Solicitation Amendment W912DS26RA0280005 SF 30.pdf

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offers 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 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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.)

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The purpose of this amendment is to: Block 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification):

Answer questions from prospective offerors for informational purposes only; and

Revised and Reissued the following: C-501.

Extend proposal due date to 12 August 2026 at 2:00 PM EST.

NOTE: BIDDERS MUST ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS AMENDMENT BY THE DATE

SPECIFIED IN THE SOLICITATION (OR AS AMENDED) BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING

METHODS: IN THE SPACE PROVIDED ON THE SF1442, BY SEPARATE LETTER, OR BY

SIGNING THE 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 OR BIDS OR LATE

WITHDRAWAL OF BIDS.

(FAR 14.304)

Section 00 01 15 - List of Drawing Sheets

The attachments table has changed from:

Identifie r

Document Name

Document Description Reference Identifier

Date Line Item Page N umbers

Docum ent Type

Provide d Under Separat e Cover

0017 C-501_2026-

08-07_AMD 5

Drawings 07 Aug

Attach ment

No

To:

Identifie r

Document Name

Document Description Reference Identifier

Date Line Item Page N umbers

Docum ent Type

Provide d Under Separat e Cover

0017 C-501_2026-

08-07_AMD 5

Drawings 07 Aug

Attach ment

No

W912DS26RA0280005

The following contract documents were added:

C-501_2026-08-07_AMD 5

The following contract documents were deleted:

C-501_2026-08-03_AMD 4

The following contract documents Page Counts were changed:

DOCUMENT PAGE COUNTS

DOCUMENT NAME FROM TO

C-501_2026-08-07_AMD 5 none

Section 01 00 00 - General Requirements

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

ERCIP Wellfield Expansion, Design-Build

Fort Drum, New York

W912DS26RA028

Amendment 0005

TO BIDDERS:

The following changes shall be made to the Design Build Request for Proposal.

DRAWINGS:

1. The following DRAWINGS have been :REVISED and REISSUED

C-501. Drawing E 1.

2. The following DRAWINGS have been REVISED but NOT REISSUED:

None

3. The following DRAWINGS have been ADDED:

None

4. The following DRAWINGS have been DELETED:

None

SPECIFICATIONS:

1. The following SPECIFICATIONS have been :REVISED and REISSUED

None

2. The following SPECIFICATIONS have been REVISED but NOT REISSUED:

None

3. The following SPECIFICATIONS have been ADDED:

None

4. The following SPECIFICATIONS have been DELETED:

None

ATTACHMENTS:

1. The following ATTACHMENTS have been :REVISED and REISSUED

None

2. The following ATTACHMENTS have been but : REVISED NOT REISSUED

None

3. The following ATTACHMENTS have been :ADDED

None

4. The following ATTACHMENTS have been :DELETED

None

BIDDER'S QUESTIONS AND GOVERNMENT REPLY

(Questions that may be of general interest to all Bidders 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 bidders "For Information Only" and do not revise the solicitation, plans or specifications.)

Question1: Acquisition Process - Sec 00 22 10 titled "Two Phase - Phase One" implies this is a two-phase DB procurement. However, the RFP is structured as a single-phase DB procurement.

Please confirm this is a single-phase procurement.

Response 1: Acquisition is one phase. 00 22 10 has been revised and has been re-issued with amendment 2.

Question 2: PPQ and CPAR - Sec 00 22 10 "Volume 1 - Factor 1 - Past Performance" p32 states "The Offeror will provide Past Performance information on relevant projects using the Past Performance and Specialized Experience Questionnaires included in the solicitation. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) shall be submitted for projects, when available. Your client should receive form ATTACHMENT 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ)". Please confirm that if a CPARS is provided for a past performance project it is not necessary to provide a PPQ in the ATTACHMENT 2 format.

Response 2: 00 22 10 has been revised and has been re-issued with amendment 2.

Question 3: Section 00 22 10, paragraph numbering does not match the Table of Contents provided on page 21 of 117. Please clarify.

Response 3: 00 22 10 has been revised and has been re-issued with amendment 2.

Question 4: Volume 1-Factor 1-Past Performance, page 32 of 117, first paragraph; states "The Offeror will provide Past Performance information on relevant projects using the Past Performance and Specialized Experience Questionnaires included in the solicitation. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) shall be submitted for projects, when available. Please confirm, or advise otherwise, that the Past Performance and Specialized Experience Questionnaire (PPQ) is required for all projects and the CPARS when available supplements the PPQ information.

Response 4: 00 22 10 has been revised and has been re-issued with amendment 2.

Question 5: Paragraph 2.3.2 Relevant Past Performance, sub-paragraph 'i.b' "Complexity", page 34 of 117, states: "Similar complexity is defined as projects demonstrating successful design and /or construction of water transmission systems including telemetry and controls that are at least 5,000 linear feet.". Would the Government consider revising this requirement to allow project examples of telemetry and controls on fluid transmission systems other than water?

Response 5: 00 22 10 has been revised and has been re-issued with amendment 2.

Question 6: Paragraph 2.3.2 Relevant Past Performance, sub-paragraph 'i.b' "Complexity", page 34 of 117, states: "Similar complexity is defined as projects demonstrating successful design and /or construction of water transmission systems including telemetry and controls that are at least 5,000 linear feet.". Would the Government consider revising this requirement to allow project examples of fluid transmission systems other than water?

Response 6: 00 22 10 has been revised and has been re-issued with amendment 2.

Question 7: The Attachments provided with the RFP documents (Attachments 1 - 5) are all labeled as 'CUI', these Attachments are incorrectly labeled as CUI as all are publicly available and circulated documents in their current form. As presently labeled, these forms cannot be shared with some individuals that need to complete the form. The CUI marking should be removed as it is not necessary and is over marking. Please advise if these forms can be used with the CUI marking removed.

Response 7: Attachments 1-5 have been revised and re-issued with amendment 2.

Question 8: To ensure the submission of responsible, high-quality proposals that align with USACE's objectives, we respectfully request an extension of the proposal due date to August 7, 2026. This additional time will enable offerors to more clearly articulate their proposed solutions, ultimately resulting in stronger, more competitive proposals for USACE's consideration. The current due date of July 24 will preclude competitive proposals because it does not afford adequate time to generate quality scopes for subcontractors (requires 1 week after site visit = 2 weeks total), for subcontractors to price (requires 2 weeks min for subcontractors to be willing to bid and most request 3 weeks), followed by 1 week for primes to assess bids, analyze and address risk, and obtain management approval. While a 30-day timeline may be sufficient for DBB, this minimum 6-week DB timeline (for a single-phase DB) drives the requested August 7 due date and will reduce risk, ultimately resulting in more competitive proposals.

Response 8: Proposal due date is changed to 7 August 2026 with amendment 2.

Question 9: Due to the proximity of the July 4th holiday and limited availability of both prime and subcontractor firms to review the proposal, as well as to achieve alignment with the proposed extension to August 7, 2026, we respectfully request a 2-week extension to the deadline for offerors to submit questions to July 24, 2026. The reduced availability during the holiday period limits the ability to perform a comprehensive review, which may impact the depth and clarity of questions submitted. With subcontractors actively reviewing prime generated scopes the weeks of July 6 and July 13, a cutoff of July 24 will allow ample time for questions. Allowing additional time will enable more deliberate coordination, validation of assumptions, and identification of potential risks or ambiguities to support the development of complete and balanced proposals.

Response 9: Proposal due date is changed to 7 August 2026 with amendment 2. No additional bidder inquiries are being accepted.

Question 10: Can the Government please remove the CUI designation on Attachments 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and redistribute? These forms are administrative in nature and do not contain any CUI.

These documents require distribution to external parties for completion (including subcontractors and teaming partners), and inclusion of the CUI designation on each form will greatly delay the distribution processes for offerors and their subcontractors, as many companies restrict sending documents with CUI via email.

Response 10: Attachments have been revised and re-issued with amendment 2.

Question 11: If the Government cannot remove the CUI designation on Attachments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, many firms cannot distribute documents with these markings via email due to security restrictions and internal policies. If these markings are to remain, please advise if offerors can submit proposals via other methods rather than email, such as a DoD SAFE link, PIEE, etc.

Response 11: Attachments have been revised and re-issued with amendment 2.

Question 12: Solicitation Section 3.0, pg 24 - The solicitation states "Schedules, drawings and/or sketches may be submitted electronically on paper not exceeding 11 x 17-inch, (each 11 x 17 counts as two pages)." Schedules, drawings, and sketches are not formally requested to be submitted as part of offerors' proposals under any evaluated factor. Can the Government please clarify if schedules, drawings, and sketches are expected to be included, and if so, what factors should they be included in and evaluated under?

Response 12: 00 22 10 has been revised and has been re-issued with amendment 2.

Question 13: Solicitation section 1.3, pg 27 - The solicitation states "If a teaming agreement or Letter of Commitment is not provided, the projects and experience of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered." For proposed subcontractors or teaming partners, please clarify whether a formal teaming agreement is required to be included in the proposal for each proposed subcontractor or teaming partner, -OR- if a signed Letter of Commitment (Attachment 5) is sufficient to demonstrate the relationship and allow the Government to evaluate subcontractor/teaming partner past performance?

Response 13: 00 22 10 has been revised and has been re-issued with amendment 2. A formal teaming agreement or a Letter of Commitment (Attachment 5) is sufficient to demonstrate the relationship. Signatures from the teaming partners, e.g., a joint venture, are required on the formal teaming agreement, signatures from the Prime and Subcontractor are required on the Letter of Commitment for each proposed subcontractor.

Question 14: Solicitation, Volume 1 - Factor 1 - Past Performance, pg 32 - The solicitation states "the relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project will not be evaluated or considered under this factor." Please clarify that no information on key personnel needs to be submitted in any factor for this proposal? If information for key personnel is to be provided, what needs to be provided and where should this information be included?

Response 14: 00 22 10 has been revised and has been re-issued with amendment 2. Information on Key Personnel is not required.

Question 15: Solicitation, Volume 1 - Factor 1 - Past Performance, pg 32 - The solicitation states "the relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project will not be evaluated or considered under this factor." If information for key personnel is to be provided in another factor other than Factor 1, please clarify what needs to be provided for key personnel and where should this information be included?

Response 15: 00 22 10 has been revised and has been re-issued with amendment 2. Information on Key Personnel is not required.

Question 16: Solicitation Section 3.1.3. and Section 1.2 - Attachment 1 was distributed to offerors but not mentioned within Section 3 or Section 1.2, Proposal Submission Requirements. Please clarify where offerors should provide our completed Attachment 1, as its placement is not clearly specified in the solicitation.

Response 16: 00 22 10 has been revised and has been re-issued with amendment 2. Attachment 1 should be included in Volume 3 Tab A.

Question 17: Solicitation, Volume 1 - Factor 1 - Past Performance - If the Offeror intends to serve as both the construction contractor and the designer (AE-DOR/DOR), please clarify how past performance and specialized experience should be demonstrated? Specifically, is the Offeror required to provide separate project examples for design (up to 2) and construction (up to 3)? Or may the Offeror submit up to 3 Design-Build (DB) projects where it acted as both the Prime Contractor and AE/DOR, and designate up to 2 of those projects to satisfy both the design and construction requirements? If acceptable to designate 2 DB projects, should those same projects be included in both the Design and Construction sections (e.g., duplicated in the Attachment 3 Specialized Experience form)? It is important to understand how this integrated approach, which will provide a significant level of improved cost and time efficiency to the Govt, is appropriately documented in the RFP response process.

Response 17: The Offeror is required to provide project examples for design (up to 2) and construction (up to 3). The Offeror may submit up to 3 Design-Build (DB) projects where it acted as both the Prime Contractor and AE/DOR, and designate up to 2 of those projects to satisfy both the design and construction requirements. Yes, those same projects should be included in both the Design and Construction sections (e.g., duplicated in the Attachment 3 Specialized Experience form).

Question 18: Solicitation, Volume 1 - Factor 1 - Past Performance - If the Offeror will serve as both the construction contractor and the designer (AE-DOR) but will also rely on a key design subconsultant/subcontractor (under Teaming Agreement of Letter of Commitment) for specific design disciplines or expertise, please confirm that for the Design Past Performance it is acceptable to submit one project by the Offeror and one by the subcontractor/subconsultant since this is analogous to an Offeror submitting Construction Past Performance of construction subcontractors.

Response 18: Yes, that is acceptable.

Question 19: Volume 1 - Factor 1 - Past Performance (pg 32) - Please confirm whether Performance Recognition Documents are acceptable only for the projects submitted under Factor 1 for evaluation, or if Offerors may also provide Performance Recognition Documents for projects that are not included among the Factor 1 project submissions.

Response 19: Yes, as long as they are received within seven years of the date of issuance of the solicitation.

Question 20: Volume 1 - Factor 1 - Past Performance (pg 33) - Please confirm whether information regarding terminated projects is required only for the projects submitted under Factor 1, or if Offerors are required to disclose any terminated projects that are not included among the Factor 1 project submissions.

Response 20: Offeror is required to provide any information on past projects (within the past five

(5) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation) that were terminated (for any reason) or in which they have been issued a CURE NOTICE and provide accompanying information as to the details for such action(s) with an explanation of why they were terminated or issued a cure notice.

Question 21: Attachment 1 - Proposal Data Sheet and Proposal Cover Sheet- Attachment 1 and the Cover Sheet requests the Offeror's DUNS number; however, DUNS numbers have been replaced by the Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) for Federal procurement and registration purposes.

Please confirm whether Offerors should provide their UEI in lieu of a DUNS number, or if the Government is requesting both identifiers.

Response 21: Please provide your UEI number. Attachment 1 will be re-issued in amendment 2.

Question 22: Attachment 5 - Sample Firm, Unequivocal Letter of Commitment Between Prime Contractor and Subcontractor - At the top, this sample letter references "Jordan Moran, Contract Specialist"; however, the solicitation identifies Brian Winters as the Contract Specialist. Please confirm if Offerors can change this in the Letters of Commitment. If not, can the Government edit and reissue?

Response 22: Attachment 5 has been reissued with amendment 2.

Question 23: Solicitation Section 4.4.1 (1) - This section requires offerors to provide a list of present commitments, including "names and telephone numbers of personnel within each organization who are familiar with the contractor's performance." Some offerors may have hundreds of present commitments, which would require gathering and listing hundreds of individual names and phone numbers associated with each present project commitment. For Government and Offeror efficiency, please confirm if offeror must provide names and telephone numbers associated with each commitment, or if it is acceptable for offeror's to provide an adequate list of names and telephone numbers at their discretion. For example, we recommend and request confirmation it is acceptable to provide information for the top 5 largest (by $) present commitments listed in terms of the dollar value.

Response 23: 00 22 10 has been revised and re-issued in amendment 2. Provide information on the top 10 largest present commitments.

Question 24: Volume 1 - Factor 1 - Past Performance (pg 32) - The solicitation states "Also include performance recognition documents received within the last seven (7) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation such as award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition." Please confirm if this information is requested of just the offeror, or offeror's team subcontractors as well.

Response 24: This information is only requested from the offeror.

Question 25: Could the proposal due date be extended to August 7 or later? This would give our team much needed time to process site visit information and develop a more accurate technical and price proposal.

Response 25: Proposal due date is changed to 7 August 2026 with amendment 2.

Question 26: After contract award, will .dwg versions of the survey and drawing files be available to the selected DB team?

Response 26: Electronic files will be released to the contractor after award for reference only. This does not relieve the offeror of any design responsibilities. Offeror is responsible for verifying the existing site conditions as needed to complete their work.

Question 27: Confirm volume 3 factor 3 price and pro forma information are both part of phase 1 due on July 24th at 1500?

Response 27: Volume 3 factor 3 price and pro forma information are both part of phase 1.

Proposal due date is changed to 7 August 2026 with amendment 2. This is a 1 phase solicitation;

references to two phase solicitation were in error. 00 22 10 has been re-issued with amendment 2.

Question 28: Can the government extend the proposal due date of 24 June by one week?

Response 28: Proposal due date is changed to 7 August 2026 with amendment 2.

Question 29: Chapter 6. Engineering Systems Requirements (ESR) G10 Page 1 states, "The site preparation activities consist of site clearing, demolition, salvage, relocation, earthwork, and hazardous waste remediation to ready the site for other work associated with the project." Please identify the location and composition of the hazardous waste.

Response 29: Hazardous waste has not been encountered in the work area. See environmental soil testing results for further information. References to hazardous waste remediation is removed from this section in amendment 3.

Question 30: Subsurface Conditions & Rock Excavation Basis - The geotechnical report (Appendix C Vol.3) indicates limited borings (12-14 ft) with auger refusal and recommends additional investigation. Please confirm if bidders shall assume rock excavation along the full pipeline alignment where refusal was encountered and whether blasting should be included in the base bid where rock excavation is anticipated.

Response 30: There were two iterations of geotechnical investigation. The initial 2023 investigation recommended additional investigation which was subsequently performed in 2025. Geotechnical reports are provided for reference, and the offeror is responsible for interpreting and determining the extent of rock excavation, if any.

Question 31: Are there defined minimum pumping test requirements (duration, drawdown, recovery) for the production wells?

Response 31: See Section G30 1.1 and 6 ESR G301001 1.3.1. Contractor shall provide well development and capacity testing in accordance with AWWA A100 and the state waterworks' regulations (TITLE 10. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CHAPTER I. STATE SANITARY CODE

PART 5. DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES SUBPART 5-1. PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS)

Question 32: It is understood that discharge of hazardous substances will not be permitted and discharge of contaminants into the waters of the US is not permitted. What should bidders assume is an acceptable means of discharging well development waters?

Response 32: Based on pre-design testing, groundwater in the area of the proposed pumping wells does not contain hazardous substances; however, it is the responsibility of the Contractor to confirm the presence/absence of hazardous substances prior to discharge of groundwater (see 6_ESR_G1040 1.1). During test well development of the project, water was discharged to ground outside of the recharge area.

Question 33: Performance criteria 5031 states "The system shall provide potable water compliant with New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) requirements." Is the contractor responsible for providing treatment of raw water if standards are not met from the aquifer source?

Response 33: The Contractor is not responsible for providing treatment of raw water pumped from the wellhouses to the treatment plant. It is the government's expectation that the raw water will be substantially similar to what was seen during the pre-design testing.

Question 34: How will performance failures (e.g., underperforming wells) be handled contractually--replacement, redesign, or performance deductions?

Response 34: Offeror is requested to bid on the contract documents.

Question 35: Please confirm whether the existing electrical capacity (transformers/feeders shown in Appendix D) is sufficient for the proposed wellfield loads or if upgrades are anticipated.

Response 35: Required upgrades are shown on the design drawings. Appendix D is showing reference drawings only.

Question 36: What SCADA/controls standards or integration requirements apply for tying into the Fort Drum water telemetry control system?

Response 36: The existing water system is controlled with the system described in Section D30, Page 6 (pg. 428) of the Design Build RFP.

Question 37: Are there defined outage limitations or requirements to maintain continuous water service during tie-ins?

Response 37: Outage limitations must be coordinated ahead of time and minimized to the greatest extent possible.

Question 38: Please confirm which permits (local, state, federal) are required (e.g., NYSDEC well permits, environmental reviews, stormwater permits).

Response 38: See Chapter 3, Section 3.1,2, Page 2 for description of necessary permitting and coordination with Fort Drum Environmental Department.

Question 39: Is an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) anticipated or already completed?

Response 39: A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) was completed and it was determined to be categorically excluded.

Question 40: Are there requirements for system redundancy or phasing of connections to maintain service continuity?

Response 40: See Chapter 2.2.1, page 1 for description of a redundant power feed. See Chapter 3.3, page 4 for Construction Phasing. The RFP also refers to the project program, and the Notice to Proceed (NTP), for phasing requirements.

Question 41: Are there required sustainability deliverables (reports, modeling, commissioning documentation) and where should they be submitted in the proposal pricing?

Response 41: See Chapter 2 for required sustainability deliverables in addition to Spec Section 01 33 29.

Question 42: Can design and construction phases be overlapped (e.g., release packages) prior to full design completion?

Response 42: Design must be complete prior to construction. Final design must be reviewed and approved by NYS DOH prior to construction. Contractor is responsible for responding to any NYS DOH comments.

Question 43: Is there a required turnaround time for contractor responses in DrChecks or expectations for comment resolution cycles?

Response 43: The contractor must provide responses entered into Dr. Checks prior to the review conference.

Question 44: Please confirm whether informal coordination with reviewers outside DrChecks is permitted and encouraged (as suggested in specs).

Response 44: See spec section 01 33 16.00 10 section 3.5.2.2 paragraph B.

Question 45: Please confirm how differing site conditions (geotechnical or hydrogeologic) will be handled under the contract (Type I/II DSC applicability).

Response 45: Offeror is requested to bid on the contract documents.

Question 46: Will the Government consider equitable adjustments for unforeseen drilling conditions (e.g., loss circulation, rock hardness, contamination zones)?

Response 46: Offeror is requested to bid on the contract documents.

Question 47: Subsurface Conditions & Rock Excavation Basis - The geotechnical report (Appendix C Vol.3) indicates limited borings (12-14 ft) with auger refusal and recommends additional investigation, but implies not rock excavation required to achieve a 6 foot burial depth. Please confirm if bidders should assume any rock excavation along the full pipeline alignment where refusal was encountered and whether blasting should be included in the base bid where rock excavation is anticipated.

Response 47: There were two iterations of geotechnical investigation. The initial 2023 investigation recommended additional investigation which was subsequently performed in 2025. Geotechnical reports are provided for reference, and the offeror is responsible for interpreting and determining the extent of rock excavation, if any.

Question 48: PFAS Soil Management Requirements - The contract requires PFAS testing (EPA Method 1633) and prohibits off-site soil disposal. Please clarify what materials require handling, segregation, and storage procedures for impacted soils, approved on-site reuse/disposal locations, and whether lined containment or treatment is required.

Response 48: There are no known handling or segregation procedures for this project other than NYS 360 and 364 regulations. Excavated soil can and should be used for backfilling.

Question 49: Available Fault Current & Utility Coordination - The RFP allows assuming an "infinite bus" at the point of connection if utility data is not provided. Please confirm whether bidders shall base design on conservative maximum fault assumptions and arc flash and protective device coordination studies shall assume this worst-case condition.

Response 49: This is the contractor's choice. If the available fault current at the tie in location can be determined with coordination with the Utility company, then that information may be used. If that information is not determined, then utilize infinite bus method.

Question 50: Resiliency Performance Criteria - The project includes redundant feeders and a generator at Well House #2. Please clarify required level of system redundancy (N+1, full redundancy, or partial redundancy). Does the generator need to power the pumps for emergency operation or power just lights for emergency maintenance?

Response 50: Project includes redundancy only where shown on the design drawings. The generator needs to power everything in Well House #2 including the pumps as shown on the design drawings. See amendment 3.

Question 51: Wetland Delineation & Permitting Scope - Drawings indicate wetland impacts and note additional delineation may be required. Please confirm if limits shown on current alignment are delineated, or otherwise where additional delineation is required.

Response 51: The note "Client provided wetland delineation required within boundary" indicates area where the delineation is being finalized. The note "Client provided wetland delineation boundary" indicates are where the delineation has been finalized on the drawings. Final delineation will be provided by the government to the successful offeror.

Question 52: Climate Zone for Energy Compliance - RFP text references Climate Zone 5A, while Appendix A drawings indicate 6A. Please confirm which climate zone governs design.

Response 52: Climate zone 6A governs the design. RFP text in Chapter 2 section 2.4.3. has been changed in amendment 3.

Question 53: FRCS Cybersecurity Deliverables - The project requires compliance with UFC 4-010- 06 and RMF processes. Please clarify the required list of ATO artifacts to be provided by contractor.

Response 53: Required list of ATO artifacts will be coordinated during the design phase.

Question 54: FRCS Cybersecurity Deliverables - The project requires compliance with UFC 4-010- 06 and RMF processes. Please clarify the level of integration required with Fort Drum network (standalone vs enterprise integration).

Response 54: The intent is to integrate with the existing system. The exact details are to be developed and coordinated during the design.

Question 55: FRCS Cybersecurity Deliverables - The project requires compliance with UFC 4-010- 06 and RMF processes. Please clarify whether contractor is responsible for cybersecurity testing, documentation, licensing and accreditation support.

Response 55: Contractor is responsible for adherence to UFC 4-010-06 and for implementation of the cybersecurity Div. 25 specs developed during the design.

Question 56: FRCS Cybersecurity Deliverables - The project requires compliance with UFC 4-010- 06 and RMF processes. Please clarify the expected coordination level with Base System Owner.

Response 56: The contractor must coordinate with the Base System Owner who will set the CIA impact for the system(s) and connectivity requirements.

Question 57: FRCS Cybersecurity Deliverables - The project requires compliance with UFC 4-010- 06 and RMF processes. Please clarify the licensing requirements for cloud storage.

Response 57: This system will not be on the cloud.

Question 58: Groundwater yields. Please confirm acceptance testing requirements (duration, drawdown limits, recovery criteria) and the expectation of the government to install additional wells or deeper drilling if yield is not achieved.

Response 58: Contractor must demonstrate that wellfield can meet a long-term sustainable pumping rate of 500 gpm as per the testing requirements set forth in "Title 10 of the Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of New York (10 NYCRR) Part 5, Subpart 5-1 Standards for Water Wells - Appendix 5B.4 - Well Yield and Water Flow and Appendix 5-D.4 - Well Yield and Water Flow."

Question 59: UXO & Excavation Constraints - UXO coordination and WEPA permits are required.

Please clarify whether UXO clearance is required along the full alignment prior to excavation?

Response 59: UXO has been cleared IAW the limits of disturbance noted on the drawings. Any additional UXO clearance needed, will be performed by the Government.

Question 60: UXO & Excavation Constraints - UXO coordination and WEPA permits are required.

Please clarify whether contractor shall include UXO support personnel and monitoring?

Response 60: The offeror is not responsible for UXO clearance.

Question 61: UXO & Excavation Constraints - UXO coordination and WEPA permits are required.

Please clarify whether excavation delays due to UXO findings are compensable?

Response 61: Offeror is requested to bid on the contract documents.

Question 62: Generator Fuel Storage & Compliance - Please clarify fuel system requirements for the permanent generator, including the required fuel type and storage duration.

Response 62: RFP chapter 6, D509002, and Drawing E-601 keyed note 3, indicate diesel fuel, and 24 hours of emergency power.

Question 63: Generator Fuel Storage & Compliance - Please clarify fuel system requirements for the permanent generator, including whether aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) are required.

Response 63: RFP chapter 6, D509002, and Drawing E-601 keyed note 3, describe a belly tank and integral tank, respectively.

Question 64: Generator Fuel Storage & Compliance - Please clarify fuel system requirements for the permanent generator, including secondary containment and environmental compliance requirements.

Response 64: The RFP Appendix B includes requirements for secondary containment of tanks and piping, and compliance with environmental regulations, in Fort Drum Regulation 420-7, Facilities Engineering, Environmental Regulation. Although the wording in some cases states "The DPW will..." these requirements are the Contractor's responsibility as they apply to the Work.

Question 65: Generator Fuel Storage & Compliance - Please clarify fuel system requirements for the permanent generator, including whether cold-weather enclosure/heating is required.

Response 65: By virtue of the site being Climate zone 6A, items necessary for cold-weather operation are required. Relying on chemical treatment of the diesel fuel to avoid heating is not allowed.

Question 66: SDSFIE Schema - The RFP requires the final as-built provided in GIS deliverable in an ESRI File Geodatabase, ISO 19115-1 compliant metadata, and produced using the Fort Drum SDSFIE schema. Please provide the Fort Drum SDSFIE schema and granularity for linear features that aren't specified in the USACE M3 reference.

Response 66: This will be provided to the successful offeror after award.

Question 67: Does Fort Drum have a preferred or required SCADA integration contractor, systems integrator, Trane service provider, or owner-authorized vendor that must perform programming, configuration, database modifications, graphics development, or integration work on the existing WTCS/Trane Tracer SC+ platform?

Response 67: See attached Trane J&A. Only manufacturer's certified technicians/programmers /installers, etc., may integrate the new equipment into the existing system to eliminate compromising its integrity and to maintain full functionality required by the Fort Drum water operator.

Question 68: If a preferred SCADA integrator exists, can the Government please identify the organization?

Response 68: See attached Trane J&A. Only manufacturer's certified technicians/programmers /installers, etc., may integrate the new equipment into the existing system to eliminate compromising its integrity and to maintain full functionality required by the Fort Drum water operator.

Question 69: If a preferred SCADA integrator exists, can the Government please indicate whether their participation is mandatory or optional?

Response 69: See attached Trane J&A. Only manufacturer's certified technicians/programmers /installers, etc., may integrate the new equipment into the existing system to eliminate compromising its integrity and to maintain full functionality required by the Fort Drum water operator.

Question 70: If a preferred SCADA integrator exists, can the Government please clarify whether the Design-Build Contractor is required to subcontract directly with that organization?

Response 70: See attached Trane J&A. Only manufacturer's certified technicians/programmers /installers, etc., may integrate the new equipment into the existing system to eliminate compromising its integrity and to maintain full functionality required by the Fort Drum water operator. No requirement to sub-contract directly.

Question 71: Is the existing water telemetry control system (WTCS) considered a Government-owned system that can only be modified by authorized Fort Drum personnel?

Response 71: Yes, the WTCS is Government owned. Only manufacturer's certified technicians /programmers/installers, etc., may integrate the new equipment into the existing system to eliminate compromising its integrity and to maintain full functionality required by the Fort Drum water operator

Question 72: Will the Government provide access to the existing WTCS database, graphics, controller configuration files, trend databases, alarm databases, and network architecture documentation to the successful Contractor and its SCADA subcontractor?

Response 72: Yes, but under supervision of Fort Drum SME

Question 73: Are software licenses, controller licenses, workstation licenses, database licenses, or Trane integration licenses currently owned by Fort Drum and available for use by the Contractor, or shall all required licensing be provided by the Design-Build Contractor?

Response 73: Owned by Government available for use by qualified Trane personnel under government supervision

Question 74: Please identify whether the WTCS extension shall reside on an existing Fort Drum enclave?

Response 74: Yes, WTCS extension shall reside on an existing Fort Drum enclave.

Question 75: Please identify whether the WTCS extension shall use a dedicated controls enclave?

Response 75: The existing WTCS enclave is dedicated to Water and Wastewater controls for Ft Drum.

Question 76: Please identify whether the WTCS extension shall operate as a standalone FRCS network?

Response 76: No, WTCS extension will not operate as a standalone FRCS network.

Question 77: Please identify whether the WTCS extension shall operate through an enterprise network connection?

Response 77: No, WTCS extension will not operate through an enterprise network connection

Question 78: Is the topographic survey available in an electronic format? Pipeline contractors need to understand the site conditions (wetlands, flood zones, water bodies, etc.) to accurately project the cost and schedule.

Response 78: This will be provided to the successful offeror after award.

Question 79: Appendix C Volume 3 references an 18-inch diameter pipeline. Please confirm whether the government is requiring a minimum pipe diameter or if pipe diameter is to be determined by the design build contractor based on meeting the 500gpm performance requirement.

Response 79: Pipe sizing is to be determined by the Design-Build Contractor.

Question 80: Civil details on C-501 of Appendix A and Appendix C, Volume 3 indicates a 6' burial depth. Is the government requiring a minimum burial depth of 6' to the top of all buried utilities?

Response 80: The 6' burial depth is per Fort Drum standards. The Design-Build Contractor and/or DOR to verify minimum coverage requirements.

Question 81: In addition to tree clearing and grubbing, is a chemical / biological herbicide treatment desired to prevent future growth along the power lines?

Response 81: No, no chemical or biological herbicide is desired.

Question 82: Is NSF61 required for the materials used for the waterline system?

Response 82: Yes, reference to NSF 61 is made in the specifications and is required.

Question 83: On Drawing A-105, Keynote #1 states, "Provide extruded polystyrene insulation under the slab, R-26 minimum." This insulation value does not appear to be required by the applicable New York Energy Code. Please confirm whether the Designer of Record (DOR) is responsible for determining the final slab insulation locations and required R-value at the foundation.

Response 83: The DOR will be required to make the final decision requiring the final slab insulation locations and required R-value and confirm that the design complies with the current energy code and UFC 1-200-02 regarding energy consumption reduction.

Question 84: On Drawing A-501, the wall assembly indicates R-10 continuous insulation with additional cavity insulation. Per the applicable energy code, mass walls are required to have a minimum of R-15.2 continuous insulation. The cavity insulation does not appear to satisfy the continuous insulation requirement for this wall assembly. Please confirm whether the Designer of Record (DOR) will make the final decision regarding the required continuous insulation value for the wall assembly and confirm that the design complies with the applicable energy code.

Response 84: The DOR will be required to make the final decision requiring the continuous insulation value for the wall assembly and confirm that the design complies with the current energy code and UFC 1-200-02 regarding energy consumption reduction.

Question 85: On the architectural roof details, the roof insulation is specified as R-63.7. The applicable New York Energy Code requires a minimum roof insulation value of R-55. Please confirm whether the Designer of Record (DOR) is responsible for making the final decision on the required roof insulation value and confirm whether the specified R-63.7 insulation is intentional.

Response 85: The DOR will be required to make the final decision requiring the minimum roof insulation value and confirm that the design complies with the current energy code and UFC 1-200- 02 regarding energy consumption reduction.

Question 86: Stump Removal and Grubbing is defined under two sections in the RFP; first under G101003 Stump Removal (Page 43 of 496) and second G101003 Stump Removal (Page 446 of 496). Please confirm removal 5' depth below finish grade is applicable to building foundations, roads, parking areas, hard stands, and storage areas only.

Response 86: Confirmed, stump removal is only applicable to building foundations, roads and parking areas. Utilities must be cleared to be constructed in accordance with Fort Drum Utility Standards and project specifications.

Question 87: Please confirm that Stump Removal and Grubbing for Site Clearing due to overhead electric only is to a depth of 18" below ground surface per G101003 Stump Removal on page 446 of 496 of the RFP.

Response 87: Confirmed, stump removal and grubbing under overhead electric is limited to 18" per G101003.

Question 88: Per the provided Solicitation document, Box 11, the contractor shall complete this project within 910 calendar days after receiving NTP. Specification 01 11 00, Section 1.1 states "The Contractor is required to.. ..(iii) complete the entire work ready for use, not later than 716 calendar days after the date the Contractor receives the notice to proceed". Please confirm the period of performance for this project.

Response 88: Period of performance is 910 calendar days. See Amendment 3.

Question 89: DB RFP Section 2.2.1 in Chapter 2 states "The project will create five new wells, combining to produce a minimum of 500 gpm (gallons/minute)". Section 2.4 of Chapter 2 states "Required output from the 5 total wells equals a minimum of 500 gallons per minute". Section G301001 in Chapter 6 states "Provide a potable water well system capable of producing a guaranteed capacity of 500 gallons per minute". Does the Gov have an intended maximum output / flow rate from the wells? If so, what is the intended maximum?

Response 89: There is no maximum output requirement.

Question 90: DB RFP Section G301001 in Chapter 6 states "Provide a minimum of five wells". The DB RFP and provide conceptual plans have been developed assuming a total of five wells. Please confirm there are only five wells intended for this project.

Response 90: Based on the pre-design investigation data, five wells were sufficient to meet the required flows. Contractor shall provide the number of wells sufficient to meet the flow requirement, with a minimum of 5 wells.

Question 91: DB RFP Section G1040 1.1 Contaminated Soil and Groundwater states "The contractor to verify that the project site does not require contaminated soil or groundwater work. If required perform contaminated soil or groundwater work in accordance with the specifications and plans provided in Parts 5 and 6". For bidding purposes, please confirm for all bidders if contaminated materials should be assumed for the bid. If so, please provide assumed quantities of soil and groundwater to be removed and please provide assumed contaminates and contamination levels.

Response 91: All bidders are to assume that there are no contaminated materials.

Question 92: For bidding purposes, please confirm distances between Communications Manholes as indicated on E-601 are acceptable without additional pull points.

Response 92: DOR to determine actual quantity of manholes. What is shown on the drawings is a guide based on industry standards of blowing fiber. It is the offeror's responsibility to ensure the constructability of the final design.

Question 93: Please provide an overall vision for the Sequence of Operation of the Wells w/ VFD operated pumps being manifolded together. Is the intent to set each well to a static flow and they combine to make the 500 gpm? Is there some lead / lag logic? Is there a desire to monitor well level and change flows based on that?

Response 93: G301007 provides a narrative on how the water system is operated and how the pumps are to be controlled.

Question 94: D-B RFP Chapter 3, paragraph 3.3 states in part: The contractor will have to coordinate with Ft. Drum during the training seasons that occur on base at specific locations which will impact the project area close to the airfield and OTC. Will any training have the potential to disrupt the contractor's work that will cause delay and additional costs that need to be accounted for in the bid proposal? If so please further clarify.

Response 94: Yes, there is potential to disrupt the contractor's work and therefore the contractor is required to coordinate with Drum and develop a phasing plan to sequence their work around Drum's training. A training 'schedule' is not available at this time.

Question 95: Does the government have a desired minimum water transmission main pipe size to accommodate any future well connections along Pleasant St, Elm Lane or Main Tank Trail segments?

Response 95: No future well connections anticipated at this time.

Question 96: Are there expected locations of rock excavation? If so, for bidding purposes, please provide an estimated volume to remove.

Response 96: Geotechnical reports are provided for reference and the offeror is responsible for interpreting and determining the extent of rock excavation, if any.

Questi…