Questions_and_Answers__Oakland_Inner_and_Outer__July-11-2018.pdf

OAKLAND INNER AND OUTER HARBOR CHANNEL MAINTENANCE

DREDGING PROJECT, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

AS OF: 11 July 2018 Page 1 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-18-B-0003

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

The Pricing Schedule indicates that, for the Base Bid, material from Reaches 1- 10A will be classified as cover material for disposal at a Beneficial Reuse Upland site and that material from Reach 10B will be classified as non-cover for disposal at SF-DODS. The Contract Drawings do not appear to distinguish between Reach 10A and 10B within Reach 10. Please clarify the locations of Reaches 10A and 10B.

See Amendment 1.

2 The Pricing Schedule indicates that, for the Base Bid, material from Reach 10B will disposed at SF-DODS. However,

1.1.1 Requirements in Section 01 11 00

states that "the Contractor shall place all Base FY18 Dredging Episode dredged material... at the Contractor-furnished permitted beneficial reuse upland site." Is it the Government’s intention that material from Reach 10B be placed at SF-DODS as stated in the Pricing Schedule or that all material be placed upland according to Section 01 11 00?

See Amendment 3.

AS OF: 11 July 2018 Page 2 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-18-B-0003

3 1.1.1 Requirements of Section 01 11 00 states that "Independent Scow Certification is required for ocean disposal operations if Alternative 1 Option is awarded, or as ocean disposal is otherwise directed by the COR".

Please confirm whether scow certification is required for ocean disposal operations associated with Line Items 0003AA and 0003AB in the Base Bid as well as Line Items 0008AA and 0008AB in the Alternative 2 Option.

Scow certification is required for all disposal at SF-

DODS.

4 The language in 3.2.5 Refusal to Certify of Section 01 32 23 indicates that, if the Government refuses to certify a survey, absent evidence of collusion, fraud or obvious error, the Contractor will be responsible for any costs, delays or liquidated damages incurred due to this refusal. As this does not seem reasonable, please consider modifying the language in Subsection 3.2.5 Refusal to Certify to read “This paragraph describes the consequences should the Government refuse to attest to the acceptability of a Contractor survey without due to identifiable collusion, fraud or obvious error.” Additionally, please also modify the language to state that “The Contractor shall be liable for the Contractor’s own costs, including but not limited to standby costs, for the time required to resolve the refusal to certify only when there is no evidence of collusion, fraud or obvious error and the resultant delays shall not be the basis for a time extension of the contract.” If the Government refuses to attest to the acceptability of a Contractor survey absent evidence of collusion, fraud or obvious error, the Contractor should be entitled to an equitable adjustment in the contract price and/or time, and should not be assessed liquidated damages.

The language in 3.2.5 Refusal to Certify in Section 01 32 23 provides appropriate incentives to the Contractor to resolve disputes over the accuracy of surveys, when the inaccuracy cannot be clearly blamed on collusion, fraud, or obvious error. Paragraph 3.2.3 provides the Government with automatic remedies if there is specific documentary evidence of collusion, fraud, or obvious error. This paragraph, 3.2.5, does not give the Government any immediate remedy if it believes there are problems with the survey results, but instead provides incentives to quickly address and resolve survey disputes when collusion, fraud, or obvious error cannot be easily proved.

AS OF: 11 July 2018 Page 3 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-18-B-0003

5 3.2.5 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer

Systems (MS4) Management in Section 01 57 19 states “Comply with the Installation’s MS4 permit requirements.”

If applicable to this work, what are Installation MS4 permit requirements?

3.5.1 Preconstruction Air Permits in

Section 01 57 19 states “Notify the Air Program Manager, through the Contracting Officer, at least 6 months prior to bringing equipment… onto the Installation, so that air permits can be secured. Necessary permitting time must be considered in regard to construction activities. Clean Air Act (CAA) permits must be obtained prior to bringing equipment, assembled or unassembled, onto the Installation.” Is this paragraph applicable to this work?

1.4 Quantity of Material in Section 35

20 23 states that the total estimated quantity, including overdepth, is 650,000 cubic yards for bidding purposes and for application of FAR 52.211-18 Variation in Estimated Quantity.

However, the bid quantities on the Pricing Schedule are not consistent with this quantity, showing a total quantity of 408,000 cubic yards for FY 18 and 530,000 cubic yards for FY 19. Is there a reason for this discrepancy in quantities?

AS OF: 11 July 2018 Page 4 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-18-B-0003

3.1.4 Water Quality Monitoring in

Section 01 57 19 indicates that no decanting from scows will be allowed on the first day of dredging and that, starting on the second day of dredging, decanting will be required for 5 to 10 consecutive dredging days so that the Government can perform water quality monitoring. When water quality monitoring has completed, may the Contractor continue to decant for the remainder of dredging operations?

Yes.

The Typical Dredging Section shown on Sheet G-02 of the Contract Drawings calls out "No Dredging on Side Slopes (See Note 1)". Please provide Note 1 as it is not currently shown in the Drawings.

See Amendment 3, Section 35 20 23-1.6.

1.6 Side Slopes in Section 35 20 23

indicates that "dredging on side slopes is prohibited". Is it permissible that material from the side slopes sloughs into the channel while dredging from toe to toe?

With regard to the Typical Dredging Section on Sheet G-02 of the Contract Drawings, will material from the side-slope prism that sloughs into and is removed from the dredge template be paid for?

AS OF: 11 July 2018 Page 5 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-18-B-0003

3.4.5 San Francisco Deep Ocean

Disposal Site (SF-DODS) in Section 35 20 24 states "Disposal quantity limits for SF-DODS are established on a project-specific basis. The Contractor shall limit disposal quantities to those amounts specified in the Government-provided regulatory guidance." What is the referenced Government-provided regulatory guidance, and may the Contractor assume that the quantities anticipated for disposal at SF-DODS in the Base Bid and either Alternative Option will not exceed the limits?

The annual disposal limit at SF-DODS is 4.8 million cubic yards. The 2018-2019 Consistency Determination issued by the Bay Conservation Development Commission limits the Oakland O&M Project to disposing not more than 350,000 cubic yards at SF-DODS in 2018. The Government does not anticipate any additional quantities will exceed 350,000 cubic yards after the maximum upland quota of approximately 605,000 cubic yards of beneficial use upland placement has been met.

Sheet G-03 of the Contract Drawings calls out “!Caution! Sub-marine BART Tube Area of Special Handling". Above this call out, a note indicates "See Section 35 20 23 Dredging, Paragraph 3.2.9". However, Paragraph 3.2.9 of Section 35 20 23 discusses how the Contractor should handle salvaged material but does not mention the BART Tube. Should there be language in the Specifications that addresses the BART Tube or special handling near it?

See Amendment 3, revised Drawing Sheet G-03.

3.6 Government Field Office in Section

01 50 00 indicates that the Contractor must provide an office to the Government Resident Engineer. Will a staging area be provided in which the Contractor may set up this office?

See Amendment 3, Section 01 50 00-1.4 Construction Site Plan.

AS OF: 11 July 2018 Page 6 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-18-B-0003

15 3.2.1 Order of Work in Section 35 20 23 states that “The Contracting Officer will direct the Contractor on the order of work.” With regard to Base Bid Line Items 0003AA and 0003AB and, if awarded, Alternative 2 Option Line Items 0008AA and 0008AB which dictate offshore disposal at SF-DODS, if the Government does not direct work in Reach 10B prior to November 30, will an equitable adjustment be allowed for the change of required disposal location from SF-DODS to an alternative site?

The determination of whether any equitable adjustment is appropriate under this contract will be based on the Contracting Officer’s review of the terms and conditions and all the evidence available at the time the request for equitable adjustment is made.

16 Clause 52.211-10 Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work (Apr 1984) of Section 00 72 00 states “The Contractor shall be required to (a) commence work under this contract within 5 calendar days after the date the Contractor receives the notice to proceed, (b) prosecute the work diligently, and (c) complete the entire work ready for use not later than 113 calendar days after receipt of notice to proceed.” Does the 113 days for completion after NTP apply to the FY 18 Base Bid only, or does it also apply to the FY 19 Option? If it does not apply to the Option, can the USACE provide a duration for the Option work?

17 Can the USACE provide an anticipated award and notice to proceed timeline for the FY 18 Base Bid work?

The Government anticipates, but does not commit to, an award date of approximately 3 August.

AS OF: 11 July 2018 Page 7 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912P7-18-B-0003

The Pricing Schedule issued with Amendment 0001 revised Bid Item 0003 to state that cover and non-cover material from Reaches 1-10B may be disposed at SF-DODS. Will the Contractor or the Contracting Officer determine which reaches may be disposed at SF-DODS?

See Amendment 3, Section 01 11 00 paragraph 1.1.1.

The Pricing Schedule issued with Amendment 0001 indicates that material from Reaches 1-10A will be disposed at a Beneficial Reuse Upland site under Bid Item 0002 and that material from Reaches 1-10B may be disposed at SF-DODS under Bid Item 0003. Further, 1.1.1 Requirements in Section 01 11 00 states:

“All remaining material from Reaches 1-10B may be disposed at SF-DODS or at a Contractor-furnished upland site. All Reach 10B dredged material may be disposed at SF-DODS, or at a Contractor-furnished upland site that is permitted to receive non-cover (foundation) dredged material.

If non-cover material from 10B is not disposed of at SF-DODS, what bid item will pay for upland disposal of this material?

All material from Reach 10B will be disposed of at SF- DODS. See Amendment 3.

Will the USACE please postpone the bid date for a minimum of 1 week after the date that the USACE posts answers to questions?

See Amendment 3, SF-1442 for Bid Open date.

Sheet C-04 of the Contract Drawings indicates that Reach 5 begins at Station 175+00 and, as shown on Sheet C-05, ends at Station 205+00. Please confirm that this reach should be labeled as Reach 4 rather than Reach 5, consistent with the stationing shown on Sheets G-02 and G-03.

See Amendment 3, revised Drawing Sheet C-04.

Does Corps have an anticipated award date in mind? Can Corps provided basis or how contract duration provided as per addenda #001 was determined? Dutra respectively asks Corps to review time allowable under permits in regards to dredging and upland placement option for maximum contract duration days and therefore flexibility in providing best price.

The Government anticipates, but does not commit to, an award date of approximately 3 August.

AS OF: 11 July 2018 Page 8 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

As per section 01 11 00, Summary of Work, paragraph 1.1.1 Requirements.

Has the government established if a third party will be doing government provided water quality monitoring of the mandatory decanting from scows or will self-perform? Does government expect any potentials delays that the contractor should account for? And any differences should be expected from most recent contracts?

The Government has a third party Contractor to perform water quality monitoring. Based on the previous years’ monitoring results, the Government does not anticipate any delays associated with water quality monitoring activities.

As per section 01 11 00, Summary of Work, paragraph 1.1.1 Requirements.

Has the government established if a third party will be doing government provided light monitoring of dredging operations within 250-meter boundary surrounding eelgrass beds shown in drawings or will government self-perform? Does government expect any potentials delays that the contractor should account for?

And any differences should be expected from most recent contracts?

The Government has a third party contractor to perform Light Monitoring. Based on the previous years’ monitoring results, the Government does not anticipate delays associated with Light Monitoring activities.

AS OF: 11 July 2018 Page 9 of 11

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

AS OF: 11 July 2018 Page 10 of 11

AS OF: 11 July 2018 Page 11 of 11