Questions and Answers_20February2009

PORT OF RICHMOND INNER HARBOR DREDGING PROJECT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA

AS OF: 20 February 2009 Page 1 of 8

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-09-B-0001

The intent of this section is to provide questions & comments received from interested parties on the above solicitation, and our responses to those questions and comments. It is possible that the information below does not reflect 100% of the questions and responses. The questions and comments do not necessarily represent questions received from any particular contractor.

Questions and responses are provided for information only and are not made part of the solicitation. Only a formal amendment (SF30) to the solicitation changes the solicitation.

Changes to any previous responses in this document will be struck-through and new, updated responses will be provided as appropriate.

No. RFP Section Question Response

It is requested that the Contract Drawings be provided in PDF format.

It is the policy at the San Francisco District to provide the plans in CAL format. The CAL files are available to be downloaded from the Federal Business Opportunities website. The Maxview software to be used to view the plans in CAL format can be downloaded from the following website:

http://www.maxview.com/index.php?downloads

2 Reference is made to Contract Specification

No. 001100 – Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders – FAR 52.236-27 – SITE VISIT (CONSTRUCTION) (Feb 1995).

It is requested that a formal site visit be scheduled by the Corps of Engineers affording all of the Bidders the opportunity to visit the site and to observe first hand the off loader at the Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project (HWRP) and other aspects of the project.

A site visit can be scheduled. The dredging site is a Federal navigation channel with uncontrolled public access. To schedule a site visit, please call Jere Harper (Jere.B.Harper@usace.army.mil) at 415-289- 3320.

3 Within Contract Specification Section

01 11 00 – SUMMARY OF WORK – 1.4 –

WORK RESTRICTION SUMMARY – 1.4.2

AND 1.4.6.1. These paragraphs restrict work “…within 300 feet of knowncommunal roost sites for California Brown Pelicans from July 1 to September 3.” And dictate that “Dredging and Disposal operations shall occur from June 1 and November 30 to avoid impacts to migrating juvenile salmon.”

There is a restriction for dredging “…within 300 feet of knowncommunal roost sites for California Brown Pelicans from July 1 to September 3. The endangered California br-own pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus has a roost site at Brooks Island near the dredging area. However, the island is more than 300 ft. from the project area, so roosting pelicans are not likely to be disturbed or adversely affected by this project. Pelicans flying over the project area are highly mobile and can avoid the open water project activity, and are therefore not likely to be adversely affected by project activity. Also, “Dredging and disposal operations shall occur from June 1 and November 30 to avoid impacts to migrating juvenile salmon” since these dates are specified by the regulatory agencies.

http://www.maxview.com/index.php?downloads mailto:Jere.B.Harper@usace.army.mil

AS OF: 20 February 2009 Page 2 of 8

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-09-B-0001

4 Section 35 20 25 "Transportation of

Hamilton Off Loading" requires that the Contractor meet the following performance requirements:

a) Contractor shall deliver at least 4,000 cy of dredged material to Hamilton each production day.

b) All scows and hopper barges shall have a capacity greater than 3,000 cy.

c) All tugs used to transport material shall be 2,400 hp or greater.

The total amount of material to be dredged, including maximum overdepth quantity, is 119,000 cy over a period of 125 calendar days.

From a scheduling and quantity perspective there appears to be no need to deliver at least 4,000 cy per day and smaller scows could be used to meet the scheduling criteria.

This company, as well as other qualified dredgers, own and operate equipment that can meet the scheduling requirements of this project. However, the transport and off-loading requirements as set out above cannot be met. It appears these equipment standards have been set by the off-loading and competing joint venture entity comprising of dredgers Manson and Dutra.

By introducing these requirements, these companies have put themselves in a self-serving position whereby the majority, if not all, competition is eliminated.

We respectfully request the Corps of Engineers to modify the equipment performance requirements and eliminate what appears to be an unfair business practice.

By doing so the Corps will allow additional qualified bidders, including this company, to competitively bid and execute this work.

The Corps has no intention to engage an unfair business practice.

The joint venture, Manson and Dutra , Contractor for Phase 3E of the Oakland Inner / Outer Channel Harbor Deepening Project, has committed to the Corps that the existing Offloader shall be continued for utilizing to off loading the O&M dredged material to the HWRP site.

The size of the of the scows and tugs and the delivery capacity specified in Section 35 20 25 are only the minimum requirements allowed the existing Off loader to be operated efficiently and economically.

The Corps contractually dose not have the authority to request the joint venture to modify the existing equipment.

AS OF: 20 February 2009 Page 3 of 8

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-09-B-0001

5 The bid documents say that in order to be responsive to this solicitation prices shall be submitted for the government furnished disposal site. This would mean that all contractors would have to submit a bid requiring the use of the Hamilton off-loader.

In section 35 20 25 it is required that the contractor shall utilize at least a 3,000 cubic yard barge at the Hamilton off-loading site. This only leaves two Bay Area companies that would be eligible to do the work; Manson-Dutra Joint Venture & Kewitt Construction.

Is it possible to bid this project by only submitting a pricing schedule for a contractor furnished disposal site?

No. Please see note 1 of the bid schedule, “Prices must be submitted on all individual items of the Pricing Schedule. Failure to do so may be caused for rejection of bids. Prices may at each Bidder’s discretion be submitted on all individual items of the Alternate Pricing Schedule. “

6 Please define "acceptable material" as stated in item 3.3.

The O&M dredged material from the subject dredging site.

The last sentence of item 3.5 states that "Hopper or scow combings must be able to fit under the offloader when the hopper barge or scow is empty". What is the height of offloader, for clearance?

The dimension from the bottom of the transverse section of snorkel piping to the end of the snorkel mouth is approximately 25 feet. The dimension from the water line to the bottom of the transverse section of snorkel piping is approximately 18 feet. The Manson-Dutra JV maintains a minimum 3 foot spacing between the bottom of the transverse snorkel piping and the top of the combing on a scow. Therefore, the top of the combing any scow that will be offloaded must not be more than 15 feet above the water line when empty.

Under item 3.5.1 In-bay load disposal, please provide definitions of "90 percent of its load line" and "90 percent of bin capacity".

A marker, or a load line inside of the scow to clearly identify the 90% full of the total scow load capacity.

AS OF: 20 February 2009 Page 4 of 8

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-09-B-0001

It appears that the second sentence in item

3.5.1 "No disposal barge filled...." is incomplete. Please clarify the intent of the sentence.

The disposal barge shall not be allowed to fill more than 90% of its load capacity.

Another thing I would like to clarify are the material on side slopes of channel. There will be a tendency that during dredging the bottom channel, the side slope materials will erode or slide down causing more materials to be dredged. If this is the case, how this issue will be paid?

The side slope material that erodes or sloughs in to the channel will be considered as part of the O&M dredged material.

The fact that the companies Manson and Dutra are contractors to the COE on Phase 3E Oakland Inner / Outer Channel Harbor Deepening Project and “have committed to the Corps that the existing offloader shall be continued for utilizing to off-loading the O&M dredged material to the HWRP site” should have no bearing on this project. Are these companies, Manson and Dutra, determining where and how material is to be off-loaded on unrelated projects?

No. The Corps determines where and how the dredged material is to be off-loaded.

The COE’s statement that the size of the scows and tugs and the delivery capacity specified in Section 35 20 25 are only the minimum requirements for the off-loader

(ie. Manson and Dutra) to work efficiently, is once again an example that this Specification is written around and apparently dictated by the performance parameters of these two companies. Per this Specification, “minimum” requirements translates to the requirement that scows and hopper barges shall have a capacity greater than 3,000 cy and tugs shall be 2,400 hp or greater. Again, from a scheduling, permitting, and quantity perspective, this project can be performed with smaller equipment.

No. Scows and hopper barges with a capacity less than 3,000 cy are not suitable for the off-loader.

AS OF: 20 February 2009 Page 5 of 8

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-09-B-0001

13 The COE’s statement that “the Corps contractually does not have the authority to request the joint venture to modify the existing equipment” also begs one to ask the question as to whom is authoring this project’s Specifications - is it the Corps of Engineers or the companies Manson and Dutra?

It is the Corps that prepared the plans and specifications.

AS OF: 20 February 2009 Page 6 of 8

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-09-B-0001

AS OF: 20 February 2009 Page 7 of 8

AS OF: 20 February 2009 Page 8 of 8