W912DW-18-Q-4000_0002.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

Amendment #0002 for REPLACEMENT GOVERNOR DISTRIBUTING VALVES FOR CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WASHINGTON is as follow s:

1) Provide questions and answ ers for your information only (8 questions). See attached.

2) Extend the due date for quotes to Friday, November 3, 2017, still at 2pm Pacif ic Time.

No other changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 3

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Oct-2017

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 W912DW18Q4000

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Oct-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

27-Oct-2017

CODE

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE

ATTN: CENWS-CT

4735 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH, BLDG. 1202

SEATTLE WA 98134-2388

W912DW 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912DW18Q4000

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 31-Oct-2017 02:00 PM to 03-Nov-2017 02:00 PM.

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

This is for your information only, the information provided here does not change the plans/specifications.

Question #1: I have a question about section 1.2.3. It states that contractors must show specific experience in manufacturing precision governor parts. I understand the USACE’s need to receive the best possible equipment solution for the governor control valves. However, the governor valve parts are not so unique that only a company like American Governor can produce them.

Will the government consider other experience in precision machine design and manufacture in leu of the specific experience listed in section 1.2.3 of the solicitation?

Answer #1: See the changes in the Scope of Work in amendment #0001 dated 10/18/2017.

Question #2: In section 1.5.5 Place of Performance, this sections states that “the work performed under this contract will be performed at the Contractor’s facility except for measurement…..Would using a subcontractor for the 3D CAD model development and an external machine shop to fabricate the parts be allowed per this section of this RFQ or is this RFQ limited to companies who can do the complete project in their facility?

Answer #2: The intent was that work to fabricate the parts would be performed at a machine shop and the only work performed at Chief Joseph Dam would be the reverse engineering measurement of the 3 different family of valves.

Subcontractor’s workplaces/facilities are acceptable for model development and fabrication.

Question #3: Can valve inspection be performed offsite at a machine shop? We believe it would provide for a higher quality inspection performing these offsite for Fabrication Drawings.

Answer #3: No, valve inspection will be performed on site at Chief Joseph Dam (CJD).

Question #4: The spec. seems to be written around a machine shop doing a reverse engineering process. Our experience has found that this can be problematic in some cases due to the tolerance stack up related to aligning the new parts in the existing 50 year old valve body / controller. The length of the relay valve assembly contributes to this. Can we propose a different approach (such as a redesign) other than what is listed in the Scope of Work?

Answer #4: No. We want the components reverse engineering per the plans and specs and not redesigned. We understand the intent by suggesting redesign. USACE is not interested in moving forward with a different approach.

Please provide a quote on reverse engineering per the plans and specifications and the project is prepared to handle any of suggested potential issues when the project installs.

W912DW18Q4000

Question #5: Are the Servo Motor Cover Bores going to be inspected? If there is wear on these, the Stems will have to be oversized and machined for each unit to the proper tolerances if you want to keep leakage to a minimum of these?

Answer #5: CJD wants to reverse engineer the valve of their choice (they will choose the units for the valve inspection) and the contractor is to produce drawings and then fabricate per the new drawings for the specific units selected. Servo motors are not part of this contract.

Question #6: I am still unsure of the government's intent with the amended solicitation. In Section 48 19

01.10 26 paragraph 1.2.3 it states that the Contractor must use parts supplied by a machine shop with specific experience in manufacturing and application of hydraulic governor components. IEEE 125 gives specific guidelines for the design of the components. The tolerances required for the parts are not unusual for these types of parts. The way the amended solicitation is written will eliminate any local suppliers. Will the government consider contractors using qualified machine shops that can show machined part tolerances comparable to the IEEE 125 tolerances but without specific hydraulic governor part machining?

Answer #6: It is not the Governments intent to eliminate local suppliers. The Government will consider contractors using qualified machine shops that can show machined part tolerances comparable to the IEEE 125 tolerances.

Question #7: In Section 3.2 of Part 3, the Nondestructive Testing (NDT) paragraph seems to require only a visual inspection.

3.2 NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING

At a minimum, all parts shall be visually inspected in accordance with SECTION 05 05 33.20 26. However, if doubt exists as to the quality of a part, the Government reserves the right to require more extensive NDT be performed in accordance with SECTION 05 05 33.20 26.

And yet, the “Submittal Register” requires us to submit formal qualifications for our Radiographic

Personnel.

What level of NDT is actually required?

Answer #7: Visual inspection, is the primary method of NDT but if the visual inspection reveals a potential indication then MT or PT test is warranted. If the new parts that the contractor builds does not pass a visual per agreement between the government and contractor then further NDT will be needed to determine part viability or not.

Question #8: Will the Submittal Register be modified to accurately reflect the Section 3.2 NDT requirements?

Answer #8: The submittal register will not be modified and the line is only required if radiographic testing is needed after visual inspection.

(End of Summary of Changes)