RFI Responses.pdf

1. Given the high dollar value, quantity standards and specific project qualifications outlined in the RFP under 4.1 Factor 1 Construction Experience and time constraints not permitting for a Joint Venture to be formed, can Prime bidders submit (one) 1 of the two (2) required projects of a key Subcontractor provided that a letter of commitment from that Subcontractor is furnished with the Prime’s bid

Governments response- Please reference 4.1 Factor 1 notes as it states: For purposes of evaluating construction experience as a prime contractor, the offeror and prime contractor are defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of SF 1442. If a Joint Venture (JV) joint venture is identified in Block 14 of the SF 1442, then a signed joint venture agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM) by the submittal date of offer.

2. It is our understanding that this project was bid and cancelled last year due to lack of funding. Is this project currently funded?

Governments response- The Shoreline project is currently funded based on the Government’s estimate.

3. Section 35 41 00.01 / page 15 – 3.1.1 states “The Government has the right to increase or decrease the foundation widths and embankment slopes…” same as Section 35 41 00.02 / page 12 – 3.1.1. On a Lump Sum contract how will the Contractor get reimbursed for an increase quantity of work?

Governments response – Please reference FAR 52.243-5 Changes and Changed Conditions clause in the solicitation.

4. Reach 1 Sheet C-500 – How is the Contractor compensated if the Young Bay Mud is below elevation -6.0 in the inspection trench?

Governments response - Please reference FAR 52.236-2 Differing Site Conditions in the solicitation.

5. Reference Attachment 13 – UPRR Agreement: Is it the correct interpretation of the specifications that the $51,134 of fees identified in the agreement are to be included in the Contractor’s proposal?"

Governments response – Fees are to be included in the proposal.

6. Section 00 21 00 / page 2 indicates 100,000 cy of stockpiled fill, 01 11 00 / page 3 indicates

106,000 cy. Please clarify.

Governments response – 106,000 CY in 01 11 00 spec is correct.

7. In Exhibit E there is a reference to Contractor’s insurance requirements in Exhibit C (UPRR), will the successful Bidder/Contractor be required to carry all policies at the limits described in those requirements or only the RR Liability Policy set the $2MM/$6MM limits?

Governments response- The contractor will only need to carry the insurance relevant to the work being conducted.

8. Shoreline Reach 1 Levee Plan set, Sheet C-510, Construction Note 1 indicates abandonment of the 60-inch concrete culverts is shown in Alviso County Park Marina Improvements, Phase I As-built plans. Upon review of these as-builts, it is unclear how the three 60-inch culverts were abandoned. Please confirm how the culverts were abandoned.

Governments response- The abandonments are explained in the C-510 sheet of Reach 1 and Alviso County Park Marina Improvements, Phase I As-built plans. No further information is available.

9. The Biological Opinion states that in areas where salt marsh harvest mice may occur, only hand tools may be used to remove vegetation. If a biologist examines the area prior to and confirms no presence of mice in the area, can motorized hand tools then be used?

Governments response- See spec section 01 57 19 Par 3.1.2.3d. Only hand tools can be used to clear areas of vegetation that could potentially support salt marsh harvest mice.

10. As applicable, can motorized hand tools be used to trim tall vegetation to allow the biologist to examine the ground and area to confirm absence of mice before being completely cleared with motorized hand tools?

Governments response- See spec section 01 57 19 Par 3.1.2.3d. Only hand tools can be used to clear areas of vegetation that could potentially support salt marsh harvest mice.

11. During the virtual tour it was discussed that Fish & Wildlife will be building a project north of Reach 1, will the truck loads for that project reduce the amount of loads that can be hauled in daily on the SF Shoreline project?

Governments response- Site control and access during USFWS’s separate construction of their Pond A13/A15 levee is described in paragraph 1.10 of Section 01 14 00. USFWS’s truck hauling does not count against the truck cycle limits for construction of Reaches 1-3 described in paragraph 1.3.1.1 of Section 01 14 00.

12. Reference Attachment 13 – UPRR Agreement: Please provide the hourly rate for UPRR Flagman.

Governments response- 1500/day is estimated. Coordination with UPRR is required to confirm.

13. Sheet C-104, Note 1 indicates replacement of the Dike B culvert at Station -5+00. This location would appear to be on an unimproved section of the levee. Please confirm this replacement location is correct and if so, provide specifics regarding any levee improvements required for future access.

Governments response- Confirmed. Reconstruct the culvert per R-001 and R-002 sheets of Reach 1 plan-set.

14. Can all dewatering water be pumped or conveyed from the work area into adjacent waters without having to be transported to offsite locations.

Governments response- Dewatering must meet the water limitations in Section 01 57 19 Paragraph 3.3.1.1d. The dewatering plan is subject to approval by the Government and by the SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Discharge to New Chicago Marsh is prohibited.

15. Can dewatering wells be left in place within the Levee embankment upon Project Completion?

Governments response- See Provision number 9 of attachment 4, which describes dewatering plan approval by the SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. All dewatering methods shall be removed unless otherwise noted.

16. What is the bottom elevation of the Levee Fill stockpiled by the USACE?

Governments response- Please refer to the CAD files of Attach 1.c Shoreline Levee Fill -Fill Reports

17. Will the additional requirements to be identified by Union Pacific be issued as an addendum prior to Bid?

Governments response- No change to the UPRR agreement will be provided prior to proposal. See the revised G-03 of Reach 2/3 plan-set.

18. Can dewatering water be used for Dust Control on the Levee fill? The GR’s state that only potable water can be used for increasing moisture in the embankment.

Governments response- Only portable water shall be used as described in paragraph

3.18.1.4 of Section 35 41 00.01.

19. Please clarify the maximum loads per day requirement. Specifically, does Reach 1 get 224 loads/day and Reach 2/3 also get 224 loads/day?

Governments response- As described in paragraph 1.3.1.1 of Section 01 14 00 , Soil hauling for construction of Reaches 1-3 is lmited to max 224 truck cycles per day.

20. Reach 2/3 Plan set appears to be missing Drawing Sheet C-12 (Page 21 of 56). Please provide Sheet C-12.

Governments response- See added C-12 sheet of Reach 2/3 plan-set.

21. The UPRR Crossing is designated as a Temporary Private Road Crossing. Exhibit B Section 7

Removal of Road Crossing directs contractor to remove crossing upon termination of agreement. Please confirm whether contractor is to include pricing for both installation and removal of said crossing.

Governments response- See revised Sheet G-03 of Reach 2/3 planset.