B.08.03 Amendment 04.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. Provide responses to RFIs.

2. Provide revised Specifications for 40 95 00 and 43 41 23. The Specifications w ill be posted via beta.sam.gov, under the attachment section on 30 March 2021.

Offeror must acknow ledge receipt of this amendment by the date specified in the proposal (or as amended) by one of the follow ing methods: in the space provided on 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 OFFER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBMISSION, MODIFICATION, REVISION, AND WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS (FAR 15.208).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 4

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 31-Mar-2021

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 W912DS21R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Feb-2021

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

31-Mar-2021

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NEW YORK

26 FEDERAL PLAZA, RM 16-300

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:

W912DS21R0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 72 00 - GENERAL CONDITIONS

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 4

OFFERORS' QUESTIONS AND GOVERNMENT REPLY: 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. By this Amendment Offerors are advised of this provision, applicable to all RFI responses.

Question 58: Is it acceptable for the General Contractor to utilize and operate the facility's overhead crane for construction purposes during the project? If so, are there any loading restrictions that we need to know about?

Government Response 58: They are per Specification Section 01 35 26 - 1.6.1.4. Specification Section 01 35 26 under 1.6.1.4 includes the following: “WVA Existing Facility Cranes are available to the Contractor for use of the Renovation of the Plating Shop. However, only WVA crane operators are allowed to operate the WVA's cranes from the cabs.”

The most used crane is a 10TON Capacity.

Question 59: Section 00 10 00 - Solicitation ITEM NO 0002 indicates "As-built and Operation and Maintenance FFP Manuals". However under "Notice to Bidders" it indicates CLIN 0002 references Hazardous Material Removal.

Please clarify.

Government Response 59: CLIN 0002 is correct at "As-Built and Operation and Maintenance FFP Manuals" the Notes to Bidder description should be removed.

Question 60: SECTION 40 05 13 2.4.1 states High Purity RED PVDF for the PVDF Pipe on the project. Please provide a manufacturer for this piping, as we do not have one that manufactures High Purity RED – only natural colors.

Government Response 60: No preferred manufactures are provided.

Question 61: Specification on PVDF states pipe shall be schedule 80. Pipe shall be SDR. These are two different standards – it can't be both.

Government Response 61: No preferred manufactures are provided. The piping shall be 80 PVDF. Refer to revised Specification Section 40 05 13 included as part of amendment 0004.

Question 62: The Government has requested PVDF liners for their chromium tanks. The probable reason for this is because PVDF is chemically inert, and the fumes from the chrome solution will not eat away at that material. There are two problems with the approach that the Government is taking, in my opinion. The first problem is that I do not know of any manufacturer who can produce a PVDF liner of this size (none of the three manufacturers in the specification whom we must use can do it). Generally, PVDF liners are very small, due to the fact that they are very thin, and the more you are required to fold them (for shipping) the more likely you are to develop pinholes, which would cause leaks in the liner. The fact that the pinholes are prevalent in these liners also makes the installation of these liners far more expensive due to the additional rework time. The second reason these could be problematic is because they are only 40 mil thick, when PVC could be installed at 3/16 inches thick, which is almost 5 times as thick as the PVDF. This means that the PVC would be much more durable, and would hold up to any contact inside the tank much better. The third issue with PVDF is that the liners are about 4 times as expensive as PVC liners, so this would add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the job.

In other jobs for major manufacturers, including government contractors, we have suggested using a PVC liner with a chemically inert skirt PTFE skirt around the top. Essentially, this skirt is welded onto the PVC, and is positioned where the solution and the air meet, so that the fumes from the chrome do not eat away at the PVC liner. You get the benefits of the chemically inert liner (fumes are not eating away at the PVC at the solution level), you get the benefits of the PVC (much thicker and more durable), and you get both of these at a much more attractive cost.

If we were advising the Government, we would be requesting that they spec in a PVC liner with a chemically inert PTFE skirt for these chrome tanks. This is the solution that the majority of the industry uses, and we manufacture every single day.

If this is not acceptable, we request the Engineer provide manufacturers that can meet this specification, because the three listed cannot.

Government Response 62: PVDF to Remain. No preferred manufacturers or BOD are provided.

Question 63: 1.3.6 Test reports shall include power quality measurement data collected in accordance with IEEE 1159. Since IEEE 1159 is only applies to units with line current ratings of <200amps, can we assume that only the 2500-amp rectifiers meet this specification requirement?

Government Response 63: Rectifiers must meet the current ratings specified in IEEE 1159.

Question 64: 2.1.2.2 - .8 power factor is not achievable using 6 pulse SCR rectifier technology as specified. Please clarify.

Government Response 64: Bid as shown on documents and assume risk as part of pricing.

Question 65: 2.1.2.9 THD at 2% is not achievable using 6 pulse SCR rectifier technology as specified. Please clarify Government Response 65: Include any deviation from the specifications and reason for the deviation with your proposal for review.

Question 66: 2.1.7 – NEMA 4X enclosures are being specified. Will NEMA 12, which is the industry standard for rectifier enclosures, be an acceptable alternative?

The NEMA 4X requirement adds a considerable cost to the project. We also know that there are currently four (4) 15,000-amp SCR rectifiers bussed in parallel for a total of 60,000 amps, in use at the existing Watervliet Heart Chrome site. These units are NEMA 12 enclosures and no issues related to the enclosure have been reported.

Please confirm if NEMA 12 enclosure is acceptable.

Government Response 66: Bid as shown on documents and assume risk as part of pricing.

Question 67: 2.3.2.e - Burn in test is requires 24 hours at full amperage. Approved rectifier manufacturers are suggesting this large load testing is not possible for this extended period of time at their facilities. We would like to request this testing be removed from the spec or that it be performed at Watervliet with the customer providing the parts load needed to generate the full load amp of the rectifier. Please confirm.

Government Response 67: Bid as shown on documents and assume risk as part of pricing.

Question 68: 2.3.3.a Apply input surges in accordance with IEEE C62.41.1 & C62.41.1. The surges suggested in IEEE specs are in excess of the rectifier's capabilities. We are taking exception to this requirement so as not to damage the units. Please confirm this requirement can be omitted from scope.

Government Response 68: Bid as shown on documents and assume risk as part of pricing.

Question 69: 2.3.3 – d, This specification requires overload testing that is not possible. The SCR rectifiers are regulated, therefore the input fusing will trip. Please confirm this special factory tests will be omitted from scope.

Government Response 69: Bid as shown on documents and assume risk as part of pricing.

Question 70: 2.3.3 – f, EMI is unclear due to bussing to the load. Can we inquire as to the current EMI situation with the current bussing configuration as this will be the same/very similar configuration after reinstallation. Please verify if there are EMI issues with the current configuration?

Government Response 70: The Government is not aware of EMI issues with current configuration.

Question 71: 3.2.2 – The rectifier manufacturer provides load banks for testing. A load of this size cannot be provided by rectifier manufacturer and would need to be provided by Watervliet. Please confirm this load test can be performed at site.

Government Response 71: Include any deviation from the specifications and reason for the deviation with your proposal for review. If not capable of factory testing at the required load, indicate proposal includes testing at site with load provided by Government.

Question 72: There is not guidance noted for the tank paint. A two-part epoxy is recommended, but not specified.

Please provide any painting requirements for tanks.

Government Response 72: New tank exterior surface shall use same novolac epoxy as specified for steel in 09 96

Question 73: The tanks shall be cleaned to remove all oils, greases, and dirt. Per specification, the tanks shall be filled to design capacity with a cleaning solution of 15% by volume Brulin 815D or approved equal. Tanks shall then be heated to 150 degrees F for one hour. After cleaning, tanks shall be rinsed until cleaning solution has been removed. This process shall be repeated until all oils, grease and dirt are removed. The heated cleaning solutions shall be transferred to non-heated tanks in order to clean those tanks as well. Please confirm this can be discharged to the industrial wastewater treatment plant.

Government Response 73: Yes, the cleaning agents can be sent to waste.

(End of Summary of Changes)