AMENDMENT0002.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

Bayou Meto Canal 1000, Phase 3.1 is amended as follow s:

SEE SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Jun-2018

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 W912EQ18R0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-May-2018

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 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

13-Jun-2018

CODE

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, MEMPHIS

167 N MAIN STREET B202

MEMPHIS TN 38103-1894

W912EQ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912EQ18R0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 15-Jun-2018 01:30 PM to 18-Jun-2018 01:30PM.

Ignore ID 7240739, 7245829 and 7246257 those questions were related to the cancelled solicitation

W912EQ-18-R-0003

(End of Summary of Changes)

UNCLASSIFIED\\FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Bid Inquiry Technical Evaluators Report All Inquiries

Project: Bayou Meto Basin Project Review: Canal 1000 - Phase 3.1 (00005) (sorted by CommentID )

Id Discipline Sheet Detail Spec 7240739 Electrical SDP-E01 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Will there be a separate RFQ to provide the Electrical Process and Instrumentation? In the Plan documentation, SDP-E01-E08 and SDP-E16-E19, it implies (N.I.C.) not in contract and furnished by others.

(Attachment: B6P_Capability_Statement.pdf) On: Dec 04 2017. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. Solicitation cancelled. By: Jon Korneliussen; Design Branch; (901

544-3479) On: Apr 06 2018 1-1 Government Response. Solicitation cancelled. On: May 22 2018

Current Request Status: Request Closed Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7245829 Geotechnical B-002, C-104 DEWATERING AND UNWATERING Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

The boring data provided covering stations 110+00 to 140+00 were performed in early June 2017, and no water levels are shown on these borings. Concurrently in early June 2017, active dewatering was being performed on an adjacent Phase of Bayou Meto Basin Canal 1000 that would likely have influenced water levels on these borings. Is additional information available regarding current ground water levels within this stationing? Or were piezometers installed?

On: Dec 08 2017. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. Solicitation cancelled. By: Jon Korneliussen; Design Branch; (901

544-3479) On: Apr 06 2018 1-1 Government Response. Solicitation cancelled. On: May 22 2018

Current Request Status: Request Closed Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7246257 Geotechnical B-002 - B-006 Dewatering 1.7 paragraph (14) Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Could the individual grain size curves be supplied to aid in the design of the dewatering system? Also, could the individual boring logs be supplied to aid in design of dewatering system?

On: Dec 08 2017. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. Solicitation cancelled. By: Jon Korneliussen; Design Branch; (901

544-3479) On: Apr 06 2018 1-1 Government Response. Solicitation cancelled. On: May 22 2018

Current Request Status: Request Closed Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7466442 Civil 16-17 Factor 1, Experience Submission Requirements Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Please confirm that the Small Business Offeror is required to submit a total of three (3) past experience projects that are equal to or greater than $4M. Please confirm that ONLY subcontractors performing 15% or more of the total project cost must submit two (2) past experience projects.

If the above is confirmed, please consider removing the "$4M or greater" requirement from the Small Business Offeror's past experience criteria.

On: May 11 2018. Forward request by email.

Page 1 of 11ProjNet: Logged In User

6/13/2018https://www.projnet.org/projnet/binKornHome/index.cfm?strKornCob=BicAdminReportA...

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. Yes, the small business offeror shall submit 3 projects of equal or greater than $4M in value of similar scope. In the case of the joint venture, a partner will have to make a similar submittal. They would have to submit 3 projects of equal or greater than $4M in value and of similar scope as well. The subcontractor would have to submit 2 projects that involved similar type work and a total dollar amount equal to or greater than 15% of the contract amount minus the material cost.

There will be no removal of constraints at this time. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: May 22 2018

1-1 Government Response. Yes, the small business offeror shall submit 3 projects of equal or greater than $4M in value of similar scope. In the case of the joint venture, a partner will have to make a similar submittal. They would have to submit 3 projects of equal or greater than $4M in value and of similar scope as well. The subcontractor would have to submit 2 projects that involved similar type work and a total dollar amount equal to or greater than 15% of the contract amount minus the material cost.

There will be no removal of constraints at this time. On: May 22 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7469290 Contracting 00700 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Per Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee, and also SF 1442, Box 13 B., a bid bond is required for this solicitation. In addition, Under Volume II, Factor 4 Cost/Price, Tab 5, the Government requires "shall demonstrate sufficient bonding capacity in the form of a letter from their Surety." The legal and binding Bid Bond is far more proof of sufficient bonding capacity, which makes the letter moot. Would the Government remove the requirement of a separate bonding letter for the sake of reducing wasteful efforts and documents in the RFP?

On: May 14 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. This question is for contracting. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and

Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: May 23 2018 1-1 Government Response. A bid bond is required as requested for this solicitation. Your bid bond provides the information that is stated with the Attorney in Fact. The Contract Specialist will verify that your bid bond is sufficient by the surety. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7469303 Contracting 00100 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Under Volume I, Factor 3 Past Performance, Submission Requirements, the Government requests PPIRS, FAPIIS evaluations under paragraph a. (CPARs) The Government then refers to PPQs being submitted in paragraph b. We are assuming that PPQs would have to be submitted for all projects in the proposal for which there is NO CPAR.

Which would be in line with current HQUSACE Guidance on the usage of PPQs. I.e. a contractor is NOT required to submit both CPAR and a PPQ for the same project. Please confirm our understanding of this Submission Requirement that only CPAR are required to be submitted when they do exist. And that PPQs are required for all other example projects.

On: May 14 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. This question is for contracting. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and

Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: May 23 2018 1-1 Government Response. Please address the PPQ form as submitted in the solicitation. Sometime we do receive both, but you don't have to. The Contract Specialist will verify the CPARS, PPIRS and FAPIIS.

These systems will provide the ratings of past performance on projects. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7476569 Civil Civil Section Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Sheet C-104 has a note that says "All excess excavated material between sta 110+00 to sta 141+50 shall be placed in the disposal areas indicated above. Place as indicated in detail B, sheet C-504. The volume of excess material is approx. 115,000 CY." Contractor did not find a similar note for the project beyond sta 141+50.

Contractor has performed a take-off of the provided cross-sections and has noticed 2 important things:

Page 2 of 11ProjNet: Logged In User

1) The EME between sta 110+00 and 141+50 far exceeds 115,000 CY (more like 150,000 BCY), and

2) The EME resulting from the excavation of the jobsite beyond sta 141+50 far exceeds the EME capacity in this area, resulting in approx. 260,000 BCY of export (that will not fit on the backside of the embankments). Is it the intention of the government to export that much material offsite? Is there a location in this area where additional EME can be placed besides the backside of the embankments?

On: May 17 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. It is the intent that all excess spoil is disposed of on site. See AMD 001 for a change regarding authorized spoil areas. By: Jon Korneliussen; Design Branch; (901 544-3479) On: May 31 2018

1-1 Government Response. It is the intent that all excess spoil is disposed of on site. See Amendment 0001 for a change regarding authorized spoil areas. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7485352 Contracting Proposal Instructions Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Page 17 of Offeror's Experience 2. Structural Excavation; If the contractor has not performed a $4,000,000 contract in the previous six years that required multiple dewatering wells to lower the groundwater at least 15 feet to perform structural excavation; are they disqualified from bidding this project?

On: May 23 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. Yes, the small business offeror shall submit 3 projects of equal or greater than

$4M in value of similar scope. In the case of the joint venture, a partner will have to make a similar submittal. They would have to submit 3 projects of equal or greater than $4M in value and of similar scope as well. The subcontractor would have to submit 2 projects that involved similar type work and a total dollar amount equal to or greater than 15% of the contract amount minus the material cost.

There will be no removal of constraints at this time. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: May 23 2018

2-0 Evaluation For Information Only. This has been lowered to $500,000. See AMD 001. By: Jon Korneliussen; Design Branch; (901 544-3479) On: May 31 2018

2-1 Government Response. This has been lowered to $500,000. See Amendment 0001. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7485880 Contracting Proposal Instructions Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Under Factor 3, Past Performance Submission Requirements, the proposals instructions says the following: "Offerors shall provide past performance evaluation information on all offeror and major subcontractor example projects submitted under Technical Factor 3 - Corporate Experience..."

Contractor believes "Technical Factor 3 - Corporate Experience" in the above specification should be "Factor 1 - Experience". Is that correct?

On: May 23 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. No it is correct as noted. This paragraph deals with performance not experience. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On:

Jun 01 2018

1-1 Government Response. No it is correct as noted. This paragraph deals with performance not experience.

On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7485881 Geotechnical B-001 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

General Note 4 on Sheet B-001 states "Additional subsurface data may be available for inspection upon request." If there is additional subsurface data, could it be provided to the contractors at this time?

On: May 23 2018. Forward request by email.

Page 3 of 11ProjNet: Logged In User

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. The USACE boring logs in the project footprint that were used for the design are represented on the project plans. The majority of the laboratory tests are represented on the boring logs in the plans.

Per 00 70 0.00 11 Section 1.6 "d. Additional Data. Additional data is available for inspection at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District office in Memphis, Tennessee and may consist of; boring logs, boring samples, and laboratory test reports which may include Atterberg limits, moisture content, unconfined compression, grain size analyses, and consolidation. (FAR 52.236 4)"

The laboratory tests that are not presented on the logs are the consolidation tests and individual grain size distribution plots (note D10 sizes from grain size analyses are shown on logs, where data exists). These two items are attached. (Attachment: bayou_meto_phase_31_sieve_consol.pdf) By: Nicholas Aleman; Geotech Engineering Branch; (901-544-0830) On: May 23 2018

1-1 Government Response. The USACE boring logs in the project footprint that were used for the design are represented on the project plans. The majority of the laboratory tests are represented on the boring logs in the plans.

Per 00 70 0.00 11 Section 1.6 "d. Additional Data. Additional data is available for inspection at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District office in Memphis, Tennessee and may consist of; boring logs, boring samples, and laboratory test reports which may include Atterberg limits, moisture content, unconfined compression, grain size analyses, and consolidation. (FAR 52.236 4)"

The laboratory tests that are not presented on the logs are the consolidation tests and individual grain size distribution plots (note D10 sizes from grain size analyses are shown on logs, where data exists). These two items are attached. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7485906 Contracting Instructions to Bidders Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

The page limitation for Volume 1, Factor 3 is not reasonable for the amount of information requested.

On: May 23 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. The PPIRS is 3 pages (note: 6 with the formatting of the SSP, but the bidder can reformat), so 20 pages is enough for 6 projects. I would hesitate to include more pages, and suggest telling bidders to prioritize by project relevance and most recent. They can submit more, but only the first 20 pages will be considered in the evaluation. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: Jun 01 2018

1-1 Government Response. The PPIRS is 3 pages (note: 6 with the formatting of the SSP, but the bidder can reformat), so 20 pages is enough for 6 projects. I would hesitate to include more pages, and suggest telling bidders to prioritize by project relevance and most recent. They can submit more, but only the first 20 pages will be considered in the evaluation. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7487001 Geotechnical B001-B006 312319.00 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Can all pilot hole boring logs be published, including boring logs from drilling?

On: May 24 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. This was addressed in a previous comment. All the data we used is now available. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On:

Jun 01 2018

1-1 Government Response. This was addressed in a previous comment. All the data we used is now available. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7494892 Safety Section 01 45 04.00 11 para 3.4.1 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Page 4 of 11ProjNet: Logged In User

Can the SSHO have any other duties?

On: May 30 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. No. The SSHO cannot have other duties. On a project of this size, we want the contractor to provide a dedicated SSHO with no other duties. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: Jun 01 2018

1-1 Government Response. No. The SSHO cannot have other duties. On a project of this size, we want the contractor to provide a dedicated SSHO with no other duties. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7496715 Civil Civil Drawings Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Would the USACE confirm that the combination of the EME Disposal Area #1, EME Disposal Area #2, and the Semi-compacted Spoil (Embankment Enlargement), as shown in the plans, will be sufficient for the disposal of all excess excavated material on the project? If this is not the case, would the USACE furnish an additional disposal site or would the contractor be required to provide his own?

On: May 31 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. It is the intent that all excess spoil is disposed of on site. See AMD 001 for a change regarding authorized spoil areas. By: Jon Korneliussen; Design Branch; (901 544-3479) On: May 31 2018

1-1 Government Response. It is the intent that all excess spoil is disposed of on site. See amendment 0001 for a change regarding authorized spoil areas. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7497988 Other Sign In 00 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Can the sign in sheets from both site showings be published?

On: May 31 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. For Contracting By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports

Branch; (901-544-0810) On: Jun 01 2018 1-1 Government Response. As soon as I receive them from the area office; I will post on www.fbo.gov On:

Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7499258 Electrical SDP-E16 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Reference SDP-E04, SDP-E05, SDP-E06, SDP-E07, SDP-E08, SDP-E17: Shows Stilling Well, Instrument and Electrical, Surge Arrestor and Tap Block control panels/enclosures; Flow Meter and Pressure Transmitter instruments and Yagi Antenna communication as N.I.C. (Not in Contract) and By Others. Yet, SDP-E16 (drawings sdp-e09 thru sdp-e15 not in A07D-PLANS.pdf), reflects having the RTU "By Others" and Instrument Enclosure/Control Panel as "This Contract".

Please clarify there is NO requirement to supply the Instrument Enclosure/Control Panel and the referenced Flow Meter and VFD.

Will there be a separate RFP for the SCADA System?

(Attachment: Initial_Questions.pdf) On: Jun 01 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. SDP-16 should have been for reference only and is included to show the routing of the conduit. The Contractor who sent the RFI is correct in that the equipment shown on SDP- 16 as being in the contract is shown on the other drawings as NIC. The Contract only requires that the pump well, the conduit and the equipment slabs be installed in accordance with SDP-E04 thru SDP-E08.

By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: Jun 01 2018

1-1

Page 5 of 11ProjNet: Logged In User

Government Response. SDP-16 should have been for reference only and is included to show the routing of the conduit. The Contractor who sent the RFI is correct in that the equipment shown on SDP-16 as being in the contract is shown on the other drawings as NIC. The Contract only requires that the pump well, the conduit and the equipment slabs be installed in accordance with SDP-E04 thru SDP-E08. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7501531 Contracting 00100 - Amendment 1 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

In regards to the changes to the size requirements of experience projects in Amendment 0001, contractor does not understand how experience on projects with a value of $500,000 is acceptable experience for a project with a value of $10,000,000 to $25,000,000. This is a massively different scale of project than the scale of requested experience projects. Contractor requests that this change in Amendment 0001 be reversed.

On: Jun 04 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. for contracting By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design

Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: Jun 07 2018 1-1 Government Response. This Amendment 0001 addresses the change from 4,000,000 to 500,000 for similar work to allow competitive competition. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7502019 Civil Civil Drawings Dewatering and Unwatering Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Dewatering is required at specific stationing on this site. Have specific discharge points been designated that will handle the volumes of water to be pumped? If so please provide.

On: Jun 04 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. EC-G - Effluent for 109+00 to 135+00 can be discharged into ditch 2.

From 195+00 to 230+00 and siphon at 187+63 direct effluent to Dry Bayou at 222+30. Discharge within ROW. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: Jun 07

1-1 Government Response. EC-G - Effluent for 109+00 to 135+00 can be discharged into ditch 2. From 195+00 to 230+00 and siphon at 187+63 direct effluent to Dry Bayou at 222+30. Discharge within ROW.

On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7502197 Civil Section 31 23 19.00 12 - Dewatering Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

The contract documents do not specify a discharge location for the water generated from the dewatering process.

Due to the constant, large volume of water generated, the contractor needs a defined discharge location that will handle the continuous flow of water from the dewatering process plus surface runoff from rain events without causing potential flooding of landowners crops or properties away from the project. Again, the contract documents do not provide enough information on local drainage for the contractor to determine the discharge location/locations for the dewatering process. Please specify where the discharge locations are to be located.

On: Jun 04 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. EC-G - See No. 2 for dewatering effluent. By: Jeromy

Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: Jun 07 2018 1-1 Government Response. EC-G - See No. 2 for dewatering effluent. On: Jun 13 2018

Current Request Status: Request Closed Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7502269 Engineering Support 31 23 19.00.12, 1.7 Dewatering Requirements

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Page 6 of 11ProjNet: Logged In User

Item (1) indicates that at a minimum dewatering systems will be required at the Siphons at STA 187+63 and STA 222+30 and the canal from +/- STA 109+00 to STA 135+00 and from +/- STA 195+00 to STA 230+00 -It appeasr that a significan portion of the project indicates clay at the sunngrade of the canal (and for the siphon at STA 222+30), and it appears that the groundwater table is slaready below a portion of the canal.

Meeting the specification of lowering the groundwater table 3ft belwo the bottom of the excavation may not be practicable for these areas.

Are you anticipating that sumping will be allowed for these areas, and dod you have any updated groundwater data?

On: Jun 04 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. EC-G - Project specification is to lower the groundwater a minimum of

3ft below bottom of excavation (31 23 19.00 12 Part 1.4). Requirement can be accomplished by means and methods that the contractor determine will be effective (31 23 19.00 12 Part 1.7(5)). The groundwater data provided on boring logs is most recent information that USACE has. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: Jun 07 2018

1-1 Government Response. EC-G - Project specification is to lower the groundwater a minimum of 3ft below bottom of excavation (31 23 19.00 12 Part 1.4). Requirement can be accomplished by means and methods that the contractor determine will be effective (31 23 19.00 12 Part 1.7(5)). The groundwater data provided on boring logs is most recent information that USACE has. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7502291 Engineering Support 31 23 19.00.12, 1.7 Dewatering Requirements

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Unfortunately we did not perform the dewatering for phase I or Phase II, is there an archive for Phase I and Phase II we can review what was done for these project to help determine what worked and what did not.

On: Jun 04 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. EC-G - Response from before: "The information for Phases 1 and 2 are irrelevant to this project since they are outside of the footprint. We have provided the bidders with USACE boring logs, gradations for the boring logs and performance specifications. It is the contractors responsibility to develop their design off of this information or obtain additional subsurface data." By:

Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: Jun 07 2018

1-1 Government Response. EC-G - Response from before: "The information for Phases 1 and 2 are irrelevant to this project since they are outside of the footprint. We have provided the bidders with USACE boring logs, gradations for the boring logs and performance specifications. It is the contractors responsibility to develop their design off of this information or obtain additional subsurface data." On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7502306 Engineering Support C-104 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

The Siphon shown between STA 141+50 and STA 147+50 indicate that this siphon will be done by others.

Do you have any information regarding this Scope of Work?

Is the USACE the owner for this portion of the project?

Will this Siphon be installed during the phase 3.1 schedule?

On: Jun 04 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. This is a bridge. It will be handled by the sponsor. Not sure on schedule, consult

AHDOT. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: Jun 06 2018

1-1 Government Response. This is a bridge. It will be handled by the sponsor. Not sure on schedule, consult AHDOT. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7502325 Engineering Support 31 23 19.00.12, 1.7 Dewatering Requirements

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Page 7 of 11ProjNet: Logged In User item (14) - We would like to request a copy of the geotechnical data report to help with ur evaluation of the dewatering system design

On: Jun 04 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. EC-G - All available geotechnical data that was used for design has been provided with boring logs and laboratory test data. If the contractor needs additional information then they will need to use their own resources. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: Jun 07 2018

1-1 Government Response. EC-G - All available geotechnical data that was used for design has been provided with boring logs and laboratory test data. If the contractor needs additional information then they will need to use their own resources. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7502330 Engineering Support 31 23 19.00.12, 1.7 Dewatering Requirements

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO) is there a water supply available for drilling?

Are any of the previous wells still available for a water supply?

Once we drill the first well for an area, will we be allowed to use that well for a water supply for drilling?

On: Jun 04 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. EC-G - (1) There is water that will likely be available in Dry Bayou. (2)

Acquiring other water resources will be the responsibility of the contractor.

Are any of the previous wells still available for a water supply?

EC-G - No Once we drill the first well for an area, will we be allowed to use that well for a water supply for drilling?

EC-G- Yes. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On:

Jun 07 2018

1-1 Government Response. EC-G - (1) There is water that will likely be available in Dry Bayou. (2) Acquiring other water resources will be the responsibility of the contractor.

Are any of the previous wells still available for a water supply?

EC-G - No Once we drill the first well for an area, will we be allowed to use that well for a water supply for drilling?

EC-G- Yes. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7502341 Engineering Support 31 23 19.00.12, 1.7 Dewatering Requirements

Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Item (6) - indicates that the dewatering effluent cannot be discharged to adjacent properties.

Is there a designated discharge point and will it have to be conveyed using pipe?

How was this handled for the previous phases?

For the previous projects some bidders were considering excavating trenches to move the water away from the excavation area, was this allowed on the previous phases?

Will the contractor be allowed to use a portion of this water for dust control?

On: Jun 04 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. EC-G - The specifications prohibit "direct" discharge onto areas outside of ROW. Discharges should be as directed in response to question 2. Conveyance and outlet should conform to Dewatering and Unwatering (31 23 19.00 12) and SWPPP (01 57 25 20.00 11) How was this handled for the previous phases? EC-G- Conveyance of effluent was accomplished using piping to the discharge to single outlet point for a system of wells with ROW. Discharge outlet was protected from erosion.

For the previous projects some bidders were considering excavating trenches to move the water away from the excavation area, was this allowed on the previous phases?

EC-G - This is not prohibited in specifications. Conveyance and outlet of dewatering and unwatering should conform to Dewatering and Unwatering (31 23 19.00 12) and SWPPP (01 57 25 20.00 11).

Will the contractor be allowed to use a portion of this water for dust control?

Page 8 of 11ProjNet: Logged In User

EC-G- If they choose so. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544- 0810) On: Jun 07 2018

1-1 Government Response. EC-G - The specifications prohibit "direct" discharge onto areas outside of ROW.

Discharges should be as directed in response to question 2. Conveyance and outlet should conform to Dewatering and Unwatering (31 23 19.00 12) and SWPPP (01 57 25 20.00 11) How was this handled for the previous phases? EC-G- Conveyance of effluent was accomplished using piping to the discharge to single outlet point for a system of wells with ROW. Discharge outlet was protected from erosion.

For the previous projects some bidders were considering excavating trenches to move the water away from the excavation area, was this allowed on the previous phases?

EC-G - This is not prohibited in specifications. Conveyance and outlet of dewatering and unwatering should conform to Dewatering and Unwatering (31 23 19.00 12) and SWPPP (01 57 25 20.00 11).

Will the contractor be allowed to use a portion of this water for dust control?

EC-G- If they choose so. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7502348 Engineering Support Standard form 1442 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO) is the current bid date of June 12, 1018 firm, or will the bid date be extended?

On: Jun 04 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. for contracting By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design

Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: Jun 05 2018 1-1 Government Response. An amendment has been posted to www.fbo.gov and the Request for Proposal

(RFP)is due 6/15/2018 by 1:30pm. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7503068 Contracting Proposal Instructions Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

As stated in the Solicitation Provisions, Technical Factors 1 through 3 are approximately equal to Factor 4 (Cost/Price). Addendum 1 changed the experience requirement on previous projects from $4,000,000 to $500,000.

With this change, Factors 1 through 3 lost their relevance when the prequalification was decreased to $500,000. This project, although it has a respectable dollar amount, lacks the complexity of a RFP format. Fulfilling Factors 1 through 3 is very cumbersome and expensive for a small business with limited overhead and could potentially eliminate several qualified contractors from bidding this project. Our time would be better spent exploring different angles to be more cost efficient for the owner. Please consider changing the bid format to IFB and allow our Bid Bond to serve as justification of our qualifications.

On: Jun 04 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. For contracting. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design

Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: Jun 05 2018 1-1 Government Response. Market research was conducted:

There was a Sources Sought that was initiated and posted on Federal Business Opportunities to determine interest and capabilities of the market. There were seven small businesses that indicated construction experience on projects similar to this requirement. This is how the determination of how this project was advertised. There have been similar work advertised as an IFB. Although the requirement may not seem complex, the RFP(LPTA)means: The lowest price technically acceptable source selection process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. The IFB is based on the low bidder, in which the contract is then awarded to the responsible bidder who submitted the lowest responsive bid, unless otherwise during the review there may be an issue. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7503943 Contracting Proposal Instructions Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

A "Data Sheet for Performance Survey" form is included in the solicitation, pages 38 and 39. Where in the proposal is this form to be included? Under factor 1? Is this form in addition to the narratives described on pages 16-18 of the solicitation? Do these forms not count towards the page limit for that section? Please confirm that the govt wants a

Page 9 of 11ProjNet: Logged In User minimum of 3 forms and a maximum of 5 forms for the prime contractor, each division, major subcontractors, teaming partners, joint venture partners, and key persons.

On: Jun 05 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation For Information Only. for contracting By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design

Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: Jun 07 2018 1-1 Government Response. This Data Sheet for Performance Survey should be submitted with Volume 1.

The minimum is 3 forms/maximum of 5. You may not have all categories; therefore, submit what is applicable to your company. This form is allowing us to discuss with the prime contractor the performance of the subcontractor that you want to be considered in the performance evaluation. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7507091 Geotechnical Sec. 31-24-00.00-12 Page 9 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Section 1.5.4 Clay Liner Inspection states that "The inspection interval along the canal centerline shall be 100 feet.

At each inspection interval, one representative testing location shall be along the canal bottom and one representative testing location shall be along each of the canal side slopes for a total of three testing locations per 100 feet". The total bid quantity for In-situ Clay Liner Test (9AA & 9AB) is 150 EA. Will the contractor be paid for one In Situ Clay Liner Test for each inspection interval of 100 feet (which would include three locations) or paid for each individual test location?

On: Jun 06 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. You will be paid per location not station. So at each interval there will be 3 tests or payment for 3 tests. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544- 0810) On: Jun 07 2018

1-1 Government Response. You will be paid per location not station. So at each interval there will be 3 tests or payment for 3 tests. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7512749 Civil C-506 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

Drawing Number C-506, Note number 4 for Erosion Control Berm Details states, "Contracting Officer must accept permanent turfing prior to removal of Erosion Control Measures". With dimensions of the Erosion Control Berm and the distance shown from Canal Embankment, and with the 10' minimum distance from ROW shown for the toe of EME material, there will not be any room for EME material, if the Berm is installed and remains until permanent turfing is accepted. In order to maintain the maximum area for EME material, would the Corps consider deleting the Erosion Control Berm item and increasing the Silt Fence quantity?

On: Jun 08 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0 Evaluation Concurred. The KTR should bid the quantities as shown. If during construction an adjustment is determined to be warranted, the KO may elect to either modify the dimensions of the erosion control berm or allow silt fence to be substituted for the erosion control berm. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: Jun 13 2018

1-1 Government Response. The KTR should bid the quantities as shown. If during construction an adjustment is determined to be warranted, the KO may elect to either modify the dimensions of the erosion control berm or allow silt fence to be substituted for the erosion control berm. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

7517620 Contracting 00100 Comment Classification: Unclassified\\For Official Use Only (U\\FOUO)

As of now, there are a substantial number of unanswered projnet questions and proposals are due in less than 3 days. Will the government be postponing the bid date to get the questions answered / issues resolved and give the contractors a reasonable amount of time to respond?

On: Jun 12 2018. Forward request by email.

1-0

Page 10 of 11ProjNet: Logged In User

Evaluation Concurred. To our knowledge all answers have been posted and are available for review. I just reviewed the responses as a contractor would and was able to see all responses. No time extension will be granted. By: Jeromy Carpenter; Cost Engineering and Design Reports Branch; (901-544-0810) On: Jun 13 2018

1-1 Government Response. To our knowledge all answers have been posted and are available for review. I just reviewed the responses as a contractor would and was able to see all responses. No time extension will be granted. On: Jun 13 2018 Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

Report Complete

UNCLASSIFIED\\FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Patent 11/892,984 ProjNet property of ERDC since 2004.

Page 11 of 11ProjNet: Logged In User