Amendment_1.pdf

W81G6750271812

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

The purpose of this amendment is to create a Q&A section and extend the solicitation closing date to 1 March 2016.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 3

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Feb-2016

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 W912ES-16-T-0017

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-Jan-2016

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

19-Feb-2016

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

USACE - ST. PAUL

180 5TH STREET E SUITE 700

ST. PAUL MN 55101-1678

W912ES 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912ES-16-T-0017

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS SECTION

Q1: The RFQ states that "Geomorphological information pertaining to the site and the landform it is located on will be obtained...." Is the geomorphological coring restricted to the site limits?

Placing cores outside the site limit would be essential to understanding the context of the site within the larger landform on which it is situated.

A1: Yes, the geomorphological coring is restricted to the site limits. The site limits are based on the area for which the Corps has right-of-entry.

Q2: For the same reason stated above, can cores be placed outside the APE, for example in the area south of the site where the Phase II deep testing was undertaken?

A2: See answer to Q1.

Q3: Could the Geomorphological Study be conducted prior to developing the data recovery plan, allowing critical intrasite stratigraphy to be used in developing excavation planning?

A3: No. The geomorphological study is part of the data recovery plan mitigation.

Q4: Can we assume the maximum depth of excavation is 2 m, the depth of construction impact?

A4: Yes, but the excavation may or may not need to go that deep in all units depending upon the depth of palesols and artifacts.

Q5: Can we assume that excavation areas can be mechanically stripped 50 cm, removed in thin layers, closely monitored by archaeologists?

A5: Yes, the contractor can mechanically strip excavation areas to about 50 cm below the ground surface, but should verify depth of uppermost paleosol as part of geomorphological coring before startting to strip the area.

Q6: If the maximum depth is 200 cm, and the top 50 are stripped, is the remaining 150 cm likely to be stable enough that it will not need shoring or step-backs?

A6: Phase II testing involved excavation of 1 meter by 2 meter units down to 130 cm below the ground surface and the ground was stable to that depth. Even though that was the case all contractors need to be award of OSHA rules regarding shoring and plan accordingly.

Q7: Will standard 4” trash pumps in sump holes be adequate for dewatering during the Phase

III?

A7: Adequate pumps will need to be determined by the contractor.

Q8: Is there flexibility in scheduling if water levels are higher than usual?

W912ES-16-T-0017

A8: Perhaps. If dealing with high ground water levels, then no additional time would be allowed as dewatering is part of the work. If spring flooding occurs from the Minnesota River overflowing then the Contracting Officer may allow an adjustment in schedule. That being said, there is 60 days allocated for geomorphological and archeological field work so some flexibility is already built into this time period.

Q9: For the purposes of this bid, what maximum depth of archaeological excavations should be assumed for this project? Should the costs assume a depth of excavations of 130 cm (depth of the paleosol/prehistoric artifacts), or a depth of 200 cm (average depth of the ditch disturbance)?

A9: See answer to Q4.

Q10: Can careful shovel skimming / troweling be used in lieu of screening if screening becomes difficult / impossible due to the wet soil matrix below the water table?

A10: No, all soil matrix must be screened.

Q11: If it is necessary to dewater the deeper part of the site with pumps, where will the water go? Into the nearby Minnesota River? Would we need a discharge permit (or some other form of permit) to do this, or will USACE take care of these permit requirements?

A11: If dewatering is necessary, water would be drained into Minnesota River. Contractor may need a National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDS) permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Contractor should contact MPCA and ask for the NPDS Program manager to find out whether a NPDS permit is required or not. Getting the permit is the Contractor's responsibility.

Q12: Is electricity available on-site for use with water pumps for dewatering purposes, or will gas-powered generators be necessary?

A12: No electricity is available on site.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 23-Feb-2016 10:00 AM to 01-Mar-2016 10:00 AM.

(End of Summary of Changes)