 35 20 17 Vertical Lift Gate and 05 50 14 Structural Metal Fabrications for tolerances. The tide gate drawings show Geometric Dimensioning and Positional Tolerances.

Question No. 35: Dwg. S-700 appears to require the true position of the roller shafts to be within 1/16” of Datum B&C, and Datum B is the centerline of the MC18x58 Channel. However, it is not feasible to expect the fabricated gate to be made flat enough to meet this very tight tolerance. Please let us know if this very tight tolerance can be waived.

Response: The tolerances cannot be waivered or adjusted.

Question No. 36: Dwg S-700 appears to require the Tide Gates to be fabricated within a 1/16" Tolerance, which does not appear to be feasible. Please clarify whether or not this fabrication tolerance can be relaxed.

Question No. 37: General Note #3 on Dwg. S-700 calls for the embedded metal and the rubber seal planes to be within 1/16”. This would require the gate to be flat to within 1/16”, and it would require the embedded fabrications to be fabricated and installed to tolerances that cannot be feasibly achieved at the fabrication shop or at the job site.

Please let us know if this tolerance can be relaxed in order to provide a more constructable performance specification.

Question No. 38: The tolerances specified in the Notes for Detail 1/S701 appear to be calling for a precision ground pin (ground to a tolerance of .0003) to be welded to a structural channel. The alignment hole to be reamed to a tolerance of .0003” into a structural channel that is to be galvanized. Since these tolerances are not consistent with the process of installing the pins, and since the tolerances are not feasible to achieve, we wish to know if these tolerances be relaxed.

Response: The tolerances cannot be waivered or adjusted. The structural channels are not galvanized, they are coated with paint system 6-A-Z; See Note 10 on Drawing S-700. The coating in the hole would be removed in order to get the pin within .0003 inch tolerance into it. Once the gate is assembled in the field, touchup of the coating around the pins is anticipated.

Question No. 39: The fabrication tolerances shown on Dwg. S-703 are very tight, and we wish to know if these tolerances can be revised to be more appropriate to standard shop fabrication practices.

Question No. 40: We downloaded Amendment One, and notice that in Box #11 of Standard Form 30, the “is not extended” box is checked off, implying that the bid date has not been changed. But Note #7 on page 3 of 11 states that the bid date has been changed from September 7 to September 14. Please confirm the bid date has been extended to September 14th.

Response: The bid date was further extended to 21 September 2016 as part of Amendment 0002.

Question No. 41: We have a question regarding Question and Response #14 in Amendment #0001. It appears the question was submitted with the assumption that the material excavated from the cofferdam will be stockpiled and then reused as backfill inside the cofferdam. It is our understanding of the contract documents that the material that is excavated from the cofferdam will be taken off-site for disposal (per section 35 41 00 part 3.6), and all material that is backfilled within cofferdam and also used to build the levee needs to be borrow material from offsite (per section 35 41 00, part 1.3.1)? Please clarify if material excavated from the cofferdam can be reused within the cofferdam as backfill?

Response: Material excavated from within the cofferdam area is expected to be unsatisfactory. Satisfactory fill material shall be imported for backfilling the area and to build the levee.

Question No. 42: I called Miss Pam Carey from JCP&L Electric several times; 8/17/16 @ 1:07pm;

8/23/16@1:26pm. Finally on 8/25/16 I got a called back from her to tell me she is not the person to speak about the project. I wanted to find out if we wanted to relocate two poles at the site to help with the pile driving and also the voltage going thru the wires but at this point don’t have a point person to ask.

Response: See sheet E-101, note 2 for JCP&L point of contact.

Question No. 43: We would like to know if the temporary cofferdam can be cut off and remain in place and if allowed at what elevation can be cut off.

Response: The temporary cofferdam should be removed, except for the levee shoring along the Keansburg Levee, which is to remain in place.

Question No. 44: We would like to ask if the project could be postponed at least a week. Due to the holiday weekend on Monday, 9/5/16, a lot of people plan vacations around it and a lot of vendors must be away because as of yet we don’t many quotes even though we send out RFQ weeks ago as soon as the project was advertised.

Response: Consideration was given to your request and the bid opening date was further extended to 21 Sep 2016 as part of Amendment 0002.

Question No. 45: There are quantity notes on Dwg. S-705 that specify three units of Seal Plates and three units of Gate Slot Embeds to be provided. However, these quantity notes do not appear to be correct. Since only two operating tide gates are to be installed on this project, we assume that these quantity notes are not correct, and that only two sets of the two types of embeds are required. Please clarify this issue as soon as possible.

Response: The quantities on Drawing S-705 have been revised as part of Amendment 0001.

Question No. 46: There are design and engineering calculation requirements embedded in the Handrail Specification Section 05 50 15 that should not be required since the handrails are already designed on the structural drawings. Consequently, there is no reason for the Contractor to prove that the handrails shown on the drawings meet the design requirements. Therefore, we request that an amendment be issued that deletes all references to Contractor or Manufacturer design responsibilities from Specification Section 05 50 15.

Response: In accordance with spec section 1.2 Submittal SD-02 Shop Drawings, The Contractor shall provide detailed drawings for metal work and machine work, prior to fabrication. The contractor shall provide detailed drawings for handrails. The structural drawings show the type of railing and railing components to be provided as part of this contract. The fabrication and installation of the railing will need to meet the specification requirements.

Specification Section 2.2.1.2 Fabrication requires manufacturer design calculations showing that the installed railings are capable of withstanding a design working load of 200 lbf. applied in and direction at any point on the top rail without permanent deformation, shall be submitted and approved prior to installation.

Spec section 05 50 15, 2.2.1, Railings, states “Provide railings as type specified and show, furnish, and install complete with all fittings, brackets, fasteners, sleeves, anchors, and other appurtenances as shown and as required for proper installation. Design handrails to resist a minimum concentrated load of 200 lbf in any direction at any point of the top of the rail or 50 lb/ft applied horizontally to top of the rail, whichever is more severe.”

Question No. 47: Paragraph 2.2 of Specification Section 05 50 15 - Civil Works Fabrications makes reference to Section 05 50 14 - Structural Metal Fabrications for fabricating the handrails, ladders, and other miscellaneous metals. This reference is unnecessary and confusing to the fabricators, and it should be deleted from this specification sections since Section 05 50 15 adequately covers the fabrication of the Miscellaneous Metals and there is no apparent need to make reference to another specification section. Therefore, we request that an amendment be issued that deletes the confusing reference in Section 05 50 15 to Section 05 50 14.

Response: There are fabrication tolerances and construction tolerances not discussed in the Civil Works Fabrication, these tolerances are specified in the Structural Metal Fabrications spec 05 50 14. Section 05 50 14 is appropriately referenced in section 05 50 15.

Question No. 48: The Amendment #1 Table of Contents was not issued with the corrections (deletions and additions) shown in green and red font like all of the other changes that were made to the specifications. Please re-issue the Table of Contents document with the corrections clearly shown with the red and green tracking colors so that the bidders can clearly and quickly determine what was changed on that document.

Response: The Table of Contents will not be re-issued. The amended specification sections were part of Amendment 0001.

Question No. 49: Please clarify the intent and meaning of Note #11 on the Amendment #1 issue of Dwg. C-102, which seems to contradict itself. The first part of the sentence states there will be excavation required under the Levee, but the second part of the sentence appears to contradict the first part of the sentence by prohibiting any excavation under the Levee. Please clarify the intent of Note #11.

Response: Excavation of unsatisfactory soils will be required under the new levee. No excavation to be done under the existing Keansburg levee.

Question No. 50: The revisions to Amendment #1 Drawing S-705 were not clouded. Please re-issue this drawing ASAP with the clouded changes so that the bidders and fabricators can clearly and quickly determine what was changed.

Response: Every detail and section in drawing S-705 has been revised. Drawing S-705 will not be reissued.

Question No. 51: In regards to Traffic Control if Middletown Police insist on us having off duty police officers for traffic control for truck/equipment/vehicle traffic coming in & out of the work site; NJ Contract law provides compensation as a pass thru to contractors when police officers are used for traffic control. Would USACE contemplate creating a contract pay line item for “Police Traffic Control” as a pass thru with daily allowance or overall contract allowance. Please consider our request to create a line item as a pass thru compensation for off duty police officers used for traffic control.

Response: Consideration was given to your request, however, neither a separate bid item, nor an allowance amount, for “Police Traffic Control” will be provided. The contract bid amount should cover any costs for required Police Traffic Control.

Question No. 52: We are now seeing from at least one Company bidding this project a request for reducer to be designed for a .44 output RPM and a output torque rating of 40,000 ft-lbs. I have looked thru the Plans / Specifications posted, but cannot verify which numbers are correct. Can someone from the Corp, please advise for us which is correct, so we can prepare Quotations 100% to the specification?

Response: See Section 35 01 42, Subsections 1.2, 1.2.10, 2.2.3, etc., for guidance. The design is the responsibility of the contractor and is to be performed by a licensed Professional Engineer.

Question No. 53: Dwg. C-103 shows five Bollards adjacent to the Fuel Tank and 14' x 27' Concrete Apron, but the drawings do not provide details for this type of Bollard. Please provide the missing information.

Response: Bollard detail is shown on S-005.

Question No. 54: Reference is made to Amendment 0001, Question No. 35. They totally made a mistake regarding lintel beam and misunderstood. I meant lintel beam for gate, not for masonry walls. Please see following sketch.

Response: The reinforcing for the Brest Wall is detailed in drawing S-208 A.

Question No. 55: Please reference Specification Section 00 90 02 Page #2, Subsection “Consistency Determination….Conditions”, Note #1 in where in where an restriction to work periods is provided for any work within 300 meters of an osprey nest. Please confirm if there are any osprey nests within 300 meters.

Response: Currently the Pews Creek West platform, which is located within the 300m buffer of Contract 2, is slated to be relocated. See attached map. This work is scheduled to be completed under a separate contract by 1 March 2016. The operation is not anticipated to impact the Contract 2 construction schedule as the nesting window does not begin again till March 15th. See attached map below.

Question No. 56: Please reference Amendment #1, Page 2 in where the drawings that are included with Amendment are listed. Drawing G101 is listed. However, we believe the USACE intended to list G001. Please confirm.

Response: Drawing G-001 was amended as part of Amendment 0001. Drawing G-101 was listed accidently. There is no Drawing G-101 as part of this contract.

Question No. 57: Please reference Amendment #1, Page 5 of 11, Question #3 & #4, in where the questions requests durations of Verizon’s and JCP&L work. The response provides a reference to a revised specification section.

However the revised specification does not provide durations of the work. Please provide durations.

Response: The utilities may be contacted to ascertain additional information on the durations of their activities.

Question No. 58: Please reference Drawing S304 in where the Key Notes Call out for Note #3 references the reader to coordinate with the Trash Rack manufacturer for the trash rack embeds. Please provide details for the embeds in order that we may obtain a price for the embed fabrication.

Response: The embedded metals for the Trash Rake will need to be coordinated with the trash rack manufacturer.

Question No. 59: Please reference Drawing S302, S304, and S312 in where the gratings above the pumps are depicted for the pump station. However, the embeds/armor angles to support the gratings above the pumps are not depicted. Furthermore, on S304 a support beam is depicted above the pumps, However, no size or embedment details are provide for the beam. Please provide details of the embeds and the beams above the pumps.

Response: The opening for the pump casing will need to be coordinated with the pump supplier. The length of the grating and pump support beam will depend of the size of the pump casing and will need to be coordinated with the pump supplier.

Question No. 60: Please reference Specification 09 97 13 and 31 41 16 page 5 Subsection 2.1.2 in where the coating for the Wing Wall Steel Sheeting is specified as 3’ below the mud line including all tie rods and walers. The specification does not call out the King Piles which are integral with the Wingwalls construction. Please confirm the King Pile coating requirements.

Response: Spec 31 41 16 section 2.1.2 requires for the King Piles to be coated in accordance with Section 09 97 13.

Question No. 61: Please reference Specification Section 31 62 16 page 9 in where the last line states the minimum tip elevation for the pipe piles is specified as Elevation -60. Please also reference Drawing S105 in where the minimum tip elevation for the pipe piles is stated as -90. Please confirm the minimum tip elevation for the pipe piles.

Response: The estimated tip elevation for the piles, as noted on drawing S-105 is given for bidding purposes only.

See specification section 31 62 16, 3.2.1. The Actual lengths will be determined from the results of the pile load tests, See section 31 62 16, 3.3 Pile tests. The piles shall be driven to a minimum tip elevation of -60.0 NAVD, even If the Pile reaches the dynamic load test.

Question No. 62: In our prior RFI of August 24, 2016 we requested a minimum 3 week postponement to the bid date. While we appreciate the one week postponement to the bid date we are respectfully requesting an additional 2 week postponement to the bid date.

Response: Consideration was given to your request and the bid opening date was further extended to 21 Sep 2016 as part of Amendment 0002.

Question No. 63: Detail #1 on Dwg. S-310 provides a stainless steel Ladder Rung Detail that applies to at least four (possibly five) wall locations for the Pump Station. Two locations require 20 Ladder Rungs spaced 12" o.c.

vertically at each location, and the other two locations require 23 Ladder Rungs spaced 12" o.c. vertically at each location. The implementation of this Ladder Rung detail is not very compatible with formwork systems because all of these individual Ladder Rungs need to penetrate the wall forms. Therefore, we wish to know whether or not alternate methods would be acceptable that would provide a more constructable solution, such as the use of Ladders mounted to the walls with expansion anchors in lieu of the individual Ladder Rungs. Please clarify.

Response: The contractor may submit for review an alternative method for the Ladder fabrication and installation.