Questions and Answers 2-19-10 addit _Final Upload.pdf

SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER

PROJECT - Phases 2, 3 & 4

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

AS OF: 19 February 2010

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-09-B-0009

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

What type of pipe are we to use for Type B Blowoffs? Detail 169- EA indicates that we are to install 16” long steel nipple from the 4” flanged gate valve to the 4” riser pipe. There are a number of locations where the blowoff riser is located a lot farther away from the valve, (see sheet C- 310 for example approx 25 lf from the main line. The drawings do not seem to address this case, which is common.

The 16" long nipple is the standard laying length however; the actual location should be adjusted based on field conditions such as interference with utilities. The blowoff shown on Sheet C-310 is intended to clear the existing traffic loops. Since these traffic loops will be replaced as a part of construction therefore, there will be an opportunity to coordinate the replacement traffic loops and blowoff valves locations in the field.

Blowoff valves shall be placed per detail 169-EA to the extent possible.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

AS OF: 19 February 2010

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-09-B-0009

74 In Section 01 55 26 page 3, paragraph 2.1.2.1 states “Contractor to replace all loop detectors damaged … within 48 hours” this paragraph goes on to state “Until permanent loop detectors can be installed, Contractor shall install temporary video detection cameras … All detection cameras shall be operational … within 2 to 4 hours after the loop detector damage has been confirmed…” Does this mean that there is an expectation that temporary video detection cameras are to be used instead of setting the traffic signal controllers to run without the inductive loop detectors for a period of 48 hours?

The expectation is to have temporary video detection system installed, programmed, and operational (to operate the existing traffic signals) within 2~4 hours after damage to the loop system. This video system shall remain in operation until the existing loop detectors are repaired, replaced, and operational. The Contractor shall complete repair/replacement and place the loop system back in service within 48 hours after damage occurs.

Can you please clarify the response to Question# 41? Based on the response to this question, the contractor should include slurry sealing all streets in Danville and Contra Costa County (Phase 3A and 4) since there is no requirements listed in the Encroachment Permit. Please note that this will cause a large traffic control inconvenience when it is installed on Camino Tassajaro, Crow Canyon, Blackhawk Road, Center, etc. If this is the Owners intention, can you please define if the whole street, half of the street, and/or one lane will require to be slurry sealed.

The specification listed under Article 3.2.2, Section 32 12 16.81 shall be revised to read “3.2.2 Final surface of the paving shall be as required by the permit”.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

AS OF: 19 February 2010

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-09-B-0009

The attachment requested per the response to Question #62 is extremely unusual. We feel this will be a source of contention to determine the "lowest responsible bidder" since the owner is asking the bidders to provide an attachment to the "BID PROPOSAL" with quantities and unit prices to a lump sum bid item that also include many other costs (All Work Not Included in Other Bid Items) .

If the owner wants to have a bid item for the pavement restoration required per the encroachment permit than they should add the corresponding bid item for each bid schedule(s). If the language is left the way it is, should the contractor also include a take-off of the streets in Phase 3A and Phase 4 and corresponding unit price for slurry seal since the contract documents requires a slurry seal for these streets as well.

The cost shown in the separate spread sheet will not be evaluated with the line items as shown above, thus will not be evaluated as a part of the bid.

The cost shown in the slurrying and pavement restoration spreadsheet will be used to identify additional cost requirements for the project.

Please provide additional explanation to Question/Answer #68. In the questions, he bidder is informing the Owner that the staging yard "provided" is not large enough for the proposed project. The response instructs the Bidder not to add costs to their bid for providing additional staging yard(s) because it "could result in a competitive disadvantage in obtaining the lowest bid". This infers that the Owner will provide additional staging yards at no cost to the contractor. Is this the Owner's intention? Please clarify?

The Government does only provide one staging area as shown on latest drawing G-000 in amendment 0006!

To clarify the issue with the contractor/ bidder provided staging areas:

The Government cannot prevent bidders to find their own staging areas!

However contractors that add the cost for staging areas in their bids can be in a disadvantage to obtain the lowest bid. The Government cannot control nor be responsible if a bidder chooses to add, or not to add the additional cost for staging areas in their bids.

Bidders that choose not to add the cost might have the advantage in obtaining the lowest bid and to the contrary bidders that do add the cost for additional staging areas in their bids can be in a disadvantage.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

AS OF: 19 February 2010

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

AS OF: 19 February 2010

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

AS OF: 19 February 2010

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

AS OF: 19 February 2010