W912DS-17-B-0007_Amend_0005.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:

1. Make some changes to the Plans.

2. Make some changes to the Specifications.

3. Respond to bidders' questions (For Informational Purposes Only).

The Bid Opening Date is extended to 13 September 2018 at 2:00 pm EST.

NOTE: Bidders must acknow ledge receipt of this amendment by the date specified in the solicitation (or as amended) by one of the follow ing methods: In the space provided on the SF1442, by separate letter, or by signing Block 15 below . FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE AMENDMENTS BY THE DATE AND TIME SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR BID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATE BID, LATE

MODIFICATIONS OF BIDS OR LATE WITHDRAWAL OF BIDS (FAR 14.304).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 20

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 20-Mar-2018

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 W912DS17B0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-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 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

20-Mar-2018

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:

W912DS17B0007

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:

AMENDMENT 0005

Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project, Port Monmouth, NJ Phase II-Contract 4

IFB NO. W912DS-17-B-0007

AMENDMENT #0005

Bid Opening hour and date are changed to 13 Sep 2018 at 2:00PM local time.

1. The following changes are made to the plans:

a. Revise and reissue Sheets:

C-101, C-102, C-103, C-104, C-105, C-106, C-107, C-109, C-110, ES-001, ES-

109, ES-109B, ES-111A, ES-114A, S-001, S-105, S-106, S-301, S-302, S-303,

S-304, S-507, S-520, S-521

b. Delete plan sheets:

C-302 and C-303

c. Add new plan sheets:

C-302a C-302b, C-302c, C-303a, C-303b, and C-303c, ES-111B, ES-111C

2. The following changes are made to the specifications:

a. Revise and reissue the sections below:

00 90 05 JCP&L Requirements 03 15 00.00 10 Concrete Accessories 03 31 01.00 10 Cast-in-Place Structural Concrete for Civil Works 05 50 16 Block and Tackle System 05 59 13 Fabrication of Hydraulic Steel Structures 31 32 11 Soil Surface Erosion Control 31 41 16 Metal Sheet Piling 31 62 16.16 Steel H-Piles 35 20 16.59 Closure Gates

b. Add the following sections:

00 90 07 Test Pile Data for Port Monmouth Contracts 2 and 3 31 32 00.00 18 Soil Stabilization System

3. The following are responses to questions received from bidders (FOR

INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY):

(Questions that may be of general interest to all Offerors and/or the Government and that are not readily answered by the proceeding changes will 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 answers are issued to the Offerors “for information only” and do not revise the solicitation, plans or specifications.)

Question No. 1: Sheet C-303 is missing the floodwall cross sections at the north end of the project. Please provide.

Response: Sheets C-302 and C-303 have been replaced with Sheets C-302a, C-302b, C-302c, C-303a, C-303b, and C-303c, included in this amendment, which show the floodwall cross sections.

Question No. 2: Sheet C-513 does not show toe drain at the wall from sta 46+29 to the end at sta 48+49. Please confirm there is no toe drain within these limits.

Response: There is no toe drain within these limits.

Question No.3: The drawings do not provide a sheet that provides General Notes, Legends, Symbols and Abbreviations. Please provide this missing information, which is essential for the correct interpretation of the drawings.

Response: Appropriate notes, legends, symbols, and abbreviations are shown as needed for each sheet.

Question No. 4: The Site Plan drawings and the Cross-Section drawings do not indicate which side of the wall is the Protected Side. This is important information and needs to be shown on the drawings. Please provide this missing information.

Response: Sheets C-302a through C-303c included in this amendment indicate the protected and flood sides on the cross-sections.

Question No.5: Please identify the meaning and intention of the solid line that is shown in the Cross-Section view at Station 6+00 on Dwg. C-302.

Response: Cross-sections have been revised. Refer to Sheets C-302a through C-303c included in this amendment.

Question No.6: With regard to the Temporary Construction Easements that are shown on Site Plan Dwg’s C-101 TO DWG C-107, please address and clarify the following:

The 15’ easement width (from the face of the wall) that has been provided is less than 9’ from edge of footing. The Temporary Construction Easement is too narrow for the Floodwall work and is not wide enough to accommodate the excavated foundations, the temporary access roads, the pile driving equipment, piling materials, soil stockpiles, and laydown areas that will be needed to install the Steel H-Piles for the Floodwall after the floodwall has been excavated. The Floodwall Easement should have been made 100 feet wide, just like the Easement for the Levee work. The narrow Floodwall Easement will cause especially significant problems during the installation of the Battered Piles, which will require the Pile Driving Rig to be off-set from the Floodwall and cause the Rig to violate the Temporary Easement Boundaries and significantly encroach on private property. In addition, the Pile Load Test Areas as shown on Sheets S-101-103 appear to outside the easement limits. This is a design issue that needs to be taken into consideration by the Government and cannot be dismissed as a “means and methods” issue to be resolved by the Contractor. To partially mitigate these logistical problems one suggested design solution is to redesign the H-Piles to eliminate the Battered Piles.

Please address this important design and construction issue in an amendment as soon as possible because the Contractor needs to be provided with sufficient room to perform the work. Please increase the limits on both sides of the proposed floodwall for constructability. Otherwise, the work will be impossible to perform as currently designed.

Response: Work area limits have been revised to provide additional space for construction activities. This shall provide sufficient working area to drive the piles according to the current specification.

Question No. 7: Why does specification 31 32 11 reference concrete block matt installation (Section 1.4.1)? If there is installation of concrete block matts, where do they get installed and please provide a specification?

Response: Concrete block mat does not apply to this contract. Paragraph in question has been deleted has been from Section 31 32 11 included in this amendment.

Question No. 8. With regard to CLIN #0003 – Contaminated Non-Hazardous (ID27) Material, please address and clarify the following:

a. Please clarify the underlying assumptions and how the proposal quantity of 3,100 CY was developed and calculated.

Response: The estimated quantity was calculated based on the Sediment Sampling Results in Section 00 90 04 for those areas which indicated material that exceeded New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) guidelines for Residential Direct Contact Health and Non-Residential Direct Contact Health.

b. Please indicate on the drawings the locations and extent to which the Contractor is expected to encounter the Contaminated Non-Hazardous soil.

Response: Sediment Sampling Results in Section 00 90 04 can be utilized to assess location and extent of Contaminated, Non-Hazardous material to be encountered.

Question No. 9: Please verify if the total pile qty is for purchase length or installed length of pile. If installed length how would contractor recover the costs of procuring additional pile material (longer piles) to avoid shortfalls due to potential variations in soil conditions? We recommend that a separate item be added for procuring pile material as is common on DOT projects.

Response: The bid item quantity for the H-Piles is the sum of estimated pile lengths.

Separate bid item for procuring pile material will not be added.

Question No. 10: Note #6 on Dwg C-105 requires the Contractor to relocate an unspecified number of JCP&L poles and guy wires that fall within the footprint of the Levee Access Ramp at the corner of Broad Street and Woodstock Avenue. With regard to this requirement please address and clarify the following:

a. Please clarify whether or not this JCP&L pole line relocation work is covered under the JCP&L Agreement since there is a major amount of JCP&L Pole Line relocation work being performed for Contract 4, and it would be logical to assume that this work is covered by the JCP&L agreement.

Response: As part of this amendment, Plan Sheet ES-001 (Site Key Plan) has been revised and new electrical Plan Sheets ES-111B and ES-111C have been added to address the pole interference with the new levee access road. In addition, JCP&L Scope of work and material list has been revised.

b. If for some reason this work is not currently covered by the JCP&L, and if this work cannot be added to the JCP&L work, then please provide an enlarged plan drawing with details showing exactly what has to be done, how many poles are involved, how many guy wires need to be relocated, and where these poles and guy wires are to be relocated because the drawings do not currently provide this information.

Response: As part of this amendment, Plan Sheet ES-001 (Site Key Plan) has been revised and new electrical Plan Sheets ES-111B and ES-111C have been added to address the pole interference with the new levee access road. In addition, JCP&L Scope of work and material list has been revised.

Question No. 11: How long is the inspection trench for the levee to remain excavated for ACOE inspection?

Response: It must remain open long enough for the COR to inspect the trench.

Question No. 12: Please provide a detail with respect to the paving and or resurfacing work to be performed on Route 36.

Response: Refer to the Typical Pavement Section on sheet C-504.

Question No. 13: Will there be any permanent traffic control/lane closure restrictions with respect to the removal and replacement of the existing concrete median barrier on Route 36?

Response: All traffic control is temporary and will remain in place during construction.

Refer to MPT plans on sheets G-104, G-105, G-106, and G-107.

Question No. 14: Based upon the requirements of the contract drawings and the allowable sloping/toe drain details shown on drawing C-513, will the USACE allow construction beyond the proposed easements or will the USACE provide an additional temporary construction easement to accommodate sloping on both the protected & floodsides as well as the necessary construction access needed to perform the work?

As a typical example, the bottom of the floodwall at sta 15+00 is approximately 7.25’ d, the bottom excavation width is approx. 28.5’ w (10.5’ w sand, 15’ w cap, 3’ work area floodside), the top of slope excavation width (w/ 1 on 1 sloping) is approx. 43’ w. The available easement is only 40’ w. Please clarify the intent of the contract drawings and details, as this is typical for almost all the floodwall sections.

Response: Work area limits have been revised to provide additional space for construction activities. This shall provide sufficient working area to construct the project in accordance with the plans and specifications.

Question No. 15: The cited lengths of piles on S-301 through S-304 are called out to be used for estimating purposes. When these lengths are used, the total estimated length of piles (including added lengths for battered piles to reach the same tip) is significantly lower than the 119,300 LF quantity provided in the Item for Steel H Piles.

Considering there are multiple Options for additional quantity if needed, the initial item should be equal to the quantity calculated from the estimated lengths provided on Sheets S-301 to S-304 whereas it appears the item quantity is currently more than 10% off.

Response: Bid should be based on quantities included on the bid schedule.

Question No. 16: A typical section shows a 4” Conduit at the top of the Flood Wall in Detail 5 on Dwg S-507. Please provide details that show how this Conduit is to be treated at the joints in the Flood Wall. For example, are there any special fittings to be provided for the Conduit at the joints to allow for expansion and contraction?

Response: Provide a UL Listed expansion coupler for the conduit as indicated on revised S-507 included in this amendment.

Question No. 17: Paragraph 3.2.1 of Section 31 62 16.16 states that the Contractor’s equipment must be able to drive piles with lengths ranging from 50 feet to 100 feet. This unusual requirement is also stated in the description of work for CLIN #0009. Please clarify why this statement is being made when all of the pile lengths that are provided for Base Bid bidding purposes on the typical cross sections are no longer than 75 feet long.

Therefore, the means and methods to be provided by the Contractor to install the Pile Lengths included in the Base Bid Scope of work, and covered in CLIN #0009, should be suitable for installing H-Piles up to 75 feet long, and not 100 feet long. Please clarify this discrepancy.

Response: Pile lengths indicated on typical cross sections are estimated values. The final pile lengths will be based on test pile results. Contractor must consider possible increase of length and any equipment to be used for lengths up to 100’.

Question No. 18: With regard to the Splicing of the H-Piles, please clarify the following:

a. Why is it specified in Paragraph 1.3 – Submittals, in Section 31 62 16.16, for the Contractor to submit details for the Pile Splices that are stamped by a Professional Engineer when the splice detail is fully detailed on Dwg S-302? Since the Contractor will be following the details provided by the Government it is not appropriate for the Contractor to hire an Engineer to stamp the Government’s design. Therefore, this requirement should be deleted. Please clarify.

Response: The pile splice detail shown on the drawing is a typical representative example. The contractor shall submit their shop drawing for the pile splice detail stating the product that they intend to use as the splicer along with the product data sheets. The shop drawing submittal shall be stamped by a Professional Engineer and submitted for approval.

b. The sixth sentence in Paragraph 3.2.5.7 of Section 31 62 16.16 states that:

“Splicing operations must be performed before pile driving any section of the pile”.

This sentence appears to require the Contractor to splice the piles before driving the spliced piles. However, most piling projects use manufactured pile splicers that rely on the customary practice of driving the bottom pile sections first, then attaching the splice, and then adding and driving the upper pile section. This project is already severely constrained by the very narrow construction easement that makes the pile driving work very challenging on this project. Adding this unnecessary splicing requirement further complicates the project without any benefit to the Government. Therefore, we recommend that Paragraph 3.2.6.7 be revised to allow the Contractor to select the means and methods for installing the spliced piles: either as one piece, or as two sections. Please clarify.

Response: Work area limits have been revised to provide additional space for

Question No. 19: Section 05 59 13, para 1.4.3 Qualification of Structural Steel Fabricator.

a. Does the door fabricating shop need to be AISC certified?

Response: The closure gate fabricating shop needs to be AISC certified as per Specification Section 05 59 13 para 1.4.3.

b. If they use structural steel from a certified mill does only the structural steel have to be AISC certified?

Response: All steel material for the closure gate shall meet ASTM standards per specifications. The closure gate fabricating shop needs to be AISC certified as per Specification Section 05 59 13 para 1.4.3.

Question No. 20: On plan sheet C-303, the cross section at Station 33+00 is showing a sectional view with the levee. Based off various other sheets in the contract plans, it looks like the cross section at 33+00 should be the flood wall, not the levee. Please confirm that the cross sectional elevations are correct at Station 33+00.

Response: Sheets C-302 and C-303 have been deleted and replaced with Sheets C- 302a, C-302b, C-302c, C-303a, C-303b, and C-303c, included in this amendment.

Question No. 21: Please provide page 49 of 49 in the JCP&L construction work detail (JCPL WR57833758) sheet package.

Response: Page numbering has been revised. Refer to Section 00 90 05 included in this amendment.

Question No. 22: Please confirm if tax should be included on materials for this job. If so, should contractors be carrying the NJ state tax rate or a specific federal rate?

Please provide specific federal rate if applicable.

Response: See Amendment 0003, response to Question No. 8 regarding state taxes on materials. In addition, there is no Federal tax on materials.

Question No. 23: Section 3.2 of Specification Section 31 62 16.16 states, “Where cutoff is below existing ground or mudline, complete excavation, sheeting, and dewatering before driving pile to cutoff elevation.” Provided the narrow construction easements for the construction of these piles, we request the requirement for piles to be driven from subgrade be eliminated. Providing a sheeted and shored excavation of the wall footing with the layout shown in the plans will only provide a narrow access road (approximately 15’ wide) to drive pile from. A machine capable of driving 100’ long pile is not capable of working within these limits. This will further be complicated by the challenge of hauling 85’ long pile to the rig. Please permit installation H -Piles from existing grade.

Response: Work area limits have been revised to provide additional space for

Question No. 24: Section 3.2.5.7 of Specification Section 31 62 16.16 states “Piles for lengths up to 85 LF should not be spliced unless authorized by the COR.” The specification section also requires all battered piles to be installed using fixed-extended leads. Although machines capable of driving 100 LF piles are available, they are not conducive to the site restraints of this project. Provided the narrow easement limits of this project, we request that all piles installed on this project be permitted to include a splice, and the machine must only have the hammer capacity required to drive the piles to a depth of 100 feet deep using spliced lengths.

Response: Work area limits have been revised to provide additional space for

Question No. 25: Specification Section 31 41 16, Part 3.2.2.1 states, “Any excavation required within the area where sheet piles are to be installed shall be completed prior to placing sheet pilings.” Due to the tight access restraints of the site, we believe it may lower cost to install these piles from existing grade, excavate around these sheet piles and cut off to grade. Please consider eliminating the above referenced requirement.

Response: Work area limits have been revised to provide additional space for

Question No. 26: A scope of work and sketch were provided in the Specifications for the Project under the JCP&L requirements. We have noticed several discrepancies between this sketch and the Contract Drawings, please specify which detail is correct for the following differences:

a. The scope document states 3- 25kVA transformers will be installed on Pole JC41953MDT, Contract Drawing ES-108 shows these transformers being installed on Pole BT41955MDT.

Response: Drawing ES-109, included in this amendment, has been revised to show a new JCP&L pole BT 41953MDT having the three (3)- 25 KVA, which agrees with JCP&L's scope of work specifications.

b. The scope document lists for the Campbell Ave line to install a new 600 A disconnect on Pole BT-4090 MDT, relocate the 75A Transformer from this pole to JC-2824MDT and remove the existing disconnect on JC-2824. Please confirm the scope document is referring to JC-2842MDT. Also, the contract drawings do not refer to relocation of the transformer or removal of disconnect from pole JC- 2842MDT which is noted in the scope of work document.

Response: The new 600 Amp disconnect is shown on revised Sheet ES-114A included in this amendment. Section 00 90 05 JCP&L Requirement Scope of Work has been revised to reference pole JC2842MDT instead of JC2824MDT.

c. The scope of work for the Main St portion of the work references pole BT40084 MDT at Main St and Wilson. Please confirm that pole BT40064MDT was intended to be referenced as shown on Drawing ES-109B.

Response: Pole number on revised plan sheet ES-109B included in this amendment has been corrected to 40084MDT to agree with JCP&L's Scope of work.

Question No. 27: The JCP&L requirements state “Civil Work is the US Army Corp of Engineer’s responsibility, but still must hire a JCP&L approved civil contractor. Tree work, Gravel Road, etc. as per the Specifications and Standards provided by JCP&L.

Please confirm that the work required to be performed by the JCP&L approved civil contractor is limited to the work described in WR #57833758 as provided in the specifications and does not apply to electrical work described in Bid Items No. 0006, 0007 and 0008.

Response: Civil work as stated within JCP&L's Scope of work refers to work responsibilities of the general contractor. All associated civil related work to be performed on JCP&L owned and operated equipment must be performed by a JCP&L approved civil contractor. All other civil work shall be performed by a qualified civil contractor. Refer to Section 00 90 05 included in this amendment.

Question No. 28: Sheet S-001 paragraph IV Reinforcement for Cast-In-Place Concrete Note B states “Lap splices shall be class B and conform to the table shown on this sheet.” The reinforcement details for the footings shown in the typical flood wall sections (drawings S-301 to S-304) depict only nominal splices between reinforcing bars of the upper and lower mats of the wall footing, please confirm these splices require the class B splice length. In addition, please confirm that at the expansion joints located every 30 feet, the longitudinal bars between the inside and outside mat of the wall need to be lap spliced using the class B splice lengths provided on drawing S-001.

Response. Lap splices, as mentioned on S-001, shall be class B. At the expansion joints located typically every 30 feet, the longitudinal bars between the inside and outside mat of the wall do not go past the expansion joints. Any lap splicing must follow class B splice lengths on drawing S-001.

Question No. 29: Part 3.3.4.3 of Specification Section 31 62 16.16 states: “Perform dynamic pile testing on 5% of the job piles during the full length of initial driving and during restrike driving. Restrike will occur after a 21-day waiting period after initial driving.”

This specification also requires all excavation to be performed prior to installation of H- Piles. As referenced in a prior question, after shoring of this excavation, only a limited access road (approximately 15’) remains between the excavation and the easement limit. The specification requires the pile equipment be capable of installing a W12x84 H-Pile up to 100’ long. This requirement demands either a large pile driving rig (Junttan or similar) or a large crane with leads to install the piles. The specification section further requires all battered pile to be installed using fixed leads. This will mean during the initial drive and re-tap, the machine will need to be in close proximity to the pile. If excavation must truly be performed prior to installation of the pile, pile driving will need to be installed off the end of the excavation. We assume the PDA production piles will be randomly selected. At these random location, production piling would need to cease for a period of 21 days so that it can be reached again for re-tap. If hanging leads can be utilized to drive the pile, excavation will only be able to progress as far out as the crane is capable of booming out with the hammer and leads for re-tap. Because of these challenges, we again respectfully request that the requirement of performing excavation prior to H-Pile driving be re-eliminated.

Response: Work area limits have been revised to provide additional space for

Question No. 30: Part 3.3.1.1 ‘Secondary Test Piles’ of Specification Section 31 62 16.16, states, “Do not perform any static pile load tests or any dynamic restrike testing on the secondary test piles unless directed to do so by the Contracting Officer.

If this additional testing is required, the test pile program will take up a significant portion of the allowable construction period (more than 4 months). Please confirm that in the event bid Items 0011AC and 0011AD are used, a change order will be provided to allow for additional time to complete the Contract Work.

Response: Testing of the secondary piles is part of the basic contract; therefore, no additional time will be given for these bid items.

Question No. 31: Specification Section 31 62 16.16, ‘Steel H-Piles’, Part 3.2.3 provides as a tolerance of only 1” in plan location of piling. The specification also requires all vertical and battered pile to be not more than 0.25 inches per foot from the required batter.

We find these tolerances to be much more restrictive than industry standards. For example, NJDOT requires that piling be installed within 6 inches of planned location.

Please consider increasing these tolerances to the same as used for Phase II-Contract 3, requiring piling to be installed within 3” from plan location and batter tolerance within

0.5 inches per foot on battered pile only (1/4” per foot for vertical pile) in an effort to avoid pile cap redesigns throughout the duration of the project.

Response: Final lateral deviation from the correct location at the cutoff elevation of not more than 1 inch is preferred and not more than 3 inches will be permitted. A variation of not more than 0.25 inch per foot of pile length from the required angle for batter piles will be permitted. See revised Section 31 62 16.16, paragraph 3.2.3 included in this amendment.

Question No. 32: Part 3.3.5 of Specification Section 31 23 00.00 states, “Excavation to final grade shall not be made until just before concrete is to be placed. For pile foundations, the excavation shall be stopped at an elevation 6 to 12 inches above the bottom of the footing before driving piles.” Similarly, Part 3.3.2 of this same specification states, “For pile foundations, stop the excavation at an elevation of (sic) 6 to 12 inches above the bottom of the footing before driving piles. Backfill and compact over excavations and changes in grade due to pile driving operations to 95% of ASTM D698 maximum density.”

The standard cross sections for the floodwall as shown on Drawings S-301 through S- 304 show a minimum of 6” of crushed stone or a mud mat to be placed below the wall footing. Since the trench will be graded with stone or a concrete mud mat, are the above requirements which will require an additional step of construction (and additional cost) required?

Response: Driving of the piles will result in some settling of the nearby ground due to pile driving operations. Stopping the excavation before pile driving operations will ensure that the contractor does not unintentionally over excavate near the piles as the Contractor would be required to bring it up to the proper grade.

Question No. 33: There appears to be a major ambiguity in the plans as sheet S-302 shows a large portion of the wall with a B/pile cap at EL. -6.0 however the corresponding cross sections on sheets C-302 and C-303 do not show such bottom elevations. Please clarify.

Question No. 34: There are two gas lines that pass the floodwall systems at the gate structures at Campbell Rd and Broadway. Based on our interpretation of the description for Bid Item 18, New Jersey Natural Gas will install a temporary bypass via hot taps to maintain the gas line in continuous operation as it is diverted away from the work. Once the cutoff sheeting is installed through the permanent gas line location, the new gas line would be installed through the sheeting. Is this accurate?

Response: Yes, this is an accurate description of construction activities for the gas works. All gas work is subject to direction of New Jersey Natural Gas.

Question No. 35: There is one water line that passes the floodwall system at the gate structure at Campbell Rd. Please specify the required procedure to install the water line through the permanent sheeting. Can the water line be isolated and removed during installation of the cutoff sheeting, then reinstalled through the permanent sheeting? Or, does the water line need to be temporarily bypassed around its existing location while the permanent sheeting is being installed, and then be installed in its final configuration?

Response: The intent is to cap the existing water line, remove the water main for the installation of the sheet pile, and then reinstall through the new sleeve. At this time, New Jersey American Water did not indicate a need for a temporary bypass. However, the Contractor shall coordinate all water work with New Jersey American Water and follow their procedures.

Question No. 36: Specification Section 01 55 26 Traffic Control requires the Contractor to submit a traffic control plan for approval. Although questions have previously been submitted to the USAC regarding this, the responses have not adequately addressed this matter. The USACE should include a Traffic Control Plan that identifies the requirements of the Middletown Police Department to control, protect, guide and detour traffic during the various stages of construction so as to allow for fair and equivalent pricing for this portion of the work. For example, the traffic control plan proposed by

Contractor “A” may not be equivalent to the traffic control plan proposed by Contractor “B”; and neither may be satisfactory and address the actual requirements of the Middletown Police Department, or other agencies.

Response: In accordance with Section 01 55 26, the Contractor is required to prepare a Traffic Control Plan for approval.

Question No. 37: There is insufficient access to many areas of the work on this project.

In many locations it will not be possible to deploy the heavy equipment required to construct the project and deliver the concrete, aggregates and other materials required, due to a lack of temporary easements that could provide access to the project work areas. Additionally the two staging areas shown on the plans are inadequate. Staging Area 4A is a 9 parking space portion of the Middletown Commuter Lot at the intersection of NJ Route 36 and Wilson Avenue, and Staging Area 4B is heavily wooded and must be cleared and is in area subject to frequent tidal flooding. Please revise the plans to provide proper access and useable staging areas.

Response: The access and staging areas are as shown on the contract plans.

Question No. 38: Please confirm that The Owner is the generator of all unknown pre-existing hazardous material and will sign transportation manifests as such in the event that abatement is necessary.

Response: Hazardous material is not expected to be encountered.

Question No. 39: Please confirm that Owner will indemnify the Contractor for any loss, cost, expense, or fine related to any pre-existing hazardous material.

Response: Hazardous material is not expected to be encountered.

Question No. 40: Please confirm that in the instance of a differing site condition, the situation will be handled through change order procedures.

Response: This is correct.

Question No. 41: Please confirm that Liquidated Damages will be the sole and exclusive remedy for delay. Please consider putting a reasonable cap on Liquidated Damages.

Response: Liquidated damages are as specified.

Question No. 42: Drawing S-508 details a typical construction joint between the Floodwall Stem and Floodwall Footing, yet there does not appear to be any construction joints depicted between the two on any of the cross sections in the structural drawings.

Please confirm if it is the Government’s intent to have the Floodwall Stem and Floodwall Footing poured as a monolithic pour with no construction joint between the two.

Response: There shall be a construction joint between the floodwall stem and floodwall footing. See the updated typical floodwall sections on revised drawings S-301 and S- 302 included in this amendment.

Question No. 43: Drawing C-514 details the Cellular Confinement System which is to be placed over the newly constructed Levee. What type of material is the CCS supposed to be made of? Please provide a specification for the CCS along with any approved manufacturers.

Response: See Specification 31 32 00.00 18 Soil Stabilization System which has been added as part of this amendment.

Question No. 44: The footings and levees be disposed of onsite? If so, where?

Response: No. Refer to Specification Section 32 93 00, para 3.3 which states that, “All Phragmites removed must be disposed of as trash off-site” and to Section 31 11 00, para 3.5.2, which states that disposal of vegetative waste off-site is the Contractor's responsibility.

Question No. 45: Monolith footings: Are the vertical joints in the wall portion of the monolith continuous into the footing, if so are joints at 30’ intervals required or can the footings be placed continuous? If the footings have to be poured in 30’ intervals will the rebar continuously pass through the joint or be installed only joint to joint?

Response: The footings cannot be placed continuous and require expansion joints between them. The reinforcement shall not pass through the joint.

Question No. 46: Dynamic piles tests provide more information and more accurate data than static test piles. Why are both types of tests required and how will conflicting information between results be correlated?

Response:. Perform work as directed in the plans and specifications.

Question No. 47: Will production pile order lengths be provided to the contractor by the USACOE as test pile areas are completed for specific sections of the floodwall or will all test pile areas need to be completed before order lengths are provided? If the test pile areas correlate to specific stationing for the wall and if so can this information be provided?

Response: Production pile lengths will be provided to the Contractor as the test areas are completed. The pile test areas correspond to wall stationing as follows:

Pile Load Test Area 1: Station 0+00 to Station 13+08 Pile Load Test Area 2: Station 0+00 to Station 13+08 Pile Load Test Area 3: Station 13+08 to Station 22+78.25 Pile Load Test Area 4: Station 22+78.25 to Station 24+28.25 Pile Load Test Area 5: Station 24+28.25 to Station 36+39 Pile Load Test Area 6: Station 24+28.25 to Station 36+39 Pile Load Test Area 7: Station 46+36 to Station 48+49

Question No. 48: Section 3.3.3 states that “Load test piles indicated or directed to be driven in permanent locations may be incorporated into the work if, after satisfactory completion of load test, they are approved for inclusion in the work”. What will determine whether load test piles will be directed to be driven in permanent locations?

Response: They must be to the correct length and batter and be undamaged.

Question No. 49: Why do pile test areas 5 and 6 need to be performed before or concurrently with other test pile load area?

Response: Perform work as directed in the plans and specifications.

Question No. 50: What is the required driving resistance for the test piles? What is the required driving resistance for the production piles?

Response: There is no required driving resistance for the test and production piles.

Test piles are to be driven to the depths indicated on the plans. The Government will provide the production pile length. Refer to Spec Section 31 62 16.16 for further clarification.

Question No. 51: What determines pass/fail of the static load tests? Will the retest be paid for under the unit price for static tests?

Response: The Government will determine whether or not a static load test is a “failure”. A static load test performed in accordance with the applicable ASTM will not be deemed a “failure”. A retest of a static load test will only be performed if the ASTM procedures are not properly followed. The Contractor is responsible for all testing equipment and proper procedure for the static load tests. If the retest has to be performed due to a failure of the testing equipment or not following the proper test procedure then the retest will be at the expense of the Contractor.

Question No. 52: Specification Section 31 62 16.16 Paragraph 3.3.4.3 on Page 12 states that 5% of all production piles will be required to have a dynamic load test performed. Since order lengths will have already been provided to the contractor by the USACOE what is the purpose of this dynamic pile test data?

Response: This is a quality assurance provision to ensure that unknown site conditions do not affect the stability of the floodwall.

Question No. 53: Please provide all pile test results from Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project, Port Monmouth, NJ, Phase II - Contract 3.

Response: Test pile data for both Port Monmouth, NJ, Phase II - Contracts 2 and 3 are included in Section 00 90 07 in this amendment.

Question No. 54: Specification Section 31 00 00 Earthwork, Part 3 Execution, 3.1 Stripping of Topsoil as revised in Amendment Modification No. 0003 states – In all areas where excavation is to occur or where fill is to be placed, strip topsoil to a depth of 12”. Please verify that the 12” of soil that is to be stripped in these areas is indeed topsoil and can be re-used as topsoil.

Response: If the soil that is stripped meets the specifications for topsoil, it can be re-used.

Question No. 55: Under Specification Section 31 23 00.00 20, 3.2 Surface Preparation, 3.2.2 Stripping has been deleted. Are not these two specifications contradictory? Please clarify.

Response: Although Paragraph 3.2.2 in Section 31 23 00.00 20 has been deleted, the stripping requirements are included in paragraph 3.1 of Section 31 00 00. These two specifications sections are not contradictory.

Question No. 56: Construction of the Sand, Gravel and Topsoil as show on Plan Sheet C-513 will extend beyond the Construction Easement line in certain areas of the project. Please clarify.

Response: Work area limits have been revised to provide additional space for construction activities. This shall provide sufficient working area to construct the project according to the plans and specifications.

Question No. 57: Regarding Amendment #2, ACOE answer to question 13:

a. Please confirm the holes can be flame cut into the sheetpiles.

Response: Contractor shall cut holes per specification section 31 41 16, para 3.2.3.c.

b. The note added to sheets S-301 thru S-304 states “…for bars passing thru the piles” which we believe is no longer the case. Just for clarity, the bars are no longer passing thru the piles. Please confirm.

Response: Rebars shall not pass through the H-Piles.

c. Please update sheets S-105 & S-106 as the impact of the 1” offset of the rebar with the piles can be visualized at the monolith bends (see 1.d below for further impact that may apply at the bends as well)

Response: See updated sheets S-105 and S-106 included in this amendment.

d. Monolith #’s 79-135 have 3 rows of staggered piles which when considering this 1” offset may result in only 50% of the bottom transverse rebar being able to be installed (assuming full length rebars and the c/c spacing of the rebar remains the same). Please confirm this is acceptable.

Response: An additional layer of rebar has been added to the monoliths to the staggered piles to account for the reduction of rebars in the lower layer. Please refer to the updated sheet S-302 included in this amendment.

e. Are holes to be cut in the sheetpile cutoff wall for the single longitudinal rebar shown?

Response: Holes shall be cut into the sheetpile for the rebar that needs to pass through it.

i. If this is the case, each pz22 sheetpile may have up to 5 holes each when there is 6” spacing on the transverse bars – please confirm this is the intent

Response: Yes, that is the intent. The holes shall be cut into the sheetpile for the rebar that needs to pass through it.

ii. If this is the case, installing the single longitudinal bar thru the sheetpiles may be problematic. (We suggest ACOE allow the longitudinal bar to be offset 1” similar to the H-piles)

Response: The rebar shall not be offset for the sheetpiles.

Question No. 58: Regarding Amendment #1, ACOE’s answer to question 15 is quite ambiguous and puts the bidder in an unfair bidding position. The contract is setup that the bidder may not get paid for work done which is against most public bidding laws unless the following questions are addressed fairly.

a. If costs are above the allowance values which are then either denied thru the Request for Equitable Adjustment clause or funds are not available, how is the contractor to be paid for this balance?

Response: The allowance amounts are based on input from the respective utility companies so there is low risk of these amounts being exceeded. However, should the Contractor believe that a denial of an equitable adjustment was erroneous, he may submit a claim under the Disputes clause of the contract.

b. If the response above is not favorable to pay the contractor for the remainder, it essentially forces the bidder to put the excess costs in another bid item. Please confirm what bid item this should be.

Response: The allowance amounts reflect input from the utilities. The specified allowance amounts should be included in the bid as shown on the bid schedule and not changed. Bid should be based on the contract plans and specifications.

Question No. 59: Plan Sheet C-303 Site Cross Sections shows a Levee at Station 33+00. Plan Sheet C-105 shows the Flood Wall at Station 33+00 and extending and tying into the Levee at Station 36+00, where the Levee begins. Additionally, Site Cross Sections Plan Sheets, C-302 and C-303 do not accurately portray the work required to be performed in conjunction with the Flood Wall construction. These Cross Sections do not show the additional excavation required to construct the Sand and Gravel backfill on the protected side of the Flood Wall, as shown on Plan Sheet C-513 Toe Drain Details.

The Cross-Sections should be corrected and revised, accordingly, to allow an accurate Earthwork quantity take-off to be performed.

Question No. 60: Regarding levee section on sheet C-513 and levee cross sections on sheet C-303. Sheet C-303 does not show the sand toe drain however considering varying scales, please confirm its invert of EL. -3.0 is correct as this is quite deep for a drain.

Response: The invert El. -3.0 is confirmed.

Question No. 61: Although the Campbell Avenue Flood Gate construction will intercept an existing 8” diameter water main, the drawings do not provide any enlarged plan view, elevation view and sleeve detail to show how the Water Main crossing will be accomplished. Please provide the missing information.

Response: A typical sleeve detail has been provided on sheet C-511 for the utility crossings through the sheet pile; there is an enlarged plan view on Sheet C-109 and a structural elevation view on Sheet S-311 as well.

4. This amendment shall be attached to the specifications and plans and shall be a part thereof.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 01-Jun-2018 02:00 PM to 13-Sep-2018 02:00 PM.

(End of Summary of Changes)