B.08.03 Amendment 05.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

See Continuation Page for the purpose of this amendment.

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 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 W912DS25B0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Feb-2025

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

12-May-2025

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:

W912DS25B0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 73 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 05

Vessel Shore Power, Caven Point Marine Terminal, NJ Solicitation #: W912DS25B0003

New Title: “Shore Power and Mooring System Upgrades Project”

AMENDMENT 005 of 005:

TO BIDDERS:

Note the Change of Project Title to: “Shore Power and Mooring System Upgrades Project” The following changes shall be made to the drawings and specifications. The current plans and specifications are now “Revision 1”, dated May 2025.

DRAWINGS:

G-001: Updated project title and sheet index G-002: Added to the symbols and abbreviations G-003: Expanded note 10 for NAVD88 vs. MLLW data GC101: Updated existing conditions background (to match V-101) GC102: Updated existing conditions background V-101: Added stormwater details. Removed stormwater section. Added outfall, existing electrical details, and asphalt surface elevations V-102: Added existing electrical details including PSE&G infrastructure, concrete pavement, and pipe bollards. Updated notes V-103: Removed stormwater section. Added outfall B-101: Updated existing conditions background CD101: Improved demolition plan callouts CD102: Updated asphalt cut lines in demolition plan and typical replacement asphalt detail C-001: Updated stormwater routing to match C-101 C-101: Updated stormwater routing. Added information on grading and invert elevations. Expanded notes.

Increased the amount of information for surface elevations and on components of the drainage system.

Added HMA paving on top of the pile caps of MD5 and 6—this pavement is sloped; at the wharf edge, the step up to the to the existing concrete wharf edge beam from the top of the pavement is now only 10” instead of 18”—the HMA at the edge is 1 ½” + 2 ½” = 4” thick, on top of the pile caps. Added five or six scuppers to be cored through the existing wharf edge beam west of the gangway foundation for drainage, near MD5 and 6. Indicated two batter piles on MD5 to be rotated to avoid hitting piles from MD6.

C-102: Added more detail about the drainage system and pavement elevations. Added typical utility trench detail. Raised the elevation of the MD7 pile cap such that the step up to the bollard pedestal and to the existing concrete wharf edge beam is only 10” instead of 18”.

C-103: Updated callouts C-105: Updated callouts C-301: Updated callouts and elevations. Added Note 6 caution about NAVD88 vs. MLLW. (The steel fender pile is intended to be 70 feet long.)

C-302: Updated elevations C-303: Updated callouts and elevations about the gangway C-304: Updated elevations S-001: Updated notes

S-101: Updated sheet notes and dimensions per Sched. 1 on S-102 and per C-101 S-102: Updated sheet notes and dimensions. Added Schedule 1 S-301: Updated sheet notes and fender section detail to show UHMW sliding plate on pile face S-301A: Updated callout. (Spec. 35 59 13.17 Section 2.1.4.6 now describes the UHMW mounted on steel fender piles and inside pile sleeves.)

S-502: Updated layout to reflect updated equipment orientation. Updated notes.

S-502A: Adjusted section cut, included rebar reinforcement details for updated layout, and updated notes S-503: Updated dimensions/rebar for revised cable pedestal, updated notes S-504: Moved some sheet content including camel connection details to new sheet S-505 S-505: New sheet. For the floating platforms at ladders: added more information and an additional detail.

This is still not meant to be USACE-designed; the final contractor-furnished floats, including their means of attachment to the ladders (or to the wharf) could differ.

E-101: Additional civil work/duct bank trenching in the plan northeast portion of the site, updated layout of cable crane foundation, updated notes E-401: Additional civil work/duct bank trenching near service entrance to site and switchboard “CPMT-H- SITE”. Updated layout of cable crane foundation. Updated notes. Added Note 11 for concrete flags; the affected flags must be replaced in kind to preserve the appearance of the site.

EG401: Updated layout of cable crane foundation. Updated notes.

E-501: Added details for concrete pavement restoration. Added details for PSE&G pullbox rebar reinforcement.

E-502: Changed Section B18 E-601: Several changes, including near the paint locker and at the connection to PSE&G

SPECIFICATIONS:

Title Sheet: Updated project name and added list of revised sections Division 01 20 00: Revised to match section 00 10 00-Solicitation Division 01 58 00: Updated information related to required project signage Division 31 00 00: Updated sections on satisfactory (1.2.6) and unsatisfactory (1.2.7) materials Division 31 68 13: Updated section 3.1.7, 3.4.3, 3.1.6.1 and 3.1.6.2 Division 35 59 13.17: Added section on UHMW mounted on steel fender piles and inside pile sleeves (2.1.4.6)

BIDDERS’ QUESTIONS AND GOVERNMENT REPLY:

RFIs (Note: numbers are in the order RFI’s were received):

10. Please clarify if the Buy American requirement. Are we subject to “Build America, Buy America” requirements (BABAA) on this project, which is typically more stringent than Buy America?

Response 10: The Build America, Buy America” requirements (BABAA) apply to all Federal Government procurement.

25. How is the contractor to be compensated should re-routing of existing storm drainpipes or altering of existing inlets be required?

Response 25: Rev 1 drawings released as part of Amendment 05 will clarify the location. Drawings note "FIELD VERIFY LOCATION AND DEPTH. REROUTE STORM DRAIN PIPES IF THERE IS INTERFERENCE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION. COORDINATE WITH CONTRACTING OFFICER." See the response to RFI 24.

Reference supplemental 1958 drawing number 15-04-01 for historical data on the existing site and assumptions to prepare bid accordingly. If a changed condition is found during construction, issues will be coordinated with contracting officer representative (COR). A modification could be warranted if an unforeseen site condition is presented.

26. Provide Rim & Invert Elevations for the existing storm drainage structures located on site for the contractor to determine the work that will be required to connect proposed storm drainage to existing storm drainage.

Response 26: See the Revision 1 plans, sheets V-101 (and C-101).

33. Please provide any and all permits obtained by the USACE for this project.

Response 33: Refer to the plans and specs.

34. Please advise if there are any In-Water Work Restrictions and/or Pile Driving Moratoriums.

Response 34: Work is determined as replace in kind. See working hours in specs.

35. Please advise if there are any M/W/DBE and/or SBE subcontracting goals for this project.

Response 35: See RFI 2 response.

36. Please provide as-built drawings of the Chapel Avenue roadway bridge leading into the project site.

Response 36: See attached Engineer letter for Chapel Ave Bridge and 22-202 - ST As Built Drawing.

37. Plan Sheet GC101 notes that the Chapel Avenue roadway bridge has a 36 Ton Maximum Load Rating. Please advise if the equipment required to construct the project, including but limited to: Cranes, Excavators, Drill Rigs, Concrete Trucks, Concrete Pump Trucks, Flatbed Trucks, Dump Trucks, Asphalt Pavers, etc. are permitted to cross this bridge.

Response 37: See RFI 36 response.

38. Plan Sheet GC101 notes a “Load Restricted Area”. Please provide the actual dimensions of this area and advise what equipment (Cranes, Excavators, Drill Rigs, Concrete Trucks, Concrete Pump Trucks, Flatbed Trucks, Dump Trucks, etc.) are prohibited in this area.

Response 38: See RFI 36 response for bridge restriction. Layout is general area, no dimensions will be provided other than plans and specs.

41. There does not appear to be a design capacity stated in the Plan Sheets and Specifications that the Fender Piles are required to achieve. Please clarify.

Response 41 (Revised after Amendment 03): All of the fender piles are to be driven to achieve tip elevation EL. -

59.50 BELOW MLLW (not vs. NAVD88). There is no particular vertical capacity/driving resistance requirement.

The steel fender piles are intended to be 70 feet long. Take note of the changes made to sheet C-301 as part of Rev.

42. What are the live loading limits for the project location?

Response 42: Due to the absence of existing drawings, this information is not available. For the load restricted area depicted on GC102, see B.PROTECTION OF EXISTING FACILITY on S-001, points B.1 and B.2. The area supported activity for borings B-1, 2, and 3 using land-based equipment and the area currently sees a typical live load of about 50 psf from parked vehicles.

43. Dwg G-003 under the “DEMOLITION, REMOVAL AND STORAGE at Note # 4 reads “PERFORM A

BOTTOM DEBRIS SURVEY PRIOR TO ANY PILE INSTALLATION. REMOVE ALL EXISTING DEBRIS

WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE NEW STRUCTURE”. Please confirm that any debris found during this bottom survey will be removed and disposed of under a change order condition, due to the unknown nature of any debris that might be discovered. Please also please advise the limits of the “FOOTPRINT” of the new structure indicated in this note.

Response 43: The footprint is the area that needs to be clear to drive the 20 14-inch steel piles.

Any debris found during this bottom survey will be removed and disposed of under a change order condition, due to the unknown nature of any debris that might be discovered. USACE is employing the US Army Dive Team performed inspections, maintenance and debris removal this summer prior to the beginning of any work under this contract. Any debris located in the subject area will be removed prior to the beginning of work by the contractor.

Divers will return in July 2025 to remove any other visibly identified items prior to start of construction.

46. We would like to formally request a 2-week extension of the bid date.

Response 46: Acknowledged and provided in previous amendment.

49. It may be a more efficient solution to redesign and relocate the existing 10” HDPE pipe to the North clear of the foundations to avoid these potential conflicts

Response 49: Agreed. Agreed. See the Revision 1 plans, especially C-101. The USACE drawings have been modified to shift ID drains north and to call for 10" HDPE connecting ID1 through ID5.

50. Dwg E-101 at detail A1 “ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN” near the BOTTOM RIGHT of the detail shows the “EXISTING 10” HDPE storm drain as it crosses the location of Mooring Dolphin foundations MD1, MD2 and MD3. These foundations each contain 6 Micro piles are shown in each foundation. Please provide the invert data for the storm drain to avoid conflict. Or alternately please create a Bid Item for Test Pits to be paid by the Cubic Yard; or alternately please create an Allowance Bid Item to be paid “Time and Material” The same situation is depicted on DwgC-101 detail H1 and at detail A1.

Response 50: Please see RFI 49.

51. Dwg C-301 at detail B2 shows the Batter and Plumb MICROPILES passing through the area where the “EXISTING TIE RODS @ UNKNOWNELEVATION.” The existing 10” HDPE Storm Drain passes through this area as well. Please provide the invert data for the storm drain to avoid conflict. Or alternately please create a Bid Item for Test Pits to be paid by the Cubic Yard; or alternately please create an Allowance Bid Item to be paid “Time and Material

Response 51: Please see RFI 49.

52. Dwg C-102 at detail F7 “TRENCH CHAIN (sic) TO OUTFALL CONNECTION – DETAIL.” shows, on the Right hand side, “INLET DRAIN.” This drain is in the same location as an existing drain inlet. May we assume that a new Inlet Drain is not required?

Response 52: The design intent is to replace existing/install new inlet drains at locations ID1 through ID5. These inlet drains need to be connected to each other and to new trench drains (TD) using new piping, as well. TD1 through TD4 should also be new items, installed in place of the existing Trench Drains. The existing IDs and TDs have performed well and should be replaced with similar units. Existing piping (8" inside diameter corrugated black plastic in many cases) leading to and from existing IDs and TDs does not appear to have performed well; the intent is to replace it with new piping.

See RFI 49.

53. Dwg C-102 at detail A3 “TRENCH DRAN (sic) – TYPICAL SECTION – DETAIL.” shows, on the Right hand side, “INLET DRAIN.” This drain is a new drain. There are 3 of these new drains inlets required. Do you have a detail for the new Drain Inlets and Castings”

Response 53: The design intent is to replace existing/install new inlet drains at locations ID1 through ID5 using the same inlet drain types as the existing ones. These inlet drains and new ID6, need to be connected to each other and to new trench drains (TD) using new piping. See the Revision 1 plans, especially C-101.

54. Most of the plan sheets and details indicate that the GANGWAY is “BY OTHERS.” However, Amendment 1, received late last week now indicates that the GANGWAY is in the Scope. The response to questions 3 and 4 of Amendment 1 follow: Response 3: The gangway, pedestal, and foundation are to be Contractor-furnished and installed. Contractor is responsible for providing these details and drawings to the Government based on the gang way supplier chosen by the Contractor. The foundation must be designed by a professional engineer with a U.S. PE license. If the pedestal frame is not a manufactured item provided by the gangway manufacturer, it must also be designed by a professional engineer with a U.S. PE license. Response 4: The gangway, pedestal and foundation are to be Contractor-furnished and installed by this contractor

These specifications and other specs regarding the operation, clearances, fail-safes and similar requirements are complex for a project of this nature. Please create a set price in the bid for the Gangway Complete; and treat it as an Allowance account from which approved design build criteria may be implemented for the Gangway.

Response 54: See RFI 31. See the Revision 1 plans."By others", on all sheets where it appeared, has been replaced with "CONTRACTOR-DESIGNED AND FURNISHED". Note 10 on C-101. Gangway callouts on C-101, C-103, C-105, C-303, Float details/callouts on S-505.

55. Please consider a postponement of 1 week for the Bid Date to April 7, 2025. to allow time for responses to RFIs be issued and received and to allow time for evaluation and dissemination to our suppliers and subcontractors.

Response 55: Acknowledged and provided in previous amendment.

56. Is the UHMW required for the job standard marine fender grade, or something more specialized? There is no material details other than “UHMW”

Response 56: Standard marine fender grade. See Plans & Specs Revision 1; Spec. 35 59 13.17 Section 2.1.4.6 has been added to the specifications and referenced for the UHMW on the face of the fender piles and inside the pipe sleeves.

57. The steel pipe will meet the chemical requirements of ASTM A572 Gr. 60 but because it’s made of coil and not plate it won’t be certified per ASTM A572 Gr. 60 as this is a plate specification and not a pipe/ coil specification. It will meet the other requirement of ASTM A252 Gr. 3 and will have a yield = 60 ksi. Please advise if this is acceptable.

Response 57: The 20 steel pipe fender piles should strictly follow specification 31 62 16.13 Part 2 Section 2.1.1.

They should be made from plate rather than coil.

58. Drawing C-101 Note 8 – Please provide size and depth, or invert elevation of existing drain lines to be removed

Response 58: See the Revision 1 plans, especially C-101 and V-101. Information has been added.

59. Drawing C-101 - What scope of work will be involved with storm drain relocation?

Response 59: See the Revision 1 plans, especially C-101. East of ID5 (inclusive), new piping, IDs, and TDs will need to be installed. Also, see RFIs 49, 52, 53, and 60.

60. Drawing C-101 – Are trench drains TD-1, TD-2, TD-3, and TD-4 new trench drains, existing trench drains, or partially new and partially existing trench drains? (Please show portion of existing trench drains to be removed.)

Response 60: All four TDs should be new. See RFI 52.

61. Drawing C-101 Note 6 – What will be the invert elevations of the new storm drains if bottom outlets are used for the trench drains?

Response 61: See RFI 59.

62. Drawing C-102 - Detail F-3 shows the stormdrain outfall through the bulkhead.

A. Will any other drains be going through the bulkhead?

B. Are all drains through the bulkhead existing, or will new drains be needed? If so how many?

C. If no other drains will be going through the bulkhead, how much of the existing storm drains have to be removed and re-installed at a different grade to change the slope of the piping so everything drains to the outfall shown in detail F-3 (Note: No proposed storm drain design has been provided)

Response 62: A. No; B. There is one (1) existing 8" PVC drain through the bulkhead, east of MD3, leading from the storm drains. No new drains will be added; C. See RFI 59.

63. Does all excavation for duct banks, storm sewer removal, new storm sewer, and equipment pads get disposed of off-site and backfilled with imported materials

Response 63: See RFI 23.

64. Please provide dimensions for the following concrete pads A. Equipment pad for PSE&G

B. Switchboard pad C. Gangway pad

Response 64: A. Price for 8'x8' pad; B. As noted on GFE CPMT-H-site for main switchgear size; C. As required by contractor's determination per plans and specs.

65. Please provide a better paving detail. The paving detail B12 on Drawing CD102 shows 6” of sand and 4” of asphalt. It does not indicate Bituminous stabilized base I-2 or FABC I-5 etc. Also you may want to consider a heavier pavement thickness since there are (3) soil borings that show 3.5” existing thickness in Boring 1, 6” existing thickness in Boring 2, and 12” existing thickness in Boring 3

Response 65: See the Revision 1 plans. B12/CD102 has changed to 4" MIN. (2.5" min. HMA base and 1.5" HMA surface courses per NJDOT) See RFI 28.

66. Please confirm that the 6’0” dimension in detail A-3 on Drawing S-102 should be 3’-0”

Response 66: Yes. The dimension has been corrected to 3'-0" in the Revision 1 plans.

67. Is any striping required on the project? For example, in the laydown area after we are complete with the project

Response 67: Yes, restore the parking lot striping after work is completed.

68. Please provide a sketch with sizes of materials, coating and a more specific detailed drawing of the ladder platforms. We have been unable to secure a vendor for these.

Response 68: See new S-505 sheet in the Revision 1 plans. For the floating platforms at ladders: we've added more information and an additional detail. This is still not meant to be USACE-designed; the final contractor-furnished floats, including their means of attachment to the ladders (or to the wharf) could differ.

69. Do you have a photo of similar installations of the ladder platforms on other projects? If so, please provide.

Response 69: See RFI 68.

70. In the pier locations that the asphalt has to be removed for the new mooring and crane foundations, the existing condition plans show 10" HDPE Storm Drain, 6" HDPE Storm Drain and Several existing inlets within the footprint of the removal area. The plan note associated with this work says 'Coordinate relocation of existing utilities with the Contracting Officer.' I didn't see any other information associated with this work. Please specify the amount of utilities that need to be relocated and provide a sketch showing.

Response 70: See the (Revision 1) V-101 through V-103 sheets. All known utilities are indicated, including storm drainage. This note was meant to account for unexpected utilities. See the Revision 1 drawings for updated information on the new storm drainage system and ground surface elevations, especially sheet C-101.

71. Please show the pipe, inlet and trench drain depths, it is unclear what their depths are.

Response 71: See RFI 59.

72. The Construction plans show a potential conflict between the existing storm line and Structures MD1, MD2, MD3 and possibly MD4. Please define what the intent is for the work in this cases.

Response 72: See RFI 59.

73. Please clarify the following details - what appears to be the outfall pipe from ID 2 between MD2 and MD3 is shown on sheet C100, it is not shown on Sheet C101, but is shown on Detail F3/C-102.

Response 73: Yes--the existing (and new, in the same location) outfall pipe (just east of MD3) should extend through the face of the wharf. C-101, J2/CD101, and V-101 have been corrected on the Revision 1 plans; also see

RFI 59.

74. The pipe between inlets ID1 and ID2 is shown with a different line type between sheets V101 and V103 and it is unclear what size it is. Please clarify.

Response 74: See Revision 1 - V-101 through V-103 sheets about existing conditions and to C-101 about replacement IDs and piping east of ID5. Also see RFI 59.

75. Please provide size for the outfall or the pipe connections between the trench drains and their respective closest inlets.

Response 75: See RFI 59.

76. The trench drain was identified in addendum 1 as 8" wide, but we didn't see any other information about it. The minimum bottom side would have to be as wide as the pipes connecting to it. Please provide further information and dimensions.

Response 76: See RFI 59.

77. If these storm lines and/or structures are removed, will some type of temporary oy bypass drainage need to be established? If so, what are the details for this? Is there any other information available about this work, what it might require, or how it is paid for?

Response 77: Contractor's means and methods to keep the site sufficiently dry.

78. The electrical trenching and tie-in to the existing transformer partially goes through concrete pavement. There is no information about the pavement thickness, type, reinforcing, dowels or removal limits. Some contracts require removal of the concrete pavement to the nearest joint which would dramatically increase the restoration quantity if it is required. Please provide a restoration detail and clarify the required removal and restoration limits.

Response 78: See the Revision 1, updated plans. An electrical pullbox was added, cutting through existing concrete paving that was 9 1/2" thick with #4 reinforcing. To preserve the appearance of the concrete pavement in that area, Note 6 on Revision 1 sheet E-401 requires the successful bidder to replace a number of concrete pavers (concrete flags/ flag-"stones"); E-501 includes additional detail.

79. Please confirm no Soil Erosion & Sediment Control will be required for this project since no plans or permits have been provided at the time of bid.

Response 79: Agreed. The location of the rock socket where bedrock is first encountered does not need to be within 12". The micropile /rock socket should still be controlled, so it doesn't deviate beyond 1:50 (rather than 3 degrees).

The tolerances subsection will be changed as follows:

3.1.6.1 Tolerances: The start of the micropile at ground surface must be located within one (1) inch of the plan location. The entry angle must be within 2 percent of the specified inclination. The alignment of the drilled hole must be within 2 percent of the theoretical alignment. Check tolerance for each anchor hole. If the hole alignment is not within these tolerances, notify Contracting Officer and perform corrective measures as directed. If tolerances cannot be maintained, then notify Contracting Officer.

Subsection 3.2.6.2 will be replaced with the following:

Check each micropile for alignment as specified 3.1.6.1 at the start of drilling and periodically as drilling progresses.

80. Rock Quality/Water Tightness Testing specification section 31 68 13 – 3.1.7 and 3.1.8: At this time, we have been provided with limited geotechnical information on the rock. Contract drawings require a 26 FT or rock drilling, and current available geotechnical information provides data on rock quality up to 15 FT into rock which indicates poor quality rock at the 15 FT mark.

The reference specifications state requirements for water tightness testing and subsequent waterproofing of holes if water tightness tests are not acceptable. There does not appear to be payment provisions for this work. Possible impacts could be on the order of $300,000-$500,000. Additionally, all anchors will be proof-tested or performance tested to ensure quality. Based on the above-mentioned, would water tightness/water proofing still be required? If so, please provide payment provisions.

Response 80: Agreed. If every rock anchor is load tested and each one passes the required tests, the section 3.1.7 watertightness testing requirement can be ignored.

Section 3.1.7 will be changed as follows:

3.1.7 Watertightness Testing

IF the rock portion of all drilled holes IS watertightness tested in accordance with the procedures of PTI DC35.1, Section 7.5, a packer must be used where necessary to facilitate pressure testing of the bond zone.

Holes which have a water loss in excess of 2.5 gallons in ten minutes must be grouted as specified in paragraph Waterproofing Anchor Holes, and redrilled.

81. 3. 13 – 3.4.3 Supplementary Extended Creep Test (PTI 8.3.4): PTI Section 8.3.4 states supplementary extended creep tests shall be performed on soil bonded anchors with a soil bond strata of a specific plasticity index. The proposed anchors shall be rock socketed and therefore the extended creep tests are excluded. Please confirm that, in accordance with PTI, extended creep tests are not required.

Response 81: Agreed. Extended creep tests are not required. The content of subsection 3.4.3 Supplementary Extended Creep Test will be deleted and replaced with "Supplementary Extended Creep Tests are not required."

Revisions to Solicitation:

A. Change of Title to: Shore Power and Mooring System Upgrades Project

B. Attachments included for reference:

1. Engineer Memo for Chapel Ave Bridge

2. 22-202 - ST - As Built – Chapel Ave Bridge Pile Repair

3. 1958_Drawing Number 15-04-01

4. CBP13 1988 Plans

(End of Summary of Changes)