Questions_and_Answers__Redwood_City_2016-08-12.pdf

REDWOOD CITY HARBOR CHANNEL MAINTENANCE DREDGING

PROJECT, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

AS OF: 12 August 2016 Page 1 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-16-B-0004

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

With regard to before-dredge surveys the contract specifications include the following language:

a. 1.1.4 Anticipated Dredge Quantities in Section 01 22 00.00 10 states, “After the Before- Dredge survey has been performed for each reach, the Contractor will be responsible for all shoaling during the execution of the dredging in each reach and this should be reflected in the Contractor’s bid proposal.”

b. 3.2 Quantity Surveys in Section 01 22 00.00 10 states, “f. The Government will conduct before-dredge surveys in order to identify and designate areas of shoaling to be dredged within the overall dredging pay areas.”

c. 3.2 Quantity Surveys in Section 01 22 00.00 10 states, “h. …All survey requests must be submitted a minimum of three calendar days prior to the date on which the survey is required.”

i. Before-Dredge surveys will be performed for each individual reach when requested by the Contractor.

ii. The Contractor can edit the survey request form to specify Before-Dredge or After- Dredge surveys.

d. 3.2 Quantity Surveys in Section 01 22 00.00 10 states, “j. The Contractor is responsible for requesting Government before-dredge and after-dredge surveys of all work areas. All Contractor requests for Government surveys shall be made by submission of a Hydrographic Survey Request Form (see 01 32 23, HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY, Attachment 2).”

i. Does the USACE intend to collect one BD survey of all reaches prior to the commencement of dredging or will separate BD surveys be run for each reach prior to dredging in that reach?

ii. The form referenced in item d above applies only to the request for an AD survey for reach acceptance. Will the USACE provide a form to request BD surveys?

AS OF: 12 August 2016 Page 2 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-16-B-0004

2 3.2 Quantity Surveys of Section 01 22 00.00 10 states, “c. …No adjustments will be made for infill material from any cause during construction in any reach. See Section 35 20 23.82, DREDGING AND CHANNEL CLEARING, regarding estimation of non-payable material.”

a. Can the USACE provide Section 35 20 23.82 as it is not currently included in the contract documents.

See amendment for updates. All paid dredge prisms are defined in Section 35 20 23 Dredging, Para. 1.5 Dredge Prisms and Quantities.

3 Can the USACE provide dredging history of the

Redwood City Harbor Channel that includes the required and overdepth pay quantities for each event as well as the required and overdepth elevations?

See attached table for Recent Redwood City Dredging History.

4 The contract documents refer to FAR 52.212-11, Variation in Estimated Quantities in the following locations:

a. 52.211-5001 Variations in Estimated Quantities, Subdivided Items (Mar 1995)— EFARS in Section 00 72 00 states, “(b) Where the actual quantity of work performed for Items Nos. 0002AA, 0002AB, 003AA, 0003AB is less than 85% of quantity of the first sub-item listed under such item, the contractor will be paid at the contract unit price for that sub-item for the actual quantity of work performed and, in addition, an equitable adjustment shall be made in accordance with the clause FAR 52.212-11, Variation in Estimated Quantities.

No question was asked.

AS OF: 12 August 2016 Page 3 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-16-B-0004

With regard to Solicitation W912P7-16-B-0004

- Redwood City Harbor Channel Maintenance Dredging Project, San Mateo County, California, please clarify the following issue:

If dredging were to continue beyond November 30, 2016, and there was a need to dispose of the dredge sediments at an upland disposal site would the materials being dredged from Reaches 1-5A be considered "Cover" or "Non- Cover."

If dredging were to continue beyond November 30, 2016, and there was a need to dispose of the dredge sediments at an upland disposal site would the materials being dredged from Reaches 5B be considered "Cover" or "Non- Cover."

The material in Reaches 1-5A is considered suitable for cover at all of the currently permitted upland sites.

The material in Reach 5B is considered suitable as non-cover.

Please let confirm that it is acceptable to use the SF24 with the 7/31/16 expiration date for the 8/1 bid referenced above.

OMB Control Number: 9000-0045 Expiration Date: 7/31/2019

3.2.4.2 Reaches in Section 35 20 23 states, “The

project area has been divided into reaches as presented in the project plans. The Contractor shall not dredge in a reach without the written approval of the Contracting Officer Representative. Written requests to begin dredging in a reach shall be initiated by the Contractor and shall include a copy of the request for Reach Acceptance Survey for the previous reach, if there is a previous reach.”

a. Should weather or sea conditions, such as those defined in 3.6.2. a. of Section 35 20 24, prevent disposal activities at SF-DODS while dredging is ongoing in Reach 5B, would the USACE consider allowing the Contractor to dredge in another reach with disposal at SF-11 to prevent significant weather delays?

Dredged material from Reach 5B is not suitable for in-bay disposal at SF-11.

AS OF: 12 August 2016 Page 4 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-16-B-0004

When does the USACE anticipate NTP will be provided?

i. Can the USACE please define when NTP will be issued and then modify the number of days allowed for completion to account for the environmental work window completion date of November 30 that is enforced for the SF-DODS and SF-11 disposal areas?

The Period of Performance includes the Base plus the Option work.

No open water disposal activities are permitted after November 30, 2016. Section 52.211-10

COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION, AND

COMPLETION OF WORK (APR 1984)

states, “…(c) complete the entire work ready for use not later than 123 calendar days after receipt of notice to proceed.” 123 days before November 30th would require that NTP be on or before July 30th in order to complete the scope of work, described under solicitation W912P7-16-B-0004, by November 30, 2016. Line Items 0002 and 0003 require all materials to be placed in either SF-DODS or SF-11 and would require NTP in a quick manner to optimize the disposal window. If the Contractor works until November 30, 2016 and has additional quantity to dredge, will the USACE direct the Contractor to place material upland after November 30?

i. If so, will the additional costs including that of tipping fees and herring observers be handled in accordance with FAR 52.243-4?

See upcoming amendment for updates to solicitation.

AS OF: 12 August 2016 Page 5 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-16-B-0004

Note 6 of Section 00 00 10 states, “If it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government, the Contracting Officer may direct the Contractor to dispose of dredged material at a beneficial use upland site in accordance with FAR 52.243-4.” Can the USACE please describe the situation(s) in which the Contracting Officer would direct the Contractor to place material upland?

See amendment 001 for amended Appendix 1.

Note 6 of I. Agreement in the Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Notification O&M Dredging – 2015- 2017 contained in Appendix 1 states, “Dredge… a maximum of 250,000 cy of sediment in 2016… from Redwood City Harbor channel to the project depth of -30 feet MLLW, plus two feet over-dredge depth.” However, the total estimated bid quantity for the 2016 maintenance dredging event is 390,000 cy. Does the USACE anticipate that the total bid quantity, if available at the time of contract commencement, will be allowed to be dredged despite the fact that it is more volume than that allowed in the referenced agreement?

i. Would this result in the Contractor violating the terms of the agreement?

No. The Government does not anticipate violating the Coastal Zone Management Act.

No. The Government does not expect the Contractor to violate the Coastal Zone Management Act.

AS OF: 12 August 2016 Page 6 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-16-B-0004

Item c of 3.6.2 Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) in Section 35 20 24 states, “No disposal barge shall be filled above its load limitation that shall be defined as 80 percent of its load line or 80 percent of bin capacity, whichever governs, and all loads shall be certified by the Contracting Officer or COR, or the Contractor’s independent inspector, that the requirement has been met prior to departing for the disposal area.”

Further, (1)(3)(viii)(A)(2) of Part 228B [Amended] of EPA 40 CFR Part 228 in Appendix 13 states, “Before any disposal vessel departs for the SF-DODS, an independent quality control inspector must certify in writing that the vessel meets the conditions and requirements of a certification checklist… For the purposes of paragraph (1)(3)(viii) of this section, independent means not an employee of the permittee or dredging contractor; however, the Corps of Engineers may provide inspectors for Corps of Engineers dredged material disposal projects.” Does the USACE intend to provide this certification or should bidders account for the cost of an independent inspector to provide this service?

See amendment 003 for updates.

It appears that Exhibit H (BCDC Permit Application No. C2015.002.00) of the Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Notification O&M Dredging

– 2015-2017 contained in Appendix 1 contains only odd numbered pages. Can the USACE please provide the full document for bidder review if it contains applicable permit information that the Contractor must abide by?

A complete copy of Exhibit H will be provided.

AS OF: 12 August 2016 Page 7 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-16-B-0004

14 1.1 Definition of Section 35 20 23 states, “All previously undisturbed material in the Redwood City federal channel footprint is below -32-ft (MLLW).” However, 1.3 Material to be Removed of Section 35 20 23 states, “…the previously undisturbed material in the paid overdepth prism is a combination of young bay mud and old bay mud.”

Further, 1.3.1 Hard Material of Section 35 20 23 states, “The removal of hard (previously undisturbed) material is included in the unpaid overdepth dredging prisms.” As the given language is somewhat unclear, can prospective bidders assume that the first statement is correct in that previously undisturbed material will likely not be encountered within the required and overdepth prisms of the channel footprint?

Correct assumption.

15 The contract documents refer to FAR

52.212-11, Variation in Estimated Quantities in the following locations: a. 52.211-5001 Variations in Estimated Quantities, Subdivided Items (Mar 1995)—EFARS in Section 00 72 00 states, “(b) Where the actual quantity of work performed for Items Nos. 0002AA, 0002AB, 003AA, 0003AB is less than 85% of quantity of the first sub-item listed under such item, the contractor will be paid at the contract unit price for that sub-item for the actual quantity of work performed and, in addition, an equitable adjustment shall be made in accordance with the clause FAR 52.212-11, Variation in Estimated Quantities.”

See amendment 003 for updates.

AS OF: 12 August 2016 Page 8 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-16-B-0004

15 “(c) If the actual quantity of work performed under Items Nos. 0002AA, 0002AB, 0003AA, 0003AB exceeds 115% or is less than 85% of the total estimated quantity of the sub-item under that item and/or if the quantity of the work performed under the second sub-item or any subsequent sub-item under Items Nos. 0002AA, 0002AB, 0003AA, 0003AB exceeds 115% or is less than 85% of the estimated quantity of any such sub-item, and if such variation causes an increase or a decrease in the time required for performance of this contract the contract completion time will be adjusted in accordance with the clause FAR 52.212-11, Variation in Estimated Quantities.” And c. 1.2.1 First Sub-Item Variations in Section 01 22 00.00 10 states, “Where the actual quantity of work performed is less than 85 percent of the quantity of the first sub-item listed under such item, the Contractor will be paid at the contract unit price for that sub-item for the actual quantity of work performed and, in addition, an equitable adjustment shall be made in accordance with the clause FAR 52.212-11, Variation in Estimated Quantities.” Can the USACE please confirm that each of the above references to FAR 52.212-11 should actually be references to FAR 52.211-18, Variation in Estimated Quantity, which is listed as a Clause Incorporated by Reference in Section 00 72 00?

See amendment 0003 for updates.

AS OF: 12 August 2016 Page 9 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-16-B-0004

AS OF: 12 August 2016 Page 10 of 11

AS OF: 12 August 2016 Page 11 of 11