W912EP24R0007 WPF Questions.pdf

W912EP24R0007 WPF GATE

SOLICITATION QUESTIONS

1. Question: IF the USACE will recognize that because this is a supply solicitation, that items

#017 through #024 (metallic components) be procured directly by the USACE at the time of installation and stricken from the solicitation notice?

Answer: We understand that these are two different types of materials. However, we are keeping them together for the solicitation.

2. Question: Should the prices for CLIN 0003 include delivery and assembly of all lift gates and delivery of all bulkheads? Or does it just include the two lift gates (CLIN 0001) and one standard bulkhead (CLIN 0002).

Answer: Bid as shown including Amendment 1 which includes a Note (4) to “Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices” that clarifies prices for delivery and assembly.

3. Question: Can you define IF the USACE wants the stainless steel rail sets with CLIN 0001?

They have 8 sets listed as separate line items. This is inconsistent with the roller assemblies.

Answer: Bid as shown for CLIN 0001

4. Question: Is CLIN 0035 for the QC testing of two standard bulkheads only? We read CLIN

0034 as for the two gates.

Answer: Bid as shown for CLIN 0034 and 0035 for Quality Control Testing of FRP Spillway Gate. CLIN 0002 includes the Design Validation Testing of the Port Mayaca Bulkhead.

5. Question: The contract documents states ~ "embedded and integrated directly into the material during the manufacturing process". Does this refer to molding sensors into the laminate, or can it be interpreted as being bonded to the interior of the assembly? If cabling is run on the structure's interior with passthrough areas for cabling, there should be more protection. Additionally, will the USACE allow different strain gauges with waterproofing and impact guarding? or could a more standard strain gauge be considered?

Answer: Submit bid as noted in Attachment 2 Design Requirements: Instrumentation and Structural Health Monitoring for the FRP Lift Gates at W.P. Franklin Dam. The portion quoted in the question "embedded and integrated directly into the material during the manufacturing process" refers to the fiber optic strain transducers which are to be “integrated directly into the material.”

6. Question: We have not been able to find any amendments that list responses to plan holder questions. Can you send us a list of all questions asked by the plan holders and the Corps’ responses?

Answer: There have not been any amendments until now. All questions and answers will be posted to PIEE and SAM.gov as they are answered.

7. Question: Is the USACE going to post these answers to the solicitation?

Answer: Questions and Answers will be posted on PIEE and SAM.gov.

8. Question: The solicitation mentions the necessity of demonstrating relevant experience, yet also notes that bidders with limited or no directly comparable past projects will not be adversely evaluated on this criterion. Could you please provide further guidance on how this apparent contradiction is resolved in the evaluation process?

Answer: Regulations prohibit us from penalizing a firm because they have no past performance. Some would call it a neutral rating because it doesn’t hurt the firm without experience, but it does not help them either. If your firm has past performance, you will want to put it on there to show that you are capable.

9. Question: Will USACE consider division of the project into a Design/Development phase separate from Production?

Answer: The procurement package is setup with the design and manufacturing together.

We want to keep them together as this is the procurement method that has been approved. Any changes would require new approval requirements and starting over which puts the project at risk of being cancelled permanently.

10. Question: Is there consideration of using our Direct Contract Rights from SBIR technologies for the Design/Development phase?

Answer: I am not familiar with the SBIR program / Direct Contract Rights, but I do not see a problem with it being used as long as it complies with the requirement.

11. Question: Provide clarification on the RFP's stance regarding past experience requirements.

Answer: I will have to talk to the technical team about a project extension. The project is currently behind schedule and at risk of being cancelled if not awarded in time.

12. Question: Is the USACE waiving the Quality Control Testing of the two randomly selected standard bulkheads required by Paragraph 2.4.4 of Section 06 90 00 (see below). This is different than the design validation testing described in Paragraph 2.4.3. CLIN 0034 and CLIN 0035 address the QC testing for the two randomly selected lift gates, but there is no CLIN for the two randomly selected standard bulkheads.

Answer: Bid as shown for CLIN 0034 and 0035 for Quality Control Testing of FRP Spillway Gate. CLIN 0002 includes the Design Validation Testing of the Port Mayaca Bulkhead

13. Question: The instrumentation RFP requirements include many unknowns (see below questions) which make it impossible to accurately price CLIN 0004. In fact, most of the details are to be worked out with the Corps after the project is awarded. Would the Corps be willing to assign a fixed cost to CLIN 0004 that all bidders use which would serve as the Corps budget for instrumentation? That way the Corps can work with the manufacturer to properly instrument the gates to meet the Corps data objectives.

Answer: Submit bid as noted in Attachment 2 Design Requirements: Instrumentation and Structural Health Monitoring for the FRP Lift Gates at W.P. Franklin Dam.

14. Question: The number of sensors required appears excessive. How were the quantity of sensors determined? Is the Corps open to reducing the number of sensors? If so, what is the minimum required to meet the data objectives?

ANSWER: Submit bid as noted in Attachment 2 Design Requirements: Instrumentation and

15. Question: What channels are available on the existing data system? What is the maximum scan rate possible for each channel and what power excitation and signals can the system supply and receive to/from instrumentation? Does this existing system have capacity for all of the new instruments requested by the RFP? Is this current data system currently in use with any other sensors that must remain operable, separate from those sensors listed in the

RFP?

16. Question: Will the Corps connect cables into the existing data system and configure the existing software, or is the bidder expected to do that? The RFP states only: "The goal of the instrumentation communications is that they can feed into the existing Ott/Hydromet Sutron 9210 data logger on site." The RFP is vague on whether the bidder will connect cabling and is silent on who will configure any existing software. RFP requirements in the various sections on sensors are mainly to "design and install" instrumentation and cabling.

There appears to be some incomplete text in Section 1.9 that would indicate specific responsibilities for cable connection and configuration if that text were complete: "(add that data must reach USACE SAJ’s water control system). Want contractor to connect wiring to USACE."

17. Question: What scan rate(s) are required for the various types of instrumentation? For example, it might be desirable to read the tilt meters at a rate of 1Hz or 10Hz only while operating the lift gates. It might separately be desirable to record data from the accelerometers at 1000Hz or more only for brief selected periods of time. Can the existing data acquisition system accommodate the desired and necessary scan rates, especially if those rates vary by instrument type?

18. Question: Should data from the fiber optic sensors feed into the existing data system? The fiber optic interrogator mentioned in Section 1.7 appears to be a standalone unit. Is this particular interrogator available, or is the bidder expected to provide the equipment necessary to interrogate the fiber optics?

19. Question: Where will the data acquisition hardware be located with respect to the instrumented gate? How long of a cabling run is required and what path can this cabling take? Is the bidder required to provide conduit (or similar) along this run, or is a protected cabling pathway already available? Does the envisioned cable pathway already account for the vertical movement of the gate, or does a provision for cabling that accommodates gate movement need to be developed and provided?

20. Question: Any chance that the USACE is going to delay or postpone the bid while we wait on responses?

Answer: We are considering delaying the did due date. Please continue to monitor PIEE and SAM.gov for any further updates.