AMD_0004.pdf

W81G6631514155

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

REFERENCE: SOLICITATION W912P6-13-B-0004; ROSEWOOD PARK CONSTRUCTION, HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS

A. This Amendment is being issued to inform interested bidders of the status of funding, change the bid opening date and location, answ er contractors’ questions, revise specifications, and revise draw ings.

B. Point of Contact: Elizabeth New ell at 312-846-5370

--THIS AMENDMENT CONTINUES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE—

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 4

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Sep-2013

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 W912P6-13-B-0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-Aug-2013

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

17-Sep-2013

CODE

U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, CHICAGO

231 SOUTH LASALLE STREET SUITE 1500

CHICAGO IL 60604-1437

W912P6 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912P6-13-B-0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

C. BID OPENING: The bid opening date is hereby changed to September 20, 2013. Bids remain due by 11:00 AM CDT. The designated bid opening room is hereby changed to the Fort Dearborn Room, located on the 16th floor at 231 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

D. DELIVERY OF BIDS: Section 00010, “Important Notes” Paragraph 5.f is hereby revised to read as follows:

Hand-carried Bids Delivered on the Day of the Bid Opening: For bids being hand-carried after 12: NOON on the date of the bid opening, the bidder shall contact the Contracting Branch at 312-846-5373 or 312-846-5370 to have its bid retrieved from the Lobby Area of the District’s facility, located at 231 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1500, Chicago, Il. 60604. Prior to 12:

NOON on the date of the bid opening, it is the responsibility of each bidder to ensure that its Bid is received by the Chicago District’ – USACE Contracting Branch, located at 231 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1500, Chicago, Il. 60604 prior to the date and time set of the opening of bids.

E. FUNDING STATUS: The required funding approval has not been acquired. Pursuant to the Contingency Statement provided in Amendment 0002, the USACE is under no obligation to receive bids for this project until the required funding approval has been acquired. The USACE has not acquired said approval; when said approval is acquired, offerors will be notified by another Amendment.

F. USACE’s RESPONSES TO CONTRACTOR’S INQUIRIES: Provided below are the USACE’s responses to all questions received from contractors.

Question 1: In the specifications, the documents read that all offsite materials shall conform to minimum requirements as on Table 1, page 19. That would mean that C535 would apply to CA 1 and CA 6. That leads me to believe that you are really only intending those to apply to the armor stone…would that be correct?

USACE Response 1: The ASTM C535 test specification listed in the stone spec would only be applicable to stone materials used in the construction of both the onshore revetment and the breakwaters.

Question2: Does the COR intend to put concrete cap on all new sheeting, including the small extension at the north? Do we include a full length cap on the northern “extension” wall.

Hence the total lf of concrete cap would be in the range of about 470 lf or 580 lf.

USACE Response 2: The concrete cap option is intended for the middle and southern sheet pile only; NOT the northern sheet pile “extension” wall. See the callouts and notes on plan sheets CG001 and CG002 along with groyne elevations shown on CS501.

Question 3: Will armor stone be placed against the groyne before or after the beach replenishment?

USACE Response 3: The armor stone placed against the groyne(s) is for aesthetic purposes only so that exposed sheet pile cannot be seen after construction. It would be ideal if the armor stone was placed after the beach replenishment work was completed.

Question 4: In section 35 31 19.45, Page 23, 2.3.3, you state; “Conform to IDOT, Article 1005.01 (c)”. In the IDOT manual, under Article 1005.01 (c), the gradations are listed as RR 4 and RR 5 (not A4 and A5). Can I assume this is referring to the RR 4 and RR 5 gradation? If not, what is the correct size of the A4 and A5 stone?

USACE Response 4: The spec has been revised to specify the gradation requirement for both the A4 and A5 stone. No IDOT gradation fit the specific requirements for A4 and A5 on this project so that reference was removed from this section and specific requirements have been listed.

Question 5: On the typical section – class I revetment (CS502), the revetment is layered with Geotextile fabric, filter stone and armor stone (A4). Assuming the armor stone A4 is referring to RR 4 as defined in Article 1005.01 (c) of the IDOT manual (150 # and smaller), and the filter stone is referring to the same filter stone used is the “typical section – middle breakwaters” as well as “typical sections – north & south breakwaters” on sheet CS502, I am to assume we are placing a 5.3’ layer of 150# and smaller armor stone on top of a 2.0’ thick layer of 300‐1500# filter stone? Is this Correct?

USACE Response 5: This issue has been resolved from the revisions made to Section 35 31 19.45 paragraph 2.3.3 as described in USACE response 4 above.

Question 6: In the specifications, section 35 31 19.54, page 23, paragraph 2.3.5, core stone is referred to CA‐1 (1”‐3”) in the IDOT manual Article 1004.1, and bedding stone referred to CA‐6 (1.5” and smaller). However, core stone is labeled as 300lbs minus on page CS502 in the “typical section – middle breakwaters” as well as “typical sections – north & south breakwaters”. Can you clarify this?

USACE Response 6: Section 35 31 19.45 paragraph 2.3.5 has been revised and is included in this amendment. Core stone has been amended to conform to IDOT Article

1005.01 (c) RR5 stone specs. Bedding stone has been revised to conform to IDOT

1004.01 CA‐1 and CA‐6 stone.

Question 7: On the top of page 19, 2.1.2.2, it reads "All off‐site material shall meet the minimum quality requirements listed in table 1." That would bring such items as CA1, RR 4, RR5 and filter stone under the same specifications as the Armor Stone. Is that the intent?

USACE Response 7: Your previously submitted question has been answered as part of this amendment. Please see USACE response 1 above.

Question 8: It appears that you have issued revised wage rates. Are we to use the general laborer rate for Lake County for all Tree Clearing, Planting, Seeding, and Maintenance activities?

The rate listed is $56.65 / Hour.

USACE Response 8: If no other classification applies to the work being performed, the general laborer rate applies.

Question 9: We see that there are contours clearly shown outside the beach nourishment hatch area, near the breakwaters (they end at elevation 675.00). We anticipate that this fill material is sand and will be paid for under the beach nourishment line item. Is that the case?

Additionally the drawings show that the sand will be graded at a 30:1 slope from the proposed 675 to meet existing grade in the lake at 670.00. This puts our sand placement approx. 100’ beyond the breakwater and well outside the project limits. Is this the intent? If so, what will the grading tolerance be for this underwater sand placement? Will the sand extend all the way around the breakwaters?

USACE Response 9: Please note that you are making a mistake when referring to contour elevations at 675.0 in your question above. Sheets CG001 thru CG003 show the proposed contours near the breakwaters at elevation 575.0 NAVD88. Also, see the revised sheets CG001 thru CG003 that have been issued as part of this Amendment.

Yes, the proposed contours that are shown outside the hatching called “beach nourishment” are intended to be paid for under the beach nourishment bid item. The drawings have been revised as part of this Amendment and now show all the sand being placed at a 12:1 slope and show the proposed sand at the toe of the breakwaters being blended with the matching existing contour. It is not the intent of the design to place sand at elevation 570.0 and it is not the intent of the design to place sand past or completely around the proposed breakwaters in the lake.

G. SPECIFICATIONS: Bidders shall remove and replace the SUBMITTAL REGISTER with the replacement pages attached hereto. The text of the below listed specification sections have been revised and are attached hereto. Deletions are struck through and additions are underlined.

35 31 19.45 STONE MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT

H. DRAWINGS: The following drawing sheets are hereby revised and are attached hereto:

CG001 SITE PLAN

CG002 SITE PLAN

CG003 SITE PLAN

(End of Summary of Changes)